Key Points

• Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor was fired for insubordination following an employee complaint

• Márquez Peterson argues Clark had no power to fire a policy advisor hired by and serving at the discretion of a commissioner.

• Márquez Peterson and Commissioner Rachel Walden criticized ACC general counsel for “mixed information”

A second public meeting to discuss the firing of a Corporation Commission policy advisor appeared to leave some commissioners with more questions than answers. 

Commissioners met Thursday to decide whether an outside attorney’s opinion would be needed to determine whether ACC Executive Director Doug Clark improperly terminated Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson’s policy advisor in early October. According to a disciplinary report obtained through a public records request, Laurie Woodall was fired for insubordination after another ACC employee accused her of harassment. 

But Márquez Peterson argues the firing raises a larger issue about the process for terminating policy advisors, who commissioners can hire and fire at their discretion. 

“I think we need a legal opinion on this gray area related to this [statute],” Márquez Peterson told her fellow commissioners Thursday. “I myself don’t think it’s gray; I think it’s very clear [Clark] does not have the authority, but I’m not an attorney.”

Commission observers have argued that Clark’s move could set a dangerous precedent that may allow ACC executive directors to weaponize their authority over policy advisors of elected commissioners — especially commissioners in the minority party. 

The disciplinary report

The issue stems from a complaint filed by an employee in the ACC’s legal division against Woodall. 

A disciplinary report compiled by local employment attorney Michael Zoldan found that Woodall told several ACC staff members that the legal division employee should not have been hired because his law license had previously been suspended. The names of the individuals involved were redacted in the report. 

“…[I]n the weeks after [the employee] started work, Ms. Woodall repeatedly and without invitation raised [the employee’s] suspension with the Executive Director, the General Counsel, and Legal Division staff,” Zoldan wrote. “She said he should never have been hired, that the hire was an embarrassment and a stain on the Commission and that it has to be fixed.”

Legal division staff involved in the employee’s hiring process said he was upfront about the suspension, which he said resulted from a decline in work productivity due to a temporary illness. The employee’s law license was reinstated, and he reported that he had recovered from the illness. 

Zoldan concluded that Woodall’s behavior was grounds for the Commission to impose “any level of discipline up to separation,” but he also noted that the employee who filed the complaint said he did not want to see Woodall fired.

Woodall declined to participate in an interview with Zoldan regarding the complaint. 

Zoldan’s report also indicated that Márquez Peterson was notified in September of Woodall’s refusal to participate in the investigation, but it does not appear the commissioner was made aware of the specific allegations against Woodall. 

Tom Van Flein, the Commission’s general counsel, typically serves as the ethics officer who investigates complaints, but he recused himself because he also oversees the legal division.

Márquez Peterson declined to comment on the report in a statement to the Arizona Capitol Times, citing “professional protocols and processes” for the handling of personnel issues. 

The open meeting kerfuffle

Woodall’s termination became public knowledge after Márquez Peterson called an Oct. 7 public meeting to discuss whether Clark had the authority to fire a commissioner’s policy advisor. During that meeting, Márquez Peterson said she had no prior knowledge of Clark’s plans to terminate Woodall and was not consulted. 

The Oct. 7 public meeting became a controversy in and of itself after Commissioner Kevin Thompson noted that commissioners discussed the details of a personnel matter without going into executive session. At Van Flein’s recommendation, commissioners voted to redact Woodall’s name from the meeting record. 

Additionally, after commissioners voted to redact the record and allow Márquez Peterson to obtain outside counsel, Van Flein notified commissioners that neither vote was properly noticed under open meeting law. Autumn Johnson, an attorney who represents solar energy clients at the Commission, filed an open meeting complaint with the attorney general’s office over the votes. 

Commissioners reconsidered both matters at Thursday’s meeting, voting to retain outside counsel to examine Clark’s authority and voting against retroactively redacting the record of the Oct. 7 meeting. 

Transparency and authority concerns

Those votes did not assuage the concerns of Márquez Peterson and Commissioner Rachel Walden, both of whom raised questions about the lack of transparency and communication from Clark and Van Flein. 

Márquez Peterson said the situation had become “messy,” and accused Van Flein of giving commissioners “mixed information” about whether the attorney general’s office weighed in on Clark’s authority to terminate Woodall. 

At the Oct. 7 meeting, Van Flein told commissioners that Zoldan, the Arizona Department of Administration and the attorney general’s office “indicated … that not only did the executive director have the authority to take the action, but in light of the report that was issued, had an obligation to do so.”

But on Oct. 9, Commission Chair Nick Myers requested a formal opinion on the matter from Attorney General Kris Mayes. That letter wasn’t made public until Oct. 20 and appeared to catch some commissioners off guard. 

Van Flein became defensive during Thursday’s meeting and warned Márquez Peterson of the Commission’s Code of Ethics rules.

“I would remind the commissioner of her duties under Ethics Rule 3.2, to take a look at that, before misrepresenting a chain of events,” Van Flein said. “It was not messy; it was a clean investigation by the independent counsel, and it’s appropriately done.” 

But Walden also appeared frustrated with Van Flein’s handling of the issue, noting that he appeared to have given Myers more information about both the Oct. 7 meeting and Thursday’s meeting than the other commissioners.

“Once again [we are] being asked to attend a meeting [and] voting on matters without having information from legal,” Walden said. “We are all equally your client, Mr. Van Flein. You don’t report to the chair.”

Walden noted that she still has not seen the attorney general’s office’s opinion on the termination and only learned of the open meeting complaint after reading news reports. Commissioner René Lopez also appeared confused about the chain of events and whether the attorney general’s office was consulted about the termination itself or Clark’s authority to carry out the termination.

Commissioner Kevin Thompson agreed that the entire situation could have been handled better, but said he did not intend that to be viewed as a criticism of Clark.

“I know that personally, as a commissioner, if my staff was accused of something that would be considered potentially termination-worthy, I hope I would be able to incur some of that responsibility myself and address the merits of those accusations and do my best as my staff’s direct supervisor to remedy or mediate that situation,” Thompson said. 

Mayes’ office told the Commission it hopes to weigh in on Clark’s authority within 90 days, but Márquez Peterson told the Arizona Capitol Times she will continue pursuing a separate legal opinion on the matter.