Page 20 - the NOISE October 2015

acc/aps – how much do these shenanigans cost? Keeping us in the darK
ever since a whistleblower divulged information about unsavory relationships between commissioners of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) and executives of Arizona Public Service Company (APs), the largest public utility in Arizona, watchdog group the Checks and Balances Project has been trying to investigate the claims. As part of their investigation, they have asked to see text messages stored on Commissioner Bob Stump’s ACC-supplied cell phone. The organization suspects that Mr. stump’s nearly 8,000 text exchanges during the 2014 election cycle may shed some much needed light on reported “dark money campaigns” that may have been used to help elect utility favoring officials into public offices including the ACC and even the secretary of state.
But instead of advocating for transparency and providing the public with all available information, ACC Commissioner Bob Burns thinks that requests for public records should have to go through a judge. Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts has been vocally critical of the goings on between the ACC and APs.
Checks and Balances submitted a public records request to the ACC, which was forwarded to Mr. Burns by ACC Executive Director Jodi Jerich in June. Ms. Roberts obtained Mr. Burns’ reply via another public records request. In it, the commissioner suggested that the public’s access to records should be more restrictive. “when does to much become to much?,” he wrote − Ms. Roberts indicated that the spelling errors were Mr. Burns’. “I suggest,”he continued,
“that it is time for the commission to prepare a report of man hours with the cost labor included for presentation to the legislative leadership and the Governors (sic) office on the need to amend the public records request statute. My suggested starting point for change would be something modeled after the method used to acquire a search warrant. The police don’t come into your home without a warrant,” he said. “There’s limitations and requirements to be met.” He even went so far as to refer to these public records requests as “fishing expeditions.”
“This is a typical move of a politician under siege and with something to hide,” said sedona activist Warren Woodward, who has spent the last few years scrutinizing ACC records independently. He filed as an intervener in APs cases with the ACC regarding smart meter installation and fees. when the ACC did not respond to his appeal on the decision, he filed an appeal in superior Court that is still being considered.
whose money is it anyway?
On August 27, Commissioners Susan Bitter Smith and Mr. Burns placed the issue of campaign contributions on the commission’s meeting agenda. The item was intended to discuss and possibly vote on whether regulated utilities ought to have to publicly disclose their dark-money maneuvering to obtain utility-friendly regulators during elections. Both commissioners are up for re-election next year and have postured to keep APs out of the campaign process.
The morning of the meeting, Commissioner Doug Little exercised his right and pulled the item from the agenda. why would he do such a thing? well, it is Mr. Little and Commissioner Tom Forese who were the beneficiaries of some $3.2 million in “dark money” campaign contributions that many suspect were funneled to them by APs through a third party political organization. Mr. stump is suspected of acting as the middle-man in the “dark money” scheme, thus the reason that Checks and Balances would like a look-see at the multitudes of text messages he sent during election season last year to an APs executive — the head of a “dark money” group, as well as Messrs. Little and Forese and their respective campaign managers.
“APs won’t confirm that it secretly spent millions of dollars to get Forese and Little elected,” wrote Ms. Roberts in one of her columns. “The company also won’t deny it. either way, it’s totally legal. Of course, any commissioner could put the issue to rest and restore public confidence in the commission by simply ordering APs to open its books. Curiously, not a single one has.” That’s right − any commissioner could not only require APs to disclose what it and its parent company, Pinnacle west, spent on last year’s elections. They could also require real time reporting for future elections. However, Ms. Bitter smith has publicly questioned the commission’s role in this instance.
If you still aren’t sure whose side these elected officials are on, it might be worthwhile to look at a recent vote that took place at the ACC regarding an APs request to increase fees for rooftop solar customers.
In spite of being advised by Administrative Law Judge Teena Jibilian that any such consideration would be “more reasonably and appropriately dealt with in the context of a full rate case proceeding,” the ACC put APs’ request up for a vote. APs asked for a fee increase to $21 per month − more than four times the current $5 rate. The vote to ignore the judge’s recommendation and grant APs’ request was decided by a count of 3-2. Can you guess who the three affirmative votes were? Did you guess Messrs. Little, Forese, and stump?
when the issue of “dark money” finally made it to the table for discussion in early september, Mr. Little claimed that asking APs to stop funding election campaigns would be akin to denying the company’s freedom under the First Amendment and the Citizens United supreme Court decision.
“In my personal view,” Mr. Little stated, “more political speech, whether it comes from corporations, unions, associations, self-appointed ‘watchdog’ groups or individuals is a good thing because the ability to engage in robust discussion about the qualifications of candidates in an election is a good thing.”
Mr. Forese suggested that asking APs not to spend money on ACC elections would, in itself, be in violation of campaign finance law. He even went so far as equating it to direct coordination of spending which the law specifically prohibits. Ms. Bitter smith and Mr. Burns have already made that request of APs in an apparent effort to avoid tainting their own upcoming elections.
But still, no one talked about the issue of disclosure. not one of the five commissioners demanded, pleaded, or even politely asked APs to open up its books for all to see.
20 • october 2015 • NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us newsfeature the
story By cindy cole photo By callie luedeKer
when one door closes...
In another example of the “too close” relationship between the ACC and APs, Mr. stump’s top policy advisor, Amanda Ho, has accepted a new job with− guess who? − APs. This leaves Mr. stump having to find a new advisor for his last year in office while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder how Ms. Ho might have gotten wind of APs’ job opening. when Checks and Balances made earlier requests for Ms. Ho’s communication records, it appeared she had had very little contact with APs officials.
The Checks and Balances Project had previously requested disclosure of Ms. Ho’s communications and calendar for the times during which the ACC was considering solar energy and net meeting rate cases which included a period of about 17 months. The information they received noted no relevant emails or text messages between Ms. Ho and APs. she did exchange 609 text messages with Mr. stump during that time.
when they reviewed her calendar, the independent watchdog expressed their concern that 32% of Ms. Ho’s meetings had been redacted from it. They asked the ACC to provide the index required by public records law for the omitted items. The response was that all but two of the redacted appointments were personal in nature. The other two were subject to attorney- client privilege.
Though Ms. Ho will be barred from working on commission issues for a year, she has reportedly been hired to handle federal issues for the utility company anyway. It is unclear whether APs will continue to allow her to spend a third of her work time engaged in personal business.
playing on Both sides
In spite of her public outcry, though muted it may be, against APs contributions to upcoming ACC elections, Ms. Bitter smith is not out of the hot seat. On september 2, Chandler attorney Tom Ryan filed a complaint with Arizona Attorney General (AG) Mark Brnovich. Though not directly related to this case, it may be of note that Mr. Brnovich reportedly received $425,000 in campaign funds from Pinnacle west, APs’ parent company, through an independent campaign run by the Republican Attorneys General Association last year.
Mr. Ryan has accused Ms. Bitter smith of a conflict of interest that he says disqualifies her from serving on the ACC. The complaint says that her work as a lobbyist for Cox Communications, another company regulated by the ACC, means that she should never have been allowed to serve as a commissioner.
Ms. Bitter smith claims that she works only for the cable division of Cox, not the telephone division that falls under the ACC’s oversight responsibilities. The AG’s office is tasked with examining the complaint but Ms. Bitter smith has expressed confidence that it will be quickly dismissed.
Mr. Ryan feels otherwise. “none of them deserve our trust,” he said. “we need to get rid of them. we need real people in there that are willing to hold the public service corporations accountable. not one of them in there is doing that right now.”
| Cindy Cole keeps her eye on the ACC and APS. cindycole@live.com
thenoise.us • NOISE arts & news • october 2015 • 17
the newsfeature