Ethics complaint filed against Rep. Kern

An ethics complaint filed with the Arizona House of Representatives alleges state Rep. Anthony Kern violated the Arizona Constitution when he simultaneously worked as a lawmaker and a Tombstone marshal for about two years.

According to the Constitution, lawmakers cannot hold “any other office or be otherwise employed by the state of Arizona or, any county or incorporated city or town thereof.”

The complaint alleges Kern violated that requirement starting in early 2017, when he became a certified Arizona police officer with the Tombstone Marshal’s Office, where he worked as a reserve marshal.

Kern, R-Glendale, abruptly resigned from his position with the Marshal’s Office in March, but the agency and the lawmaker won’t explain why.

Rebecca Olsen McHood, a progressive political activist, filed the complaint with the House Ethics Committee on Wednesday. She alleges Kern’s “conduct clearly violates the Arizona Constitution.”

“Simply put, a legislator cannot be employed by any incorporated city or town,” McHood wrote in her complaint. “Because Rep. Kern is prohibited from holding any office of profit or trust, by accepting the position of marshal with the city of Tombstone, (he) must be deemed to have vacated the office of state representative.”

Kern brushed off the complaint in a statement Thursday afternoon.

“As part of an effort to remove me as House Rules chair and weaken my political standing, a liberal activist has filed a frivolous and politically motivated ethics complaint against me for volunteering my time in an unpaid position with the Tombstone Marshall’s office,” he said.

“The complaint is unfounded, and I am confident the Ethics Committee will dismiss it.”

Kern didn’t directly address McHood’s legal argument. And House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, declined to comment on the complaint.

Kern resigned from his position with the Marshal’s Office recently, after he came under scrutiny because his name appears on the “Brady List,” a database of law-enforcement officials accused of dishonesty or misconduct.

Kern’s name was added to the database in 2014, after he was fired from a code enforcement officer position with the El Mirage Police Department.

He was fired that year for lying to a supervisor, according to city records. Kern told a supervisor that he was repaying the city for a lost tablet computer when he wasn’t, the records state.

This session, Kern pushed for a bill to let law-enforcement officials like him try to get their names removed from the blacklist. The bill was later amended to remove that provision.

Kern was elected to the Legislature in 2014 and has since risen to powerful posts.

He now serves as chairman of the Committee on Rules and vice chairman of the Committee on Public Safety. Democrats have called on Republican leadership to strip him of those titles.

Kern’s work with Tombstone appears to have been a voluntary post.

Tombstone, a small city famous for its Wild West history, is roughly 200 miles from Kern’s Glendale district. Pictures on social media show Kern worked as a marshal at public events like the State Fair.

Kern’s position with Tombstone allowed him to receive a certification waiver to become a police officer in Arizona. He’d previously claimed to be a certified cop when he wasn’t.

He received that waiver in early 2017 and resigned from the Marshal’s Office sometime last month. His registration as a certified peace officer is now inactive.

Kern’s tenure in El Mirage also has drawn scrutiny over revelations that a female employee accused him of making offensive, sex-based statements to her when he was her supervisor.

The woman filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2010 that alleged Kern discriminated against her and another female subordinate.

“Some examples include but are not limited to, in the later part of 2008, Anthony Kern called me an ‘overtime whore’ and has referred to himself as ‘my daddy’ on many occasions,” the complaint states.

Her complaint was later closed because the EEOC was “unable to conclude,” based on the information it obtained, that federal anti-discrimination laws were violated.