Page 10 - the NOISE February 2016

sTOrY BY
when the eleCtriC COmpany DeCiDeS CinDy COle
tO relegate itS regulatOrS, whO’S gOt the CuStOmer?
GrAPHIC BY
peDrO Dia
the exchange of several letters over the last few months between Arizona Corporation Commission and Arizona Public Service officials is evidence of who really wears the pants when it comes to public transparency and disclosure of campaign expenditures in the state of
Arizona. And it’s not the ACC or the people of Arizona.
The interaction began with a letter from former Commissioner Susan Bitter-Smith, who resigned after Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a conflict of interest complaint against her, and Commissioner Bob Burns. The september 9 letter [in ACC Docket no. AU- 00000A-15-0309] asked:
... “that all public service corporations and unregulated entities that appear before the Commission agree to voluntarily refrain from making campaign contributions in support of or in opposition to Corporation Commission candidates. We make this request because we believe that political contributions from such entities have damaged the public’s per- ception of the Commission and have placed the Commission in a difficult position.”
From here it seems the exchanges devolve into a few rounds of the pot calling the kettle black. The letter continues:
“In the recent past, there have been repeated articles in the press concerning APS’s alleged contributions to political campaigns. According to these sources, either APS or Pinnacle West, APS’ parent company, allegedly contributed a significant amount of money to certain advo- cacy organizations, which in turn contributed money in support of or in opposition to a num- ber of candidates. There have also been reports that other entities have also participated in campaign advocacy. When first reported, APS neither confirmed nor denied these claims. Later, however, Pinnacle West appears to have disclosed to its shareholders that it had made cam- paign contributions in an effort to defend APS against what it considered to be unfair attacks.”
The controversy over “dark money” contributions to the campaigns of recently elected ACC commissioners has been in the media for more than a year. And Commissioner Burns argued just a few months ago that Arizona’s lawmakers should change Public Records Law to make it more difficult for the public to obtain needed information during investigations of state of- ficials. In response to efforts to obtain access to text messages exchanged between fellow commissioner Bob Stump and suspected dark money players, Mr. Burns suggested that such access should require a judge’s order similar to the way search warrants are obtained. He also argued the costs of providing this information should be considered when deciding when and how much information should be disclosed. Mr. Burns argued that Mr. stump’s privacy was being invaded. Keep in mind the ACC’s chartered mission is:
“to recommend thoroughly researched, sound regulatory policy and rate recommenda- tions to the commissioners, which are based on a balanced analysis of the benefits and im- pacts on all stakeholders and are consistent with the public interest.”
And Public records Law says that “public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.” Any officer includes any elected or appointed official in a public entity.
10 • february 2016 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
so, more than a year later, Mr. Burns is requesting APs to disclose its involvement in cam- paign contributions in the past and to refrain from making them in the future. while Mr. Burns’ desire to withhold public records from the public is in violation of Arizona’s Public records Law, legally APs isn’t breaking campaign finance laws by contributing to organizations that then work toward electing officials that will be favorable to company’s positions. At least no illegal activities have been charged to date. But now Mr. Burns appears to be concerned about how things look to the public he himself has been trying to keep in the dark, as his letter continues:
“We acknowledge that public service corporations have a First Amendment right to sup- port the candidates of their choice. We also recognize that this constitutional right car- ries with it the right to contribute to political campaigns. The laws governing campaign finance are not within the Commission’s purview, and, at the present time, there do not appear to be assertions that Pinnacle West, APS or others have failed to comply with any applicable campaign finance laws. Unfortunately, this technical compliance has not ad- equately addressed the public’s concerns. Especially concerning to us is the public’s per- ception that the Commission, by its silence, has tacitly condoned this behavior.”
Also keep in mind the Arizona Constitution says the Arizona Corporation Commission
“... shall have the power to inspect and investigate the property, books, papers, business, methods, and affairs of any corporation whose stock shall be offered for sale to the public, and of any public service corporation doing business with- in the state.”
And additionally state law says that commissioners “may, at any time, inspect the accounts, books, papers and documents of any public service corporation.”
In spite of these laws, Pinnacle West CeO Don Brandt took offense at Mr. Burns’ request and pushed the burden of responsibility back onto the ACC. In response to the suggestion that APs refrain from participating in political campaigns Mr. Brandt wrote:
“To say that this request is unusual, if not unprecedented in APS’ 125-year history, only begins to highlight the critical nature of the issues it raises.”
In other words, get stuffed Mr. Burns. Defending the referenced First Amendment rights, Mr. Brandt’s letter continues:
“APS has always been a major participant in the public life of the State, by virtue of its re- sponsibility to deliver an essential public service to many of its citizens. APS has for many years availed itself of all lawful means to make its views on issues important to its customers, em- ployees and shareholders known to legislators, public officeholders and all those who have an interest in the future of Arizona. Accordingly, a request from governmental officials with great authority over APS to relinquish one means of expression of this right is a serious matter.”
notice there is no mention of public transparency, integrity, or, as a state-regulated monop- oly utility company, direct responsibility to its customers. Throwing the issue back to the ACC,