Amid ongoing rate cases for two of the state\u2019s largest electric providers, Arizona\u2019s top utility regulators have spent time embroiled in an internal employment dispute that has spilled into public view.<\/p>\n
Earlier this month, Arizona Corporation Commission Executive Director Doug Clark fired a policy adviser who worked for Commissioner Lea M\u00e1rquez Peterson, leading to allegations Clark overstepped his authority<\/a> by dismissing an employee who reported directly to an elected official.<\/p>\n The commissioners already voted on hiring an outside attorney at a meeting on Oct. 7.<\/p>\n But they later determined that vote was null and void.<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the agenda for that meeting didn\u2019t explicitly spell out what the commissioners planned to vote on, which could violate a state law requiring elected officials to inform the public about what they plan to discuss in open meetings.<\/p>\n The firing<\/p>\n The dispute centers on Clark\u2019s decision to fire Laurie Woodall, who had worked for M\u00e1rquez Peterson since early 2023.<\/p>\n In a statement, M\u00e1rquez Peterson said she wasn\u2019t consulted about the decision and only found out about the firing via an email on Oct. 1.<\/p>\n Woodall was fired for \u201cinsubordination to the executive director,\u201d M\u00e1rquez Peterson told KJZZ.<\/p>\n According to an investigation by an outside attorney, that came after Woodall refused to sit for an interview amid allegations that she violated the state employee code of conduct.<\/p>\n The investigation alleges Woodall repeatedly called for the firing of an attorney hired by General Counsel Tom Van Flein earlier this year, because that attorney was suspended by the State Bar of Arizona between May 2015 and November 2020.<\/p>\n The reason for the suspension is not known, and the attorney in questions\u2019 name is redacted in the investigative report provided to KJZZ under Arizona\u2019s Public Records Law. However, the report does state the employee disclosed he completed a two-year probation and has no remaining conditions on his licensure from the State Bar.<\/p>\n The employee blamed the suspension on a serious illness and disclosed it during the interview process for the commission job, according to the investigation by Michael Zoldan with the firm Shields Petitti Zoldan.<\/p>\n Woodall is accused of lobbying other staff to have the attorney fired. She allegedly told other employees that the attorney was a \u201cbad hire\u201d and said bringing him on was a \u201cbad decision\u201d and \u201ca stain on the commission.\u201d<\/p>\n Zoldan concluded Woodall\u2019s alleged behavior could open up the Commission to legal action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Arizona Civil Rights Act.<\/p>\n Woodall declined to sit for an interview after Commission staff declined to provide a copy of the complaint or pay for an attorney to represent her, according to the investigative report.<\/p>\n Zoldan concluded that amounted to insubordination, which is a violation of state rules for employees, justifying \u201cany discipline, up to and including termination.\u201d<\/p>\n Woodall declined to comment.<\/p>\n In public meetings, both M\u00e1rquez Peterson and Commissioner Rachel Walden disagreed with the report’s other conclusion that Clark had the authority to fire Woodall without M\u00e1rquez Peterson\u2019s permission.<\/p>\n \u201cSo no, the executive director of the Arizona Corporation Commission does not have the authority to unilaterally fire an employee of an elected commissioner,\u201d M\u00e1rquez Peterson said at a meeting on Oct. 7.<\/p>\n Van Flein and Clark said Zoldan received guidance from the Arizona Department of Administration and Attorney General\u2019s Office about Clark\u2019s power to dismiss policy advisors, though the exact nature of that advice is unclear.<\/p>\n \u201cI never received any written documentation from ADOA,\u201d Clark said. \u201cThat was handled by HR and (Administrative Services Director James Cook).\u201d<\/p>\n The Arizona Department of Administration confirmed it reviewed the decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Human Resources Division of the Arizona Department of Administration has statewide responsibilities for reviewing State Personnel System agency dismissal packages,\u201d spokesman Timothy Tait said. \u201cThe Arizona Corporation Commission asked for review of this dismissal package, as required by the relevant rules. Following ADOA’s standard procedure, this dismissal package was reviewed by ADOA.\u201d<\/p>\n Richie Taylor, a spokesman for the Attorney General\u2019s Office, said it advised the Department of Administration.<\/p>\n \u201cWe did not advise the ACC directly,\u201d Taylor said.<\/p>\n The infighting<\/p>\n The fight over Woodall\u2019s firing has exposed rifts between certain commissioners and the staff they have hired to run the day-to-day operations of the agency.<\/p>\n \u201cI think we need outside counsel on this,\u201d M\u00e1rquez Peterson said before the vote to hire an independent attorney on Oct. 22. \u201cThis has become very messy. We received mixed information from our own general counsel at the time on this during the staff meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n Van Flein, the commission\u2019s top attorney, disagreed with M\u00e1rquez Peterson and even accused her of violating ethics rules by misrepresenting the situation.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was not messy. It was a clean investigation by the independent counsel, and it’s appropriately done.,\u201d he said, referring to the investigation by Zoldan.<\/p>\n Several commissioners pointed to the need to re-vote on the decisions they made during the Oct. 7 meeting, including hiring the outside counsel and redacting Woodall\u2019s name from the official record.<\/p>\n The commissioners made that decision to scrub the record after consulting with Van Flein about whether that could violate the state\u2019s Open Meeting Law.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re kind of in a gray area here. It\u2019s appropriate if the three of you say it is,\u201d Van Flein said at the Oct. 7 meeting.<\/p>\n