A federal judge has ordered a trial to proceed in a suit filed by a former official of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission who alleges that he was wrongfully fired and defamed.

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Martone denied motions by the defendants for summary judgments in several aspects of the suit filed by Matt Shaffer, former deputy director of the Clean Elections Commission, and granted others.

On decisions to deny motions for summary judgment regarding the validity of arguments, the judge determined that those issues are open to dispute and should be heard by a jury. A pre-trial conference is scheduled Sept. 13.

The suit names as defendants the commission, which oversees the state program of publicly funded political campaigns, and the commission’s former executive director, Colleen Connor, who resigned from the commission June 17. Ms. Connor’s husband Chad Jacobs also is named in the suit.

Matt Salmon Inquiry

Mr. Shaffer, who was fired Oct. 1, 2002, contends that he was denied due process by being fired for blowing the whistle on what he considered a politically motivated inquiry into gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon’s campaign finances.

When Mr. Shaffer filed a claim against the state in March 2003, he wanted his old job back or $264,000 for having been “wrongfully terminated.”

Mr. Shaffer’s attorney, Richard Harris, said based on the advice of an expert witness Mr. Shaffer is seeking economic damages in excess of $450,000, plus compensatory damages for loss of reputation, emotion distress, pain and suffering and punitive damages against Ms. Connor.

Mr. Harris said he is “very pleased” with the judge’s order. “We are very encouraged that the judge agrees that a jury should hear this case, to make sure that Arizona voters understood what happened and that it be handled in public,” Mr. Harris said

Jay Zweig, an attorney with Gallagher & Kennedy who is representing the Clean Elections Commission, said, “We are pleased that the court granted several aspects of the summary judgment motions. The Clean Elections Commission position is that it continues to stand behind its conduct and the conduct of former Executive Director Colleen Connor. There is a wide variety of claims and the judge narrowed them down, claims that the judge feels certain that a jury needs to consider.”

What The Judge Ordered

Here is Judge Martone’s point-by-point order, issued Aug. 23:

• On the allegation that Ms. Connor denied Mr. Shaffer a chance to clear his name after she accused him in a memo to the Department of Public Safety of having engaged in a “fraudulent scheme,” a motion by Ms. Connor for summary judgment was denied. Judge Martone rejected Ms. Connor’s contention that she was acting within the scope of her employment and therefore had qualified immunity. The commission was granted summary judgment on this claim.

• On the allegation that Ms. Connor denied Mr. Shaffer’s First Amendment rights by asking him not to speak to the media during the CCEC’s Salmon campaign investigation, the motion by Ms. Connor for summary judgment was denied. Judge Martone did not accept Ms. Connor’s contention that Mr. Shaffer was a policy-maker and therefore had little First Amendment protection when he spoke out in a hostile manner accusing the commission of having a political agenda in the Salmon case. The commission was granted summary judgment on this claim.

• On the allegation that Ms. Connor knowingly made false accusations that Mr. Shaffer was engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the Salmon campaign, Ms. Connor’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Judge Martone rejected Ms. Connor’s contention that statements she made about Mr. Shaffer being engaged in a fraudulent scheme were true.

• On the allegation that Ms. Connor invaded Mr. Shaffer’s privacy with false information, her motion for summary judgment was granted. Judge Martone ruled that because Mr. Shaffer was a public official and Ms. Connor’s comments related to his public duties, Mr. Shaffer’s claim for false invasion of privacy was without merit.

• On the allegation that Ms. Connor interfered with Mr. Shaffer’s employment relationship with the commission, her motion for summary judgment was denied. Judge Martone ruled that the evidence “creates a genuine issue of fact as to whether [Ms.] Connor acted ‘improperly’ by publicly accusing [Mr. Shaffer] of several crimes” and therefore interfered with his contractual relationship with the commission.

• On the allegation that Mr. Shaffer was wrongfully terminated by the commission in retaliation for his refusal to hold the Salmon campaign to what he claims was a different standard than other campaigns, the commission’s motion for summary judgment was granted. Judge Martone ruled that Mr. Shaffer failed to allege that he was asked, instructed or pressured in any way to violate the constitution or a statute.

• On the allegation that Mr. Shaffer was wrongfully terminated by the commission for whistle-blowing by reporting what he considered a violation of law by Ms. Connor, the commission’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Mr. Shaffer based this claim on the fact that he blew the whistle on Ms. Connor by telling her that neither she nor anyone at the commission should be discussing the Salmon matter with Jessica Funkhouser of the Secretary of State’s Office after Ms. Funkhouser has recused herself from investigating reporting violations by the Salmon campaign. Ms. Funkhouse had transferred responsibility for investigating the Salmon case to Ms. Connor. The reason for Ms. Funkhouser’s recusal was that at the time Secretary of State Betsey Bayless was running against Mr. Salmon for the Republican nomination for governor. Judge Martone ruled that he could not say it was unreasonable for Mr. Shaffer to believe that Ms. Connor was violating the recusal statute by discussing the Salmon campaign with Ms. Funkhouser.

In the Salmon case, Mr. Salmon, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor in 2002, paid a fine of $3,471.25 on July 30, 2003. The commission imposed the fine after initially seeking a penalty of $10,000 for the late disclosure of nearly $100,000 in expenditures. The commission agreed to the lower amount on the recommendation of an administrative law judge.

Although Mr. Salmon ran his campaign with private contributions, he was required, as are all privately funded candidates, to file a series of campaign finance reports that could be used to determine matching funds for publicly funded candidates. —