AG investigating leak of ASU report about conservative speaker
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office is investigating whether someone broke the law by leaking an Arizona State University report related to harassment allegations against conservative political commentator Paris Dennard.
The Attorney General’s Office confirmed the investigation and released some public records related to it while withholding other documents due to attorney-client privilege and still others because they involve an “ongoing criminal investigation,” the office’s spokesman, Ryan Anderson, said.
Dennard filed a notice of claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, earlier this year against the Arizona Board of Regents. In the claim, he alleges ASU intentionally released an investigation into misconduct to damage his reputation. He wants $9.9 million to settle the dispute with the school.
Separately, Dennard’s attorney, Timothy La Sota, filed a criminal complaint with the Attorney General’s Office, which is now the subject of an investigation.
La Sota confirmed he was contacted by the Attorney General’s Office as part of the investigation.
Dennard is a conservative commentator who regularly appeared on television to discuss politics. He is a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump.
In August 2018, the Washington Post published a story about Dennard being fired by ASU following an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against him when he was employed by ASU’s McCain Institute for International Leadership.
Dennard was employed by the McCain Institute from 2013 to 2015.
Before the allegations of harassment were publicly reported, he worked as a commentator for CNN, NPR’s “Here and Now” and as a contributing writer for
The Hill. After the allegations were made public, his affiliations with these organizations ended.
What law may have been broken?
La Sota’s complaint involves a state statute that prevents the release of public employees’ confidential information.
La Sota claims whoever released the full report to the Washington Post may have committed a felony. An intentional violation is a class 6 felony, while a negligent violation is a class 1 misdemeanor.
“There can be little debate that a major component of this statute is the protection of private, confidential information, the disclosure of which could be harmful to the persons to whom the information pertains,” La Sota wrote in the notice of claim.
Investigations into misconduct aren’t typically released in full by the university, though parts of an investigation, like determinations and summaries, are subject to public records disclosure laws.
Dennard’s notice of claim alleges someone affiliated with ASU must have leaked the entire document to the Post. It’s not clear from the story how the newspaper obtained the report, or whether ASU played any role in its release. The Arizona Republic has not obtained a copy of the investigation. Through a public records request, The Republic has received a determination letter, which details ASU’s findings from the investigation, and Dennard’s dismissal letter.
ASU cited university policies as preventing the disclosure of other records related to the investigation.
What the investigation found
The investigation by ASU into Dennard’s conduct stemmed from allegations made by two female employees.
In one instance, Dennard allegedly told a subordinate that he wanted to have sex with her and “pretended to unzip his pants in her presence, tried to get her to sit on his lap, and made masturbatory gestures,” according to the Post.
The report also included an allegation that Dennard once touched a female employee’s “neck with his tongue” and came up behind her at a work event and “whispered in her ear that he wanted to ‘f--k’ her,” the Post reported.
The university found Dennard did not violate harassment policies, but did violate employee conduct rules and displayed a “lack of professionalism.” He was fired from his job at the McCain Institute.
La Sota claimed the report was publicly released on a purpose as a way to “smear and harm Mr. Dennard.”
ASU did not respond to a request for comment on the criminal investigation.