Three Republican Arizona Corporation commissioners voted to censure the commission’s lone Democrat after she criticized the agency’s executive director, saying he shouldn’t receive a $20,000 bonus.
The commission awarded Executive Director Doug Clark the bonus on Nov. 6 on top of his annual $215,000 salary.
Democrat Anna Tovar voted against the bonus. She argued the commission had no metrics in place to gauge Clark’s performance and that a number of factors, including high staff turnover since Clark took the job last year, called into question whether the director deserved additional compensation.
Her office then filed official letters largely reiterating her position that Clark did not deserve the bonus due to a number of factors, including turnover and a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee.
Tovar’s Republican colleagues later voted on Nov. 22 to open an ethics investigation against her, arguing her comments divulged confidential personnel information about Clark that was discussed in an executive session.
Arizona law requires public bodies — including the Corporation Commission — to vote and discuss their business in meetings open to the public. However, they are allowed to meet in private executive sessions for limited purposes, including to receive legal advice or discuss personnel decisions.
On Dec. 18, Chairman Jim O’Connor and Commissioners Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson voted to censure Tovar after Van Flein presented his findings to the commission in another closed executive session.
“I am disheartened and sincerely disappointed that the commission had to formally censure Commissioner Tovar,” O’Connor said in a statement.
The commission found Tovar violated state laws “pertaining to Executive Session confidentiality” and “the confidentiality of personnel matters,” according to the censure, which referred the matter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell for further review.
Tovar denied the allegations.
“All this information is public and I didn't violate any rules or any laws,” she said. “I just wanted to make sure that the people knew that I was standing up for the consumer and knowing that, hey, your tax dollars could have been used a little bit more wisely in this case.”
The commission declined to point to specific comments in Tovar’s letters or public statements that violated state law.
“I am unable to point out specific violations. That information was part of Executive Session discussions,” Corporation Commission spokeswoman Nicole Garcia said.
Jim Barton, Tovar’s attorney, accused the Republicans on the commission of targeting Tovar for political purposes weeks before her term on the commission ends.
“This is a witch hunt, and it's gross and it's a misuse of taxpayer dollars to settle political scores like this,” Barton said. “They should be ashamed of themselves.”
To that point, Barton cited the commissioners decision to refer the allegations against Tovar to Mitchell, the Republican Maricopa County attorney, instead of Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose office has a dedicated Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team. That team regularly reviews complaints against public bodies and elected officials for alleged violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law, which requires those elected officials to vote and discuss most issues in a public forum.
In fact, the Attorney General’s Office recently concluded that the four Republicans on the Corporation Commission violated that law after Tovar filed a complaint against them.
“That is sort of the nail in the coffin of any effort by them to represent this as anything other than what it is, which is a partisan attack, a parting shot at this commissioner who's going off the commission, who is different party than they are,” Barton said.
Barton argued the investigation was rushed and should have been handled by an outside law firm instead of Commission General Counsel Tom Van Flein, who is tasked with advising all commissioners, including Tovar, on legal topics, including how to comply with the state’s Open Meeting Law.
"I would have a hard time thinking of a greater example of a conflict of interest,” Barton said.
O’Connor, Myers and Thompson also alleged Tovar harassed staff and violated a commission rule that “prohibits a commissioner from disparaging and criticizing commission staff in public,” though they did not specify whether Tovar is accused of harassing Clark or another employee.
Tovar denied she harassed any staff members.
In a previous meeting, O’Connor asked Van Flein to investigate allegations Tovar harassed former commission spokesman JP Martin, who now works for the Secretary of State’s Office.
“I think the investigation is going to show what it does,” Martin said after the commission launched the inquiry, adding, “I’m totally removed from any of that.”
