Ethics Complaints Plague AZ Corporation Commission

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is currently investigating Commissioner Anna Tovar, the Commission’s sole Democrat, over alleged ethical and legal violations. On November 22, 2024, the Commission voted 4-0 during an open meeting to direct General Counsel Thomas Van Flein to conduct the inquiry. Commissioner Tovar did not attend the meeting.

The investigation alleges Commissioner Tovar violated executive-session confidentiality and shared confidential employment information. The allegations surround statements Tovar made after Executive Director Clark received a bonus. Tovar denies the allegations.

In a letter to the Commission dated November 15, Tovar said, “I am taken aback by the majority of this Commission believing that the Executive Director Doug Clark deserved a bonus for the work that he has done since being hired in April 2023.”

Tovar strongly opposed Clark’s bonus, citing a lack of measurable performance improvements and raising concerns about the subjective nature of the evaluation process. “There were no objective metrics or criteria that were used… nothing has improved during Mr. Clark’s time at the helm as executive director,” stated the Commissioner. Tovar also raised financial questions, asserting that Clark is “already one of, if not the, highest paid directors of any agency in Arizona.” She argued that allocating additional funds for Clark’s bonus would divert resources from other staff, potentially reducing bonuses for “deserving and underpaid” employees.

Tovar’s criticism centered on several other issues, including the Legal Division’s status, which the Commissioner described as “a shell of its former self with the change in leadership,” noting a significant reduction in attorneys. Tovar highlighted a lawsuit filed by the previous Chief Counsel alleging discrimination and a violation of the Equal Pay Act, calling the situation “unprecedented.” The Utilities Division was also condemned as a “revolving door,” with high employee turnover further complicating operations.

While acknowledging the challenges of the Executive Director role, Tovar concluded, “Given Mr. Clark’s current compensation, and the fact that in my opinion nothing has changed for the better under his tenure, I was compelled to vote no in awarding him a bonus.”

Process for Handling Ethics Complaints

The ACC has established procedures for addressing ethics complaints to ensure transparency and accountability. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) plays a pivotal role, advising the agency and commissioners on ethics issues and acting as an ethics investigator for filed complaints. Tovar previously complained about the handling of ethics complaints, expressing concern over the potential conflict of interest when the legal division represents Commissioners against others.

The ACC’s Code of Ethics outlines the expected conduct of commissioners, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public trust and integrity. It requires Commissioners to respect and comply with the law and conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Commission’s impartiality.

In 2024, the ACC addressed multiple ethics complaints:

Commissioner Kevin Thompson: In January 2023, Commissioner Thompson traveled to New York to meet with financial institutions investing in Arizona utilities, including Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America. Thompson shared on social media that his objective “was to promote Arizona as an attractive investment destination and to signal a shift towards a more favorable regulatory environment.”

This trip prompted consumer advocate Abhay Padgaonkar to file an ethics complaint, alleging that Thompson’s meetings with investors with direct financial interests in utilities regulated by the Commission could compromise his impartiality. Padgaonkar urged the Commission’s Chief Counsel, Robin Mitchell, to investigate the matter and consider referring it to the Attorney General for further examination.

Thompson defended his actions, stating that he had consulted with Commission attorneys and believed he had not violated any ethics rules. He emphasized his role in ensuring regulatory stability in Arizona. The Commission scheduled a closed-door meeting to discuss the complaint, with Senior Attorney Robin Mitchell declining to comment on the investigation’s handling.

In March 2023, the ACC voted to dismiss the ethics complaint against Thompson, with three of the five commissioners determining there was no merit to the allegations. Thompson recused himself from the vote, expressing regret over the time spent addressing what he termed “political accusations.”

Former Chief Counsel Robin Mitchell: Robin Mitchell, the former Chief Counsel of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), initiated legal action against the ACC, alleging discrimination and retaliation. Mitchell, who is Black, served on the ACC for 18 years, including five years as Director of the Legal Division. In 2023, she was reassigned to a newly created “Director of Special Projects” role without justification, which she contends was a demotion.

In May 2024, Mitchell filed a notice of claim alleging that the ACC’s leadership engaged in a “systematic effort to remove non-white staff” from leadership positions. She highlighted that, before the leadership changes, four of the ACC’s seven division directors were non-white. Following the restructuring, only one non-white director remained.

Mitchell’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in August 2024, accuses the ACC of race and sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and violations of state transparency laws. She asserts that her reassignment was politically motivated and that her replacement, a white male attorney, was less qualified and received a higher salary. Additionally, Mitchell alleges that the ACC’s leadership circumvented Arizona’s Public Records Law and violated the state’s Open Meeting Law by discussing official business outside of public meetings.

The ACC denied these allegations, stating that they make employment decisions based on objective work-related criteria and that Mitchell remains employed at a salary higher than in her previous role.

This case is still ongoing.