Arizona AG Files Petition To Remove Corporation Commissioner
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) seeks to remove Corporation Commissioner Susan Bitter Smith (R) from her position for conflict of interest, after a complaint against her in September. The AG alleges in a petition to the state Supreme Court that Bitter Smith is a registered lobbyist and executive for Southwest Cable Communications Association, an association of cable companies regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), so she's ineligible to hold office. Bitter Smith said she hasn't ever lobbied for a regulated entity nor has she been paid by one. “The complaint was presented to the AG by a Democrat who is connected with a potential Democratic candidate for the commission,” she said in a statement. “There is a policy issue at stake here: How far should conflict of interest rules extend? … The complaint is broad enough to be read to exclude almost anyone from serving the commission or any state office.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Between September and November, Bitter Smith and the AG’s office discussed the complaint and she sat down for an interview with the AG’s office Oct. 7. Oct. 28, Bitter Smith provided a written response to the AG’s office, and then Monday, Brnovich filed a petition for special action in the Arizona Supreme Court. The AG said Bitter Smith receives over $150,000 per year for her association work, on top of her $79,500 salary as a commissioner.
In Arizona, cable TV is regulated by cities and counties at the local level and by the FCC at the federal level, an AG’s office spokeswoman emailed, and those companies' phone service is regulated by the ACC.
The state’s conflict of interest statute says “a person in the employ of, or holding an official relation to a corporation or person subject to regulation by the commission, or a person owning stocks or bonds of a corporation subject to regulation, or a person who is pecuniarily interested therein, shall not be elected, appointed to, or hold the office of commissioner or be appointed or employed by the commission.” The AG’s office doesn’t believe the conflict of interest statute distinguishes between affiliates that have the same parent company. “Under Bitter Smith’s theory, what would stop a large corporation from setting up affiliates to skirt around or avoid Arizona conflict of interest laws?” the spokeswoman said.
Bitter Smith’s conflicts existed at the time of her election in 2012 and continue to exist, so she can't remedy them and must be removed from office, the AG’s office said. The conflict wasn’t known until the complaint was filed because the AG’s office doesn't investigate or check the credentials of every elected official or candidate running for office, the spokeswoman said: “But as in this case, when a conflict of interest complaint is filed with our office, we take it seriously.”
Bitter Smith is the executive director and designated lobbyist for the Southwest Cable Communications Association, the AG petition said. She's also registered as a lobbyist for two affiliates of Cox Communications, it said. The association's other members regulated by the commission are affiliates of Comcast, Suddenlink and Time Warner Cable. Bitter Smith’s salary constitutes 40 percent of SWCCA’s budget, it said. She works as a “CEO” over all of SWCCA's operational aspects and as its designated and only lobbyist, the petition said. SWCCA didn't comment Tuesday.
The AG’s petition on Bitter Smith won't affect commission business and Bitter Smith will continue as a commissioner for now, ACC Executive Director Jodi Jerich said. “It is business as usual,” Jerich said. “There will be no delays in the commission’s deliberations and decision making. All decisions made between now and the court’s ruling are binding.”
The Arizona Supreme Court previously heard at least 10 removal of office proceedings, with two of those cases specifically involving corporation commissioners, the spokeswoman said. Eight of the 10 cases resulted in the court's removing the public official from office, she said.