Arizona Commission Targets March for Vote on Ethics Code Draft; Commissioners Supportive
The Arizona Corporation Commission plans to vote next month on an ethics code, said Commissioner Boyd Dunn, spearheading the effort. At a webcast workshop Thursday, Dunn and other commissioners discussed proposed modifications to a draft that would create an ethics officer and clarify rules on conflicts of interest and financial disclosure (see 1801020017). Dunn believes commissioners will be able to agree on most provisions "because they make absolute common sense."
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.
Others were supportive, though there was debate about the details and possible changes. It "will be a huge step forward," said Chairman Tom Forese, hailing increased transparency. Commissioner Bob Burns said the draft was a "good start" and approval would be a "tremendous accomplishment." Increasing transparency "is the big win here," though limiting regulators' "interaction" isn't helpful, said Commissioner Andy Tobin. Commissioner Justin Olson, said he's "excited" to participate as a new member and looked forward to voting on an "appropriate" code.
Dunn hopes to release a revised, final draft by Feb. 28, which would be treated as a recommended opinion and order, subject to formal amendments and considered at a March 13-14 commission meeting. "We'll get this finalized and we'll have a code of ethics," he said.
A "meaningful" code must "raise the bar" above the existing statute and rules, Burns said. It should help prevent misconduct, and even the appearance of misconduct, and give residents confidence in the commission's integrity, he said. Burns noted his Jan. 19 letter, which suggested the plan tackle treatment of contributions to commissioner election campaigns, among other things (see 1801220017).
Commissioners discussed a couple of Burns' proposed tweaks, including to expand the draft protection of ACC employees from "unlawful harassment" whether sexual in nature or based on race, color, religion and other attributes protected by law. Dunn noted Burns wanted political party affiliation added. Forese said the proposal looked like "a solution in search of a problem." Burns believes there shouldn't be harassment based on partisan reasons. Commissioners also discussed Burns' proposal to expand what's meant by "corrupt intent," which he said the state attorney general's office believes is difficult to enforce. Dunn isn't necessarily against expanding the definition but is concerned it could make corruption harder to litigate by adding concerns that would have to be proven.
There was much debate over lobbyist registration, regulators' interactions with people seeking to discuss matters before the commission, campaign contributions and enforcement issues. Commissioners appeared to agree on the general intent to provide disclosure of relevant lobbying and contributions, while struggling with some details and voicing concerns about restricting legitimate public input and contact. Some discussion involved whether to extend provisions from commissioners to others. Dunn noted the AG's office and others generally dealt with enforcement of code violations. Forese said the commissioners should be able to discuss alleged violations and censure of regulatory officials, but doubted they could beyond that. "Public hanging has been brought up on occasion," he quipped, saying he doesn't "100 percent" agree with that.