ONE DAY 51 LOUISIANA AVENUE, N.W. - WASHINGTON, D.C. 200012.113 TELEPHONE: +1.202.879.3939 - FACSIMILE: +1 202.626.1700 Direct Number: (202) 879-3748 dmcgahn@jonesday.com October 27, 2016 VIA FIRST CLASS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Mike Rankin, Esq. Of?ce of the City Attorney City of Tucson 255 W. Alameda Tucson, AZ 85726-7210 Dear Mr. Rankin: We represent Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the ?Campaign?). I am in receipt of your letter dated September 20, 2016. In that letter, you ask the Campaign to provide payment for costs incurred by the Tucson Police Department on March 19, 2016, the day of an event in Tucson featuring Mr. Trump. Speci?cally, you take the position that ?[p]ursuant to Sections 3.D and 4.B.2 of the license agreement,? (the ?Agreement?), the Campaign is ?reSponsible for these payments.? It is our understanding that you sent a similar letter demanding similar payment pursuant to those same provisions of an indistinguishable agreement to Bernie 2016, Inc., the of?cial campaign committee for Senator Bernie Sanders? 2016 presidential bid (the ?Sanders Campaign?), to which the Sanders Campaign responded with a refusal to pay. We write to notify you that, like the Sanders Campaign, the Campaign is not responsible for reimbursing the City of Tucson for the costs of employing on-duty police of?cers on the day that Mr. Trump had a rally in your City. The Campaign never (1) agreed to pay the costs of Tucson?s police force as part of its license agreement for the SMC Tucson Convention Center, (2) never asked the Tucson Police Department to provide special services outside the Convention Center (if it did, in fact, do so), (3) was, in fact, fruStrated by the refusal of Tucson Police to do anything to control the violent and angry protestors outside the Convention Center, and (4) is not otherwise obligated to pay for the costs of maintaining the Tucson Police Department on March 19, 2016. As the Sanders Campaign has already explained to you, the agreement the Campaign signed does not state that the Campaign is responsible to pay for unrequested services the Tucson Police Department provided. Services provided by the Tucson Police Department are not ?Ancillary Services? under the agreement. Speci?cally, the agreement de?nes ?ancillary services? as services ?provided to licensee by Operator.? Section 3.D (emphasis added). The services provided by the Tucson Police Department were not ?provided by? the Convention ALKHOBAR AMSTERDAM ATLANTA BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO CLEVELAND COLUMBUS DALLAS DUBAI DUSSELDORF FRANKFURT HONG KONG HOUSTON 0 IRVINE JEDDAH LONDON LOS ANGELES MADRID MEXICO CITY MIAMI MILAN MOSCOW MUNICH NEW YORK PARIS PERTH PITTSBURGH RIYADH SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAC PAULO SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY SINGAPORE SYDNEY TAIPEI TOKYO WASHINGTON JONES DAY Mike Rankin October 27, 2016 Page 2 Center; they were provided by the Police Department. They are thus not within the Agreement?s de?nition of Ancillary Services and are not chargeable to the Campaign. The Agreement?s ?Summary of Basic Terms? con?rms that the above de?nition means what it says. That Summary lists a rental fee of just over $7,000 and says nothing about a potential police fee that is over eleven times as much as the listed rental price. To the contrary, that Summary says this rental price includes the cost of eight security guards and explicates Ancillary Services as including the sorts of menial, mundane, and minor costs the Convention Center itself would provide. Speci?cally, page two of the Summary de?nes ?Ancillary services? as parking staging and rigging, electrical, telephone and internet security, ushering needs and any additional fees. . . Nowhere does it suggest that the Convention Center could claim that the general costs incurred by the Tucson Police Department of paying its on?duty police of?cers could fall within this category. Further, the Agreement required the Convention Center to ?provide Licensee with a written estimate of all additional charges for services provided by Section 4.C. You have conceded that the Convention Center did not do this. That de?ciency is fatal to your claim for payment, particularly given the extraordinary sum you are demanding that the Campaign pay. The Agreement does not entitle to Convention Center tom?suddenly, without warning, and long after the Agreement was performed?demand an amount over 11 times the rental cost as an ?ancillary service? for which no estimate was ever provided and about Which no advance warning was ever given. In addition, as the Sanders Campaign has also explained to you, the public safety services provided by on?duty members of the Tucson police force are not the sort of private event security and standard ushering services anticipated by the terms of the Agreement. The Convention Center?s own conduct con?rms as much, since the Center made no effort to bill these charges on the night of the event in accordance with Section 3.F of the Agreement. To the contrary, the Convention Center does not appear to have requested payment for the costs of maintaining its on-duty police force until your letter months after the event happened. That is, no doubt, because nobody thought the Agreement?s provisions requiring the Campaign to pay for services such as ?electrical? and ?ushering needs? somehow extended to the cost of paying all on-duty police of?cers who were in the vicinity of the Convention Center on March 19, 2016. Indeed, not only do the Convention Center?s actions con?rm that the Agreement does not mean what you say it Tucson Police Department?s actions do, too. The Campaign has had numerous reports from people who attended the event that the on?site police of?cers refused to do anything to control protesters or otherwise protect attendees of the event. To the contrary, police of?cers told those who requested assistance that their orders were to ?stand ONE DAY Mike Rankin October 27, 2016 Page 3 down? and not engage. That conduct con?rms that those of?cers were there performing their regular duties?not providing security for the event. Finally, like the Sanders Campaign, the Campaign did not contract for, request, or arrange for the Tucson Police Department to provide public safety at the Campaign event. The US. Secret Service has typically made arrangements for all security matters with regard to Mr. Trump during his presidential campaign. The level of security or public safety requirements anticipated for any particular event were not dictated by the Campaign. Therefore, to the extent the Secret Service independently contacted the Tucson Police Department or any other local law enforcement organization to assist in its security detail, the law enforcement organization should discuss cost-sharing matters directly with the Secret Service. I trust that this letter resolves the matter. Very truly yours, .t (3?34 ?trn?m?h?x?pd??w Donald F. Me 11 Counsel, Donald J. rump for President, Inc.