Author’s note, the following is partly derived from Signal chats provided to us anonymously. To present the story with full context, we have quoted inappropriate language in a couple of chats we quote.
Shortly before the people behind the Cynthia Boyar Trejo recall were scheduled to turn in their recall signatures, we received anonymous emails and text messages alleging that the recall effort was being sabotaged from within. We reached out to people associated with the recall effort for comment. Most would not speak to us, and the few who did only spoke to us if we kept their names confidential so that they could candidly talk about what they witnessed without fear of repercussions from the other group members. What you are about to read is what we pieced together from our interviews, emails and the chat messages we reviewed, as well as the public record.
Like all good stories of well-meaning people trying to leave a political mark on the El Paso political landscape this story begins with Josh Dagda who on June 17th, quietly filed paperwork at the El Paso City Clerk’s Office that a recall against Cynthia Boyar Trejo had been launched.
To the fine readers of this publication, Dagda is a name they recognize from his previous run for the District 8 City Council seat in 2015. Dagda challenged Cortney Niland for her seat. Dagda nearly defeated incumbent Niland coming in 309 votes short out of the 3,591 votes cast in that election.
After Dagda filed the paperwork to begin collecting signatures, several different people and grassroots groups came together to collect signatures for the effort. Among them was Desert Defenders, which basically operates from a social media channel. A prominent member of Desert Defenders and now a city council candidate for the District 1 seat is Daniela Garcia.
Earlier this month, we asked Garcia if she was involved in the recall effort against Boyar Trejo after she filed to run for office. Rather than answer our question directly, Garcia wrote in an email that “the volunteers I spoke to were pretty upset that the numbers you published on your recall article were inflated.” She offered to check if any of the members were “willing to speak to you,” offering “to pass…along” any information we were seeking.
She did not directly answer our question.
Nonetheless, through various people we spoke to who were directly involved with the Boyar Trejo recall effort and pictures shared by Garcia on social media we were able to determine that she is the person who figures extensively in a splinter group of recall participants that refused to turn in the signatures they collected on behalf of the effort.
Interestingly, Garcia makes no mention of her involvement with the recall effort on her campaign website. She added a video this morning after we asked about the allegations that she sabotaged the recall effort. And, although she makes it a point to point out that she opposes datacenters, including META, the online tracking tool created by a former member of the recall effort that lists whether candidates running for office are for, or against META, lists her as a candidate that “supports” datacenters. Jonathan Zayan, who runs the tracking tool, was initially the spokesperson for the recall effort until he he left the effort.
Among the information we had for this story were internal Signal chat messages to review.
The Chat Messages
We were provided with copies of Signal chat messages between group members of the recall effort that provided us with insight into the effort and the competing forces. A regular participant in the chats was Garcia.
Before the deadline to submit the recall petitions, there were several messages exchanged that showed that some members of the group wanted to use Telemundo “as a way to expose what really happened.” One message adds that some group members wanted Telemundo to expose “Josh [Dagda] for what he is.” By this time the group had splintered into at least two groups, the one that Dagda and Zayan were turning in the signatures that were collected and the group who wanted to offer Telemundo a story. The latter included Garcia.
But Garcia’s group was having trouble deciding the best time to bring in Telemudo, as one chat participant asked, “when the story should be released.” Group members put up a poll on Signal asking the participants to vote on whether to “give the scoop to Telemundo.” Five participants voted yes, with three indicating that they did not want to be interviewed and two indicating they wanted to be present during the Telemundo interview. Another participant added that “zayan [sic] was on this,” suggesting that Zayan would be targeted during the proposed interview. Zayan was the initial spokesperson for the group of people collecting signatures.
On July 10, Zayan announced to the group that he was leaving the signature collection effort to focus on his education. He was removed from the Signal chat group.
The plan to bring in Telemundo continued among Garcia’s splinter group.
One participant wrote that “news spreads like wildfire here in EP, so im [sic] sure once Telemundo gets the interview out, other places will spread it like crazy.” Garcia agreed with the message stating that Dagda would be angry about the proposed Telemundo interview.
Dagda appears to be the target of the splinter group. One member added that going to Telemundo “is the way to go to burn josh [Josh Dagda] and jonathan [Jonathan Zayan] so they dont [sic] try again.”
The chat sessions built a narrative that the two groups of recall signature collectors, one with Garcia on the forefront were split on whether anyone was being paid to collect the signatures, the requirement that each page be notarized and that an attorney had been brought into the effort.
Garcia wrote in the chat, “I don’t trust [Brian] Kennedy to have our back, or Josh, or anyone involved for that matter.” Former city representative and mayoral candidate Brian Kennedy had agreed to represent the group in litigation against the city over the number of required signatures for the recall. In another chat session, Garcia added another element to the discord between both groups. She wrote that “Josh works for the DOD,” writing that the “app is tracking everyone that opposes the data centers.” “That’s bad bad,” responded another member.
Garcia and other chat participants messaged back-and-forth about letting Dagda “crash and burn,” because they seemed concerned that the App the used was tracking the signatures that were collected. They wrote that they wanted to “mention that when we were involved we didn’t use the app.” The “we” referred to the Garcia group of signature collectors. The chats also revealed that Garcia’s group was now considering how the proposed Telemundo interview would make Garcia’s splinter group the face of the signature collecting effort. One chat lays it out, “the people WILL remember our faces, not Josh’s fuck app or website.”
But a problem remained for both groups. The city was insisting on using the General Election, instead of the Runoff election to determine the number of signatures required to force Boyar Trejo out of office.
The City argued that a 1984 ordinance was the “controlling document,” while the signature collecting group argued that it was the City Charter that set the threshold. Under the city’s interpretation, 4,233 signatures were required, while the recall group members argued that only 786 signatures were required.
Dagda’s side of the group had engaged Kennedy to litigate the required number of signatures. But Garcia’s group was now considering their own legal challenge.
In a chat, Garcia proposed that the splinter group that broke off from the Dagda-Zayan group should “challenge the rules without submitting signatures?” She was referring to the city’s rules on recall elections. By this time, the splinter group was talking about withholding the signatures from Dagda that they had in their possession. Garcia asked if they had “a legal obligation to submit signatures once we’ve collected them?” One member responded that “not at all,” adding that “we have a responsibility to the signers, but its kinda like if hypothetically.”
Another concern expressed on the chats was that Zayan was using the recall election to run for office. A member wrote that Telemundo should be told about “Johnathan’s [Jonathan Zayan] AI related work, campaign plans, [and] charter schools.”
Zayan is not currently running for office. However, Garcia is on the November ballot.
The splinter group decided not to submit some of the signatures they collected along with Dagda’s signatures. Garcia wrote that “a successful recall right now only benefits Molinar and the other leeches standing by.” She was referring to Joe Molinar, a former city representative. They considered launching another recall effort, but Garcia wrote that the Charter doesn’t allow for another recall until six months after a failed one. She, however, added that the Charter “doesn’t say two can’t be going on at once,” suggesting that her splinter group use the signatures they collected as a second effort.
Dear reader, I hope you appreciate this article. Before reading more, I ask that you consider my work and make a small donation to help keep this publication open for everyone. El Paso lacks news diversity. I offer 20+ years of historical knowledge about El Paso’s politics and public policy. Media diversity matters. Make a small donation today to help keep my work going for another 20+ years. Thank you.
But Garcia was now shifting away from criticizing Zayan for what she alleged, running for office. Instead, chats show that Garcia seemed to start suggesting that the proposed Telemundo interview and the signatures her group was withholding could be used for running for office.
Garcia wrote in a chat, “we need someone reliable to be up for getting elected, and enough time for them to run and get known.”
She seemed to believe that Dagda was also positioning his signature drive as a launchpad for a run for political office.
In a chat, Garcia wrote, that a “good question for Josh, [is] who do they have in mind to run if the recall goes through.” She opined in the chat that Dagda and others in the original group were going to run “[Alexsandra] Annello or [Joe] Molinar” if the recall was successful. She added that “Kennedy may be super successful, it won’t stop city council putting a charter amendment on the ballot so no one else can do this, and whoever takes Trejo’s place, it’ll probably be Molinar or Annello (not sure why she’s circling this so that’s my only guess).” Garcia concluded that “if [Alexsandra] Annello runs no way” Zayan “has a snowballs chance in hell.” Another member added that “Anello [sic] is a weird variable.”
The people we spoke to were clear that neither Dagda nor Zayan had shown any intention of running for office during the signature collecting effort.
Another wrinkle in the controversies between both groups was the rumor that some signature collectors were being paid to collect signatures.
In a chat session, Garcia accused certain members of the group collecting signatures of being paid for the work. When another member wrote, “oh I see what their endgame is its to do more recalls with jonathans [Jonathan Zayan] face…” Garcia replied that, “yea, it’s a business, they raise money, pay themselves, move along to the next district.”
She added that “as a legitimate poor person it does offend me that most [o]f the work was done by people that weren’t paid and now the money will be made by someone that thinks it’s ok to cosplay as a poor person to manipulate people into signing anything.” She went on to complain about Jessica Yañez, who was part of the recall effort. Garcia wrote that Yañez “is a professional campaign manager, that’s how she makes a living.”
Yañez filed for a Specific-Purpose Committee PAC named Comadre Coalition on August 3rd. Its purpose was for the “recall of City Representative Cynthia Trejo, District 4.” Because it is a specific-purpose PAC, the funds raised by the PAC can only be used for the recall of Boyar Trejo. The PAC’s first campaign finance report is not due until January.
We were unable to reach Yañez for comment about the PAC.
One member we spoke to about the PAC told us that the PAC was started so that they “could spend above the threshold requirements,” adding that “sadly enough it was mostly our money.”
Garcia, who was concerned that some volunteers may had been paid, wrote, “do we trust that no volunteers were paid,” acknowledging that they would have to wait until the campaign finance reports were due.
In the chat session about alleged payments, Garcia wrote that she “would like them to pay me for keeping silence.” She did not elaborate on what she is keeping silent about. However, she added “like for not bringing in,” the Amanecer People’s Project into the recall effort.
Another issue that was part of the chat sessions was the recall’s requirement that the signature pages each needed to be notarized. The question among several members on both sides of the divide was whether notarization could be completed after the signatures had been collected.
We asked Daniela Garcia to comment about our findings yesterday through an email address we had recently used to communicate with her. Garcia responded to our request early this morning. Because she levied accusations of wrongdoing, we delayed this article to allow us time to receive comments from Dagda and Amanecer about Garcia’s allegations against them.
Garcia sent us a “press release.” In it, she wrote that she released a video on her campaign website about withdrawing from the recall effort. The press release states that Garcia left on July 22, because “what she witnessed in the signature drive.” According to her press release, Garcia alleges that she witnessed “a request to find notaries who would notarize the petition forms ‘under the table’.” She adds that “the notaries, auditor and lawyer consulted described the resulting notarization process as perjury.”
Garcia concludes her press release with “our fight against the recall was a fight against corruption and I would never lend myself to corruption, not under social pressure or retaliatory threat, and not at the expense of the people that trusted me.”
The stated purpose of the recall was the vote made by Boyar Trejo to not reopen negotiations with META, not corruption.
The Garcia press release included a link to a video she posted this morning on her campaign website explaining why she left the group. The video titled, A Statement from Daniela Garcia contains slides of quotes she makes. It starts with “I withdrew from the recall on July 22nd,” and follows with “…after I witnessed Josh Dagda, the person that submitted the intent to recall, ask to connect with notaries that would notarize the forms under the table.”
Garcia goes on to accuse another person, Diana Ramirez in her slide presentation with “and Amanecer’s board of trustees Diana Ramirez was onboarded and championing manipulative tactics to get signatures.”
The video goes on to add that “ultimately Dagda and Ramirez facilitated a notarization process that was described to us as perjury by the notaries, auditor, and lawyer we consulted.” She adds, “our fight against the recall was a fight against corruption,” and “I would never lend myself to corruption,” in the video.
Garcia does not provide any evidence supporting her accusations against Dagda, or Ramirez.
In preparing this story, we made several attempts to get comments from Dagda about our story. Dagda told us he would not comment on the innerworkings of the effort to recall Boyar Trejo each time we contacted him.
This morning, however, Dagda agreed to speak to us about the accusation levied against him and Amanecer by Garcia. In a telephone call, Dagda said that “I’m confused about the perjury allegation, because after all, it was their friend, Jose Merino, who brought up in front of Daniela that he could call a ‘shady’ notary” to help with notarizing the signatures.
Dagda added that “I don’t trust anything Jose says, wild things, I wasn’t going to trust anyone Jose recommends.”
According to Dagda, he doesn’t believe that Garcia was surprised about the notarizing requirement because she had trained the volunteers to read the statement for the purpose of the recall before collecting the signature.
The point of contention, says Dagda, was whether it was sufficient that the signers read the purpose statement themselves or that the statement had to be read out loud to the signers by the person collecting the signatures.
Garcia believed that it had to be read out loud to the signers, something that Dagda disagrees with. Dagda told us that he spoke to two attorneys about the process.
He added that, “I’m confused as to why she [Daniela Garcia] brought up corruption.”
Dagda explained that once concerns about reading the purpose statement out loud were brought up, he asked that they stop collecting signatures until they could get legal advice. Dagda told us that Garcia refused to tell her volunteers to stop collecting signatures because she argued that it “would look shady.” Dagda added, “as the volunteer coordinator it was her responsibility to ask the volunteers to stop collecting signatures, and she refused.”
“Everything we did was in accordance with the law, and we had legal consultation,” he said, adding that “Daniela and her volunteers did not like the answer [Brian] Kennedy provided the group.”
When we asked Dagda about Amanecer’s involvement with the recall effort, he told us that “Amanecer was never involved in the collection effort and never provided direction” to the recall group.
In a telephone call this morning, Amanecer Executive Director, Ana Fuentes, confirmed what Dagda told us, saying that “Amanecer was not involved in the recall petition whatsoever.”
We were unable to connect with Diana Ramirez for her comments.
Dagda delivered the signatures he had available to him on August 14. Several signatures that were collected were not part of the signatures that were delivered to the City Clerk. According to a source, “the signatures were withheld” by some of the people who collected them. A few days before the signatures were delivered, Dagda announced that Kennedy had agreed to represent the group delivering the signatures in litigation against the city. Dagda’s group believes that the number of signatures they delivered meets the recall requirements because they argue that the “controlling document” for the city is the city charter that uses the recall election as the threshold for the required number of signatures for a successful recall.
The case challenging the required signatures is pending before the court.