PHOENIX — Arizona Corporation Commissioner Anna Tovar is the subject of an ethics investigation after her colleagues expressed concern about the way she publicly aired disagreements over an employee bonus.
Commissioners voted 4-0 on Friday to authorize its Office of General Counsel to investigate whether Tovar violated codes of conduct and state law regarding confidential personnel information.
“When credible allegations are made, they must be addressed,” said Commission Chair Jim O’Connor Friday, adding he took the vote “with a deeply troubled heart.”
Tovar, less than two months away from ending her term as a Commissioner, told 12News Monday there is no substance to the allegations.
“Right now what is happening to me, I believe, is a sham investigation, a political witch hunt,” Tovar said.
Tovar also accused the Commission of not following due process in handling the matter.
“A formal complaint was never issued before a meeting was scheduled about this. Proper protocol that has been followed in the past was not followed in this case.”
Commissioners hold executive session on proposed bonus
After Friday’s vote, O’Connor asked ACC senior counsel Thomas Van Flein to return to the Commission in ten days with a formal report.
“Tom you’ve got your marching orders,” O’Connor said.
The controversy stems from a Nov. 6 meeting when Commissioners voted 4-1 to give its top non-elected employee, Executive Director Doug Clark, a $20,000 bonus.
During the meeting, commissioners held a confidential executive session to discuss Clark’s proposed bonus.
After returning from the executive session, commissioners initially disagreed about whether the bonus would be appropriate, saying it could hamper the Commission’s ability to hire employees in the future. Commissioner Kevin Thompson voted no.
Commission staff was asked to clarify where the bonus would originate. Van Flein said it would come from the utility division’s personnel budget. At that time, Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson said she would vote yes.
“I’ve been very happy with the work of the Executive Director. I think he’s taken on quite a lot of challenges,” said Marquez Peterson.
Thompson then changed his vote to yes.
“With legal (department) re-defining where the money comes from then I guess I would be ok with that,” Thompson said.
Myers also said after the explanation, he would also vote yes.
“What we were led to believe then and what we are led to believe now are different,” Myers said. “I don’t have a problem giving Doug a bonus if it is going to come out of the same pot.”
Tovar: No “objective criteria” for $20,000 bonus
Tovar was the dissenting “no” vote, saying the bonus was unprecedented because there was “no objective criteria used to evaluate Mr. Clark’s performance.”
Later, issuing a news release about her vote, Tovar explained further why she believed the bonus was not justified.
“Given that the evaluation was very subjective in nature, I would simply state that nothing has improved during Mr. Clark’s time at the helm. In fact, I would say things have remained the same if not become worse,” Tovar wrote.
Tovar noted an ongoing civil discrimination lawsuit against the Commission by its former Senior Counsel Robin Mitchell. Tovar also alleged high employee turnover at the utilities division, writing, “The Legal Division is a shell of its former self.”
Commission schedules ethics vote
In response to the letter, the Commission revised its Nov. 22 scheduled meeting to include a discussion and possible vote regarding Tovar for allegedly violating codes of conduct and state law regarding confidential personnel information. Tovar issued a written response, saying she would not participate in the meeting. Tovar accused the legal department of having a conflict of interest with how it handled the matter.
“It appears the Chief Counsel is acting in a prosecutorial manner when his job is simply to pass along ethics complaints when received,” Tovar wrote.
During the 4-0 vote Friday to order the investigation, Commissioner Thompson said he did not take the vote to investigate Tovar lightly.
“I think when employees are publicly attacked without being afforded due process, it’s not something we should tolerate as an organization,” Thompson said.
Tovar said there is no evidence she violated confidentiality laws.
“I explained my vote on why I didn’t vote on this bonus. It was all public information, factual information,” Tovar said.
12News asked to interview O’Connor on Monday to discuss the origin of the ethics complaint and the process moving forward. A spokesperson for the ACC declined to comment, citing confidentiality.
O’Connor said the investigation will also include alleged harassment of former Director of Communications of the Commission, JP Martin. It was not clear why Martin was also part of the investigation, based on what Commissioners discussed publicly.
“I’m not sure why they would say there was an issue. I had very limited communication with that employee,” Tovar told 12News on Monday.
Tovar: 'I stand by my comments'
Tovar has retained an attorney and said she does not have regrets.
“I stand by my comments and the letters I wrote to keep the public informed,” Tovar said. “Arizonans who have jobs, they have to get evaluated, they have to meet criteria to justify a raise or a bonus. And for me that just wasn’t there.”
Tovar is the only Democrat on the commission and has often been alone in her votes.
“My term ends at the end of January and I plan to act on behalf of Arizona citizens to advocate on their behalf until my last day.”
Clark has not answered questions on controversial issues
Executive Director Clark was hired in April 2023.
He was recently featured in a 12News report after he would not answer whether or not the Commission has a mechanism to calculate how energy costs of the utility it regulates compare with other states.
Clark was also mum when asked last year about the agency’s protocols for investigating ethics complaints after criticism from former Commission Chair Bob Burns.