Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard sees his role as protecting those who are unable to protect themselves.

That explains why his office is playing a role in investigating the polygamist community of Colorado City and methamphetamine labs that pose a danger to youngsters living in those contaminated environments.

Mr. Goddard, a Democrat 2 1/2 years into his term as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, also targets consumer fraud and is embroiled in controversy over implementation of Proposition 200, a voter-approved measure aimed at illegal immigrants.

Arizona Capitol Times interviewed Mr. Goddard in his office June 14.

What’s the situation in Colorado City, comment on legislative action related to that polygamist community, and where do you go from here?

We’ve made some significant progress in the last month. It’s the result of two years of very hard preparation. The last piece to fall into place is Matt Smith’s indictment, the Mohave County attorney’s indictment of Warren Jeffs [president of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — no relationship to the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints] for sexual crimes with a minor. It’s something we all hoped would happen. We thought there was probably grounds for it, but my office does not have the jurisdiction so it’s up to the county attorney in Mohave County or in Utah to bring charges if they felt they were valid. The grand jury in Mohave County made that determination, so that added to our search warrants of the school district in Colorado City. We’re really striking at three different important parts of the power of Warren Jeffs. And as has been said several times, no one is above the law. My involvement started before I was sworn in as A.G. At an attorney generals’ conference in Florida, I started planning a coordinated effort with Utah to share information, and to try as clearly as we could to make the border between Utah and Arizona go away so people couldn’t hide on one side or the other. We also had to bury the ghost of Short Creek [a highly unpopular middle-of-the-night raid on Colorado City by state police under orders of then-Governor Howard Pyle].

When was that?

In 1953. Short Creek cut it two ways. It caused people in Colorado City to be somewhat justifiably afraid of the state. It was found that more women were afraid of the state of Arizona than they were of their abusers. The other half, it caused Arizona officials to back off for a long time.

Why was there no official action for so long?

The message out of Short Creek was leave’em alone. It’s very remote, very hard to get to. It’s a three and a half hour drive from Kingman. So if you’re a Mohave County official, it’s not exactly on your doorstep.

Why did you decide it was the thing to do?

It was a combination of things. It was something we talked a little about in the campaign. I go back to the belief that nobody’s above the law. The situations we were hearing about indicated that essentially they had taken the law unto themselves. They were bleeding the beast. They were taking funds, public money. They were also using their power to abuse young women and throw young men out of the community, so it became a pretty spectacular reason to go forward.

What about legislation?

Last year, the most important piece of legislation requested by the Attorney General’s Office was establishing felony bigamy with a minor. If you are any way involved as a perpetrator of a bigamous marriage, the individual involved with a woman under 18 or you are the parents of the child or the person who performs the ceremony, you’re subject to a new felony charge, which has sent a very strong message.

What about school district finances?

This year we had a very important bill. Last fall, we started hearing that they [Colorado City schools] were bouncing checks. It was clear that the Colorado City school district had spent itself into oblivion. They were essentially bankrupt, but when we researched the situation there was no bankruptcy provision for a government entity in Arizona. There was no way for any outside authority to come in and take over their affairs until they got it straightened out. So they had the potential of just sort of rocking along, with kids not getting educated and teachers not getting paid and ultimately the school district not doing its job. So the legislation passed this year allowed the state Board of Education to establish a trusteeship if a district is failing financially.

Has that happened?

It can’t happen until August 12 when that becomes law. We are preparing the petitions necessary. We have told the board and the superintendent that the day it’s effective we will be there requesting a trusteeship for Colorado City. One of the reasons we served the search warrant a couple of weeks ago was to make sure that all of the documents were preserved. And when the trustee takes office, he or she will have all that is needed to manage the affairs of the district.

What’s the operational status of the Attorney General’s Office? I believe you have said your office was understaffed and your staff was underpaid. Is that still the case?

We have very positive news. Our number one priority was to get parity with other public sector law offices. It came at the very last minute, but it came through. Starting July 1, attorneys in the A.G’s Office are at least at the same level as county attorneys in this state, as far as the general average, and are real close to city attorneys. We’re not saying they can or should be compensated at the private sector level — that’s out of reach, but we thought at least people shouldn’t have to pay a penalty for spending their professional career or some part of it at the state. And we have top attorneys. We continue to have some of the very best professionals, and that’s a tremendous credit to them. But we were beginning to lose more and more attorneys. Sixty people left the office last year. That’s a turnover that can’t be maintained.

Do you have openings now?

We continually do. I think the salary increases have certainly helped to stabilize the office. The work here is wonderful. It’s challenging. It’s the white hat program because we get to be on the right side of litigation. That’s very important and that’s why a lot of people want to work here. When I came in in 2003, we had to begin planning to lay off people. Janet [Napolitano] helped out by hiring away about 20. We still have a few layoffs and we’re still not totally recovered from that. Our budget is still not at the level it was the next to the last year that Janet was attorney general. Many areas still have not gotten to the staffing levels that we were four or five years ago.

Mention one or two.

The biggest hits were to criminal investigations, consumer protection and civil rights and those haven’t been fully recovered. We have hired more attorneys in child and family protection, which was because of the crisis in CPS [Child Protective Services] cases. We had to very quickly hire 30 attorneys to handle the caseload. We’re probably almost at the same level of total manpower but it’s in different places.

What is that total?

Four hundred attorneys.

How many support staff?

It’s right at 1,000.

What is the most prevalent type of consumer fraud, the one that really jumps out and bites us the most?

The biggest one is identity theft. That’s true with Arizona and across the country. Both civil and criminal fraud. We prosecute both.

What’s the typical ploy?

Actually, the biggest percentage of identity thieves are caregivers and rel
atives. Unfortunately, that’s for seniors. The second is the old fashioned dumpster divers and people stealing mail. There are folks who hack into your account in your computer, who manage to reroute your e-mail, who use a phishing technique. Phishing is becoming more and more prevalent. We get those phishing e-mails almost every day. I had one from Pay Pal, which said my account had been suspended, and would I just click on the link and I could go to a Web site and it would allow me to straighten everything out. It was so credible. It was so well done, and that’s the kind of thing you get. I’m not a Pay Pal customer so I knew it was a phony. But if I had been, that would have been a strong inducement.

Recently we had an alert that somebody was posing as a state retirement fund official, and that they were reassessing benefits. Click on a link, fill in some information and the implication was that we’ll get you more money. It was a pure phony, a pure scam. On my door over there I have a one of those famous Nigeria letters, from somebody who is smuggling money out of Africa. They just want your bank account so the money can sit there for a few days and they’ll give you a third or half. Of course what they’re really after is your financial data.

What about cold-calling?

Not as much as they used to be. No-call lists have really cut into that. If you’re on a no-call list and you get an unsolicited call, you’re almost certain that it’s a phony.

Prop 200. You are required to defend it.

And have been. Mary O’Grady [Arizona solicitor general] was in court today in San Francisco specifically defending the constitutionality of Prop. 200.

One the other hand, there are some people who feel you narrowed the scope too much, made it less effective. How do you respond to your critics?

Nobody has pointed out that my interpretation of Prop. 200 as to the public benefits is that it should have covered something and didn’t. Prop. 200 was very specific. First it applies to title 46, which is welfare. In another area regarding all K through 12 education benefits, the Supreme Court ruled a dozen years ago that you couldn’t have a citizenship inquiry as to people receiving schooling. So there was nothing that could be done there. There is no application of Prop. 200 for state and local benefits. I don’t see any loophole.

How would you describe yourself — as a supporter or an opponent of Prop. 200?

Neither. Politically I thought it could have been done better. When the campaign was going I was pretty outspoken — that this was going to cause a lot of trouble. I was unclear about what problems it would solve. But since it was passed by the voters, I have moved heaven and earth to make sure that it was put into effect.

The Commission on Judicial Conduct is opening up their reviews. Your reaction?

I think that’s good. I don’t think it [judicial reprimands] happens very often. But with longer tenure, it’s possible that someone in the court will do something we would not like them to do. When they stand accused of professional misconduct, people are entitled to know.

You joined a case supporting reporters who refuse to disclose their sources. Tell me about it.

Absolutely. Arizona has one of toughest shield laws in the country and we should be proud of that. The nature of the case that I joined was to urge that the federal level should provide same coverage of protections the states are providing

Finally, it’s more than idle speculation that Governor Napolitano is going to run for reelection next year. What are your political plans?

I am very excited about this job. Although I’m not ready to start campaigning yet, I have every intention running for another term.

Is there anything else you would like to add?

Yes. [He shows a photograph of a little boy who was found in a home meth lab.] This little boy was the first person that the police officers saw when they came into the building. He’s 18 months old. He was dressed in a diaper, that’s all. The white robe you see on him was the protective clothing that they put on kids that come out of meth labs. It protects the child and the firemen from contamination, because quite often these kids have highly toxic chemicals on their skin. This 18-month old was one of the victims, one of almost 400 that this office has worked with in the last four years — kids that have been growing up in the vicinity of a house that is also a meth lab. That’s child abuse per se under Arizona law. The good news is that parents are being arrested and meth labs are being shut down. The bad news is that we only get a fraction of the meth labs.

I was talking to A.G. of Montana yesterday and he said in the last six months every single meth lab they busted in Montana had kids present. It not quite that bad in Arizona, but we have more labs so I’m not sure that we don’t have even more children exposed to that. The Legislature had a great bill sponsored by Representative Tom O’Halleran. We tried on three separate occasions to pass it, and ultimately it got taken apart and what we got was a very mild bill.

What needs to be done?

Getting Sudafed tablets — that’s what you have to have to make meth — out of the hands of the meth cooks. In Oklahoma, the provisions there are basically if you want to buy the tablets you have to buy them in small quantities, have to consult with the pharmacist, and you have to sign a log and show ID. Those provisions have reduced their number of meth labs by 80 percent.

So are you going to urge passage of similar legislation next year?

I’m going to continue to work on it all summer. We’re going to try to get the Oklahoma provisions, which by the way there are well over a dozen states that have adopted them quickly, in a bipartisan effort and in many cases unanimously. You have to say if Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee can all pass it unanimously in their legislatures, why is it such a big issue in Arizona? I just don’t get it.

Thanks for your time. —