Democratic Corporation Commissioner Anna Tovar has hired legal representation and denies any wrongdoing after Republican commissioners say she violated state laws related to executive sessions and the commission’s code of ethics.

The four Republicans on the commission voted to open an inquiry into Tovar during a meeting on Nov. 22 that Tovar did not attend. The inquiry is centered around a Nov. 15 letter in which Tovar explained her disagreement with a recent vote that approved a bonus for commission Executive Director Doug Clark. 

The commissioners said Tovar’s letter violated executive-session confidentiality and several points of the commission’s Code of Ethics by discussing details of Clark’s employment. They instructed the commission’s general counsel, Tom Van Flein, to conduct the investigation and provide a report within 10 days. 

Tovar, who will be leaving the commission in January after her term ends, is accused of violating ethics provisions related to decorum, harassment, conduct during open meetings and using political influence in personnel decisions. She denied any wrongdoing and called the investigation a “political witch hunt.”

“I’m going to stand firm for who I know I am, and I know that I have done absolutely nothing wrong except trying to advocate for consumers all across Arizona,” Tovar told the Arizona Capitol Times, saying she has obtained outside legal representation to handle the matter. 

The trouble began on Nov. 15 when Tovar sent a letter to her fellow commissioners explaining why she voted against a $20,000 pay bonus for Clark on Nov. 6. In the letter, Tovar said no performance evaluation or metrics were performed to justify a bonus and argued that “things have remained the same if not become worse” under Clark’s leadership.

Tovar cited staff turnover, low pay, a discrimination lawsuit filed against the commission and more as issues that have arisen or worsened under Clark’s tenure. 

“While I don’t necessarily solely fault Mr. Clark for these issues, this is why I do not think he is deserving of a bonus,” she wrote in the letter. 

Tovar said that all of the information in her letter was publicly available and reflected the comments she made after the commission adjourned from executive session on Nov. 6. Danny Adelman, the executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, said it is hard to judge whether meeting laws were violated without knowing what was said during the executive session. 

Adelman said there is likely a record of what was discussed in the executive session, even though it is not publicly available. If an investigation finds that Tovar did reveal information from that discussion publicly, the consequences could be severe.

“There are actually criminal statutes that talk about if you’ve intentionally or recklessly violated open meeting law,” Adelman said. “So it really depends on the strength of the case as to the violation, and the mindset of the person that violated it, but it can be serious.” 

During the Nov. 22 meeting, Corporation Commission Chairman Jim O’Connor called the issue “disappointing” and also instructed Van Flein to investigate any harassment that might have occurred between the start of 2023 and the present. O’Connor referenced a former employee of the commission, but otherwise did not provide specifics related to the harassment allegations. 

Tovar said those allegations of harassment are false and she is unaware of any complaints made against her during her time on the elected body.

“[It is] absolutely false and I take great offense to it,” she said. 

Tovar said she found the steps the commissioners took “odd” because they do not follow the typical process for ethics complaints made at the commission. She has been an advocate for clarifying the ethics complaint and investigation process, but little change has been made.

According to Tovar, a meeting to discuss the issue was scheduled before any complaint was filed. She said she wasn’t aware of an issue until the meeting’s agenda was revised to name her specifically and a complaint wasn’t filed until an hour before the meeting took place on Nov. 22. 

Tovar said she still has not received a copy of the complaint filed against her and she does not know who filed it. Commission spokeswoman Nicole Garcia said, “Per our General Counsel, the information you’re asking for is confidential until the investigation is completed, at which point the report will then be made public.” 

Commissioners requested that Van Flein’s investigation into the matter be completed within 10 days. Tovar said other complaints filed to the commission have gone unaddressed for years.

“Why am I treated differently on this?” Tovar said. “There’s other complaints that are at the commission that have laid dormant for over a year, yet there isn’t a formal process or policy of how to address those. But I get a meeting scheduled on an executive session before a complaint is even filed.”