201 East Washington Street, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004?232?
Telephone: 602.240.3000 Fax: 602.240.6800 

Craig A. Morgan

Lindsay H. S. Hesketh

Sherman Howard L.L.C.

Direct: 602.240.3062

E-mail: cmorgan@shermanlloward.com
lhesketh@shermanhoward.com

.D. Mesnard

Speaker of the House

1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Dear Mr. Speaker:

The Arizona House of Representatives (the ?House?) retained the law ?rm of Sherman 
Howard L.L.C.~~through its attorneys Craig A. Morgan and Lindsay H. S. Hesketh?-as independent
special counsel to: (I) investigate allegations of harassment and inappropriate conduct involving
Representative Don Shooter (R, District 13) and Representative Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R, District
23)1; and (2) report our ?ndings and conclusions concerning whether those allegations are true,
and if so, whether they violated the House?s expansive Policy On Workplace Harassment (the
?Policy?).

This is our Report.2

 

I Mr. Shooter asked the Speaker of the House to commission this investigation. Some allegations
of misconduct concern Mr. Shooter?s conduct while he served as a State Senator (2011-2016).
Others concern allegations of misconduct while he served as a State Representative (2017?present).
We will indicate his position where appropriate. As for Ms. Ugenti-Rita, her status as a legislator
has thus far only been in her capacity as a State Representative (2011-present).

2 We have changed the names of some of the individuals included in this Report to honor their
requested privacy. This should not be understood to diminish the veracity of those individuals.

 

I. OUR ROLE AND THE SCOPE OF OUR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT.

At the outset, it is important that we clarify (1) our role as special counsel and (2) what this
investigation is and what it is not.

We were charged with:

(1) Investigating allegations of harassment or other inappropriate behavior made
against Mr. Shooter, some in his capacity as a Senator, and others in his capacity
as a Representative;

(2) Investigating allegations of harassment or other inappropriate behavior made
against Ms. Ugenti-Rita; and

(3) Determining whether any of those allegations have merit, and if so, whether the
actions giving rise to the allegations violated the Policy.

This investigation was not a ?fishing expedition?, nor a means to gather information to
substantiate a predetermined outcome. We started with the universe of allegations supplied to us
from our client (many of which were reported in the press), and then set out in search of the truth.
Our goal was simple: to determine, as best we can, what happened, if anything, and whether it
violated the Policy.

That said, as the investigation unfolded, we were presented with additional allegations of
misconduct against both Mr. Shooter and Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Some of those additional allegations
came from accusers who had not yet spoken on the record with the media. Some of those
additional allegations came from accusers who already had gone public with other allegations,
which already were the subject of this investigation. We investigated, as prudent and a?er
consultation with our client, all allegations reported to as that appeared to be supported by someone
with personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct, or other veri?able evidence--as opposed to
someone merely reporting hearsay or an ?anonymous tip?, in which case we would instruct the
secondary source of the information to place us in contact with the primary source of the
information, which sometimes occurred and sometimes did not. In the latter cases, our inquiry
would end.

Finally, we were not charged with recommending what action, if any, the Speaker of the House,
or its Members, can or should take in response to our ?ndings. That is a task left to the House and
its Members.

II. THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM AND PROCESS.

A brief discussion about the investigative process itself is helpful to understand how we made
our findings and reached our conclusions.

Sherman Howard attorneys Craig A. Morgan and Lindsay H. S. Hesketh led the
investigation. We were assisted, at times, by other attorneys and staff from Sherman Howard.
We reported to, and received direction and support from, members of the House?s bipartisan
special investigation team, whom the Speaker selected to initially investigate these matters before

retaining Sherman Howard as special counsel.3

Suffice it to say, we cannot ignore the current paradigm in many social power structures
(gender, sexual, racial, and others) that has been in place and tolerated--often blindly and without
reason--for far too long. That inevitable social seismic shift, however, had no bearing on how we
conducted our investigation or our ultimate ?ndings and conclusions. Our investigation was
guided not by politics, populist sentiment, or press coverage--but by fairness, accuracy,
thoroughness, professionalism, and respect. Throughout our investigation, we called things how
we saw them, using our best judgment in light of the facts and circumstances before us. Rumors
had no place in this investigation, and we found ourselves constantly having to identify and
separate rumor from fact, given what we very quickly discovered to be a deep-rooted culture of
rumor and innuendo fostered by many (although by no means all) of those who participate or
meddle in capitol affairs.

The investigation consisted mainly of reviewing publicly available information,
(2) reviewing of information not otherwise publicly available, and (3) conducting multiple (and in
several cases, interviews with over 40 individuals, some of whom were interviewed more
than once.

The substantial majority of the interviews occurred and were attended, at minimum,
by Mr. Morgan and Ms. Hesketh. Sometimes logistics, happenstance, geographical restraints, or
simple prudence required an interview to occur telephonically, and/or with just one of us present
(the latter being a very rare occurrence). We did not digitally record any of the interviews, and
none occurred under oath. We did everything we could to accommodate every interviewee and
make the interview as comfortable as possible.

We carefully scrutinized and analyzed all interview testimony and whatever documentary
information we received. We used our judgment, in light of the facts and circumstances revealed
through the investigative process, to cull the reliable from the unreliable and the trustworthy from
the untrustworthy. We followed up and sought additional information from those we believed
would provide helpful information or insight, whenever we thought doing so would be prudent.

While we refused to engage those who proffered nothing more than bald rumor .or innuendo,
we generally erred on the side of caution and pursued investigation when those who presented
what appeared to be relevant information also provided us with a source who could potentially
verify the information through ?rsthand knowledge (as opposed to through hearsay) suf?cient to
corroborate or discredit the information we received. We took care to give everyone we spoke
with every opportunity to (1) tell ?their side of the story? as fully and completely as they desired,
and (2) convey whatever information the person considered 

 

3 These men and women worked tirelessly for the People of Arizona and the House, at all hours
and every day, while juggling a vast array of personal and professional responsibilities-ell to
ensure the integrity, fairness, and accuracy of this investigation. This was not necessarily ?their
job?, but they did it well and without complaint. It is important to note that this group did not
attempt to in?uence the outcome of this investigation (and did not do so). They were concerned
only with enabling us to determine the truth, with as minimal disruption to the House?s business
as possible. It cannot be overemphasized how proud the Speaker, House, its other Members, and
their constituents should be of this group of dedicated public servants who wanted so much to just
?do the right thing? by everyone involved or potentially affected by this process. Their assistance
to us. was invaluable.

 THE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY AGAINST HARASSMENT AND
GENERAL PROHIBITION OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Disorderly conduct by Members of the House is prohibited. See AriZ. Const. art. IV, pt. 2
11; Rules of the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, Rule 1. The Policy is an
extension of that prohibition.

The Policy intentionally prohibits a very expansive array of conduct (1) by employees or
Members of the House and (2) against other employees or Members of the House, or those who
appear or have business before the House g, lobbyists, the press, or even the public). In that
regard, the Policy states:

?The House will not permit conduct that includes, but is not limited to, the
following:

Discrimination: Unequal and unlawful treatment of an individual, or unwelcome,
verbal, written, physical conduct, or electronic communication that either degrades
or shows hostility or aversion towards a person, arising because of that person?s
inclusion in one of the categories protected by state or federal civil rights laws. 

Sexual Harassment: Sexual discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and/or the protections in state statute, title 41, chapter 9, Arizona
Revised Statutes. Sexual harassment can take different forms:

(1) Umwlcome sexual advances or suggestions, demands, or requests for
sexual favors, or other verbal or harassment that is inherently
sexual 1n nature;

(2) Offensive remarks about a person?s gender;

(3) Quid pro quo sexual harassment is the promise of advancement or
some bene?t in exchange for sexual favors.

Hostile Work Environment: An environment that a reasonable person would consider
hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object of the harassment perceives it to be

hostile or abusive. A hostile work environment is determined by looking at all of the
circumstances including, but not limited to:

The frequency of the alleged harassing conduct;
(2) The severity of the alleged harassing conduct;

(3) Whether the alleged harassing conduct was physically threatening or
humiliating; and

(4) Whether the alleged harassing conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an employee?s work performance or

 

4 For example, state and federal laws (1) prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, and genetic test results, and (2) prohibit
an employer from taking adverse employment action against employees who enforce their legal
rights, or support someone else choosing to enforce legal rights.

4

creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.

Retaliation: Any act of reprisal, interference, restraint, penalty, discrimination,
1nt1midat10n, or harassment agalnst an or 1nd1v1duals exercismg rights under
this policy.

Quite simply, the House policy with regard of the above conduct will always be
one of zero tolerance.? (some emphasis added)

The expansiveness of the Policy is intentional and that cannot be overemphasized. The House
has had a long-standing anti-harassment policy. The Policy is the most current written version of
that long?standing policy and was commissioned by the current Speaker of the House with, among
other things, the express intention to clarify the existing policy and its expansiveness.?5 Moreover,
by its plain language, the Policy encompasses a very wide array of conduct and is meant to be
more restrictive and prohibitive than the law would be in a judicial or administrative settinguall
so as to enable the House and its Speaker the wide latitude necessary to make the House the safe
and inviting workplace and institution Arizona deserves? For example, the Policy is a ?zero
tolerance? policy prohibiting harassing ?conduct that includes, but is not limited to? the examples
provided in the Policy. (emphasis added) In that regard, the Policy is not the same as, and is not
necessarily informed by or subject to, legal or other standards applicable in a lawsuit or
administrative proceeding involving workplace or other harassment. The Policy is self-contained
and governs conduct involving employees or Members of the House, or those who appear or have
business before the House. What one might have to prove to establish, or to overcome, an
allegation of harassment or workplace misconduct in a court or administrative proceeding is not
necessarily applicable with regard to the Policy. his is an inniortant distinction. Nor do the
factors courts or other tribunals consider at when evaluating claims of workplace harassment or
other misconduct necessarily matter for purposes of determining whether there has been a violation
of the House?s Policy. That said, the Policy references some ?legal? concepts that play a role in a
judicial or administrative setting, and which one might consider when evaluating whether a
violation of the Policy has occurred.

 

5 Policy, effective as of November 201 7 (the start of this investigation) and provided previously to
the Members of the House. The Policy has since been amended to include a new complaint form
and admonition that ?No harassment for any reason will be tolerated.?

6 See Rules of the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, Rule (?All House
employees shall be under the immediate direction of the Speaker of the House (?The
Speaker shall preserve order and decorum Speaker shall have the general control
of the House Chamber and the corridors, passages and committee, hearing and staff rooms of the
House of Representatives and all other matters which pertain to the House of Representatives
building and related parking lots?).

7 The Policy and its procedures, while more restrictive than the law, are consistent with policies
found reasonable by courts and the policy of encouraging effective internal policies and
grievance mechanisms. See 29 C.F.R. 1604.1 1(f) (?Prevention is the best tool for the elimination
of sexual harassment. An employer should take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment
from occurring, (emphasis added); Burlington Indus, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US. 742, 764 (1998)
(?Title VII is designed to encourage the creation of antiharassment policies and effective grievance
mechanisms?); Cross v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack Casino, Inc, 615 F.3d 977, 982 (8th Cir.
2010) (?Employers are free to draft harassment policies that are more stringent than Title VII, and
they should be permitted to do so it?lthle fear that they will incur additional liability as a result of
their efforts?) (emphasis added); of Oliver v. Microso? Corp, 966 F. Supp. 2d 889, 896 (N .D.
Cal. 2013) (defendant?s internal investigation revealing it had violated its internal policies did not
evidence that the company necessarily violated the law where its policies were more restrictive).

5

The Policy has no time limitations during which a complaint must be made (saga, a statute of
limitations). The Policy does not restrict itself to conduct that occurred while the Member or
employee accused of violating the Policy served as a Member or employee of the House. For
example, if a complaint is made against a Member or employee for alleged conduct while that
Member or employee served in the Senate, then the Policy empowers the House to investigate that
claim and determine whether a violation of the Policy occurred, and if so, any appropriate remedial
action.

In short, (1) the Policy?s scope of prohibited conduct is generally much more expansive than
what the law (in a judicial or administrative setting), or other similar policies, might provide, and
(2) except to the extent (if any) expiessly Incorporated into the Policy, the standards of proof or
presumptions one would encounter in a judicial or administrative setting are not applicable when
evaluating whether a violation of the Policy occurred Accordingly, the investigation was
conducted in light of the House?s very expansive zero tolerance Policy, as opposed to whether
someone might be able to state and prove a claim for workplace harassment, discrimination, or
hostile work environment in a court or administrative proceeding.

IV. A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF SPECIAL FINDINGS.

We investigated two categories of allegations: those made against Mr. Shooter and those made
against Ms. Ugenti?Rita. In short, we have concluded:

1. There is credible evidence that Mr. Shooter has violated the Policy, and (ii) by his
repeated pervasive conduct has created a hostile working environment for his colleagues and those
with business before the Legislature. That said, as the Report reveals below, not all of the
allegations against Mr. Shooter are supported by independent credible evidence (such as
allegations that he inappropriately physically touched a lobbyist at a bar, or made an obscene

sexualized gesture to a lobbyist at an event).

2. There is no independent, credible evidence that Ms. Ugenti-Rita violated the Policy.

The remainder of this Report details our ?ndings and conclusions--witness by witness and
document by document?~with regard to the allegations we investigated.

V. SPECIAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
1. Ms. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. SHOOTER.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita made several public allegations against Mr. Shooter and made additional
allegations during her interview on November 29, 2017. We will address each of these allegations.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MS. AND MR. SHOOTER.

Because many of the allegations Ms. genti-Rita made against Mr. Shooter were not witnessed
by others, their relationship became relevant to our analysis of, among other things, credibility and
whether the Policy was violated.

MS. Ugenti~Rita and Mr. Shooter were both elected in 2010 and sworn into their respective
positions during the 201 1 session. She informed us that she and Mr. Shooter became familiar with
one another through casual encounters, including work events, orientation for new legislators, and
other group gatherings involving legislators.

In the beginning, Ms. Ugenti~Rita believed Mr. Shooter was a ?boisterous, overly friendly guy?
and a ?character?. She stated that they had no real reason to engage with one another, beyond
pleasantries, because they were in different chambers (she in the House, and at that time, he in the
Senate). Ms. Ugenti-Rita noted that she believed Mr. Shooter was a ?pervy old man? but told us
that she did not think he would shy away from that characterization. While being interviewed
about specific allegations discussed in this Report, certain individuals-?including Gretchen Jacobs,
Representative Regina Cobb, Brett Mecum, and Senator Karen Fannualso described Mr. Shooter
using terms such as ?a character?, ??irtatious?, and ?class clown?. They also noted that Mr.
Shooter was known for making off-color comments and engaging in sexually suggestive banter
with friends. Mr. Shooter acknowledged similar characteristics in himself when he wrote a letter
to all Republic an Representatives in 2016 during his run for Speaker, in which he promised to ?cut
back on the beer and jokes out of respect for the of?ce and the institution?. Similarly, Ms. Jacobs
and former Representative David Stevens informed us that Ms. Ugenti-Rita had a general
reputation for having a sense of humor laced with sexual overtones and engaging in banter with
her colleagues?at least during her ?rst two years at the Legislature. Our independent research of
publicly available information corroborated these opinions. For example, during a recorded House
Government Committee session in 2012, a Representative stated, ?Michelle, I have a hot date
tonight.? Ms. Ugenti-Rita responded, ?No, you don?t; stop it. Your right hand doesn?t count.?
This is one public example of the type of banter others believe Ms. Ugenti?Rita engaged in
regularly with her colleagues.8

Ms. Ugenti-Rita stated that when she and Mr. Shooter were new to the Legislature, he took an
obvious interest in her right away. He would make comments to her such as, ?You?re beautiful
today?, ?Mmm, that?s a good?looking skirt?, or ?Michelle, you?re making it hard to concentrate?.
She recounted that he often commented on her clothing and personal appearance almost
immediately upon seeing her. Mr. Shooter would also immediately try to engage her in
conversation at events. Ms. Ugenti?Rita stated that this type of attention was tolerable in the
beginning but became much more intense during the 2011 session. Ms. Ugenti-Rita conveyed to
us that she perceived her and Mr. Shooter as being professional acquaintances but nothing more.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita told us that she and Mr. Shooter were in a ?liberty caucus? comprised of

 

3 Our reference to Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s sense of humor or actions toward others is not intended in
any way to suggest she invited or is deserving of any harassment from anyone. However, her
sense of humor and past actions are relevant to the credibility of her statements in which she told
us she felt subjectively harassed. We will discuss this more below as relevant.

7

legislators who would attend meetings (in a legislator?s office, among other locations). She told
us that she stopped attending these meetings in legislative offices after a while to avoid being in
close proximity with Mr. Shooter.

We presented Mr. Shooter with an overview of Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s description of his behavior
toward her and her perception of their relationship. Mr. Shooter admitted to making comments
about her appearance and explained that he made those comments because he intended them to be
compliments. Mr. Shooter noted that he makes similar comments about physical appearance, such
as clothing choices, to other legislators (men and women), and other people generally, which he
also intends as compliments. In this respect, he told us that he did not treat Ms. Ugenti?Rita
differently than he treats others. He also explained that although he will tell people they look nice,
it does not mean he wants to ?bed? them, and he does not interpret others? compliments toward
him to mean those persons want to have sex with him. Although Ms. Ugenti?Rita informed us that
she and Mr. Shooter were nothing more than colleagues, Mr. Shooter?s recollection was
substantially different. He recalled that when they were both new to the Legislature, he and Ms.
Ugenti~Rita were part of a group of new legislators who would go out for drinks after work and
socialize casually. Mr. Shooter recalled liking Ms. Ugenti~Rita (as a friend and colleague) because
she was smart, and he believed she was ?brave? for running for of?ce. Mr. Shooter told us that he
and Ms. Ugenti?Rita were good friends after the 2010 election and into the 201 1 session. He stated
that she confided in him about personal matters, such as her marriage. He also stated that Ms.
Ugenti-Rita would regularly engage in banter with him and the other members of their social
group, including jokes with sexual overtones. When asked about the liberty caucus, Mr. Shooter
explained that the caucus contained a group of like?minded legislators who would meet, have
pizza, and discuss business matters. He stated that some of the Members of this group would
typically go out for drinks after their meetings. He also stated that Ms. Ugenti-Rita would attend
both the business and, at times, the social gatherings. While explaining his perception of their
relationship, Mr. Shooter alleged that Ms. Ugenti?Rita asked him if he wanted to ?do cocaine?
sometime around 2012. Mr. Shooter said he declined. Ms. Ugenti~Rita adamantly denied ever
doing cocaine or asking Mr. Shooter to do 30.9

Mr. Shooter recalled that this friendship waned at some point during the middle of the 2011
session. He told us that he did not know why, but Ms. Ugenti?Rita suddenly went ?dark? and
stopped communicating with him in the same way as before. This behavior is consistent with Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s recollection of her feelings and actions toward him?41a, that she began to passively
avoid him during the 2011 session. Although their friendship began to dissipate, interview
testimony from others demonstrates that Mr. Shooter and Ms. Ugenti~Rita still remained friendly
through the summer of 2011.

In an effort to obtain a complete understanding of the relationship between Mr. Shooter and
Ms. Ugenti-Rita, we asked other interviewees whether they ever had observed the two legislators
interact. Very few could recall witnessing any memorable interactions between them. Of those
who could, they did not recount overtly negative interactions. Ms. Jacobs saw Ms. Ugenti-Rita
looking upset when Mr. Shooter disengaged from conversation with her at a Legislative event
during 2011. Interviewee I remembered seeing (1) Ms. Ugenti-Rita, Mr. Shooter, and David
Stevens having drinks one night after work during the summer of 201 1, and (2) all three legislators
laughing, talking, and having a good time. David Stevens recalled this as well and believed

 

9 To be clear, we do not conclude one way or the other that Ms. Ugenti~Rita ever made that request
or has ever done illegal drugs of any kind. Indeed, when asked if there were others who would be
able to corroborate this allegation, Mr. Shooter would not provide any additional information. We
merely convey this as uncorroborated information that Mr. Shooter provided in support of his
apparent perception of (1) their relationship (perhaps as being more than mere professional
acquaintances) or (2) her possible perception of him (as more of a friend).

8

everyone had a good time. David Stevens also stated that he would characterize Ms. Ugenti?Rita
and Mr. Shooter as being ?personal friends? at that point in time. David Stevens, who also was a
member of the liberty caucus, stated that after the business portion of the meetings, some members
would go out for a drink afterward to socialize. David Stevens said that he and Mr. Shooter would
?always? do so and recalled that Ms. Ugenti~Rita would go sometimes during 2011 and 2012.

We also interviewed Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s eX?husband, Frank Ugenti, concerning his knowledge
of her allegations and her relationship with Mr. Shooter. Mr. Ugenti informed us that he believed
Mr. Shooter would make unprofessional comments to Ms. Ugenti-Rita and others. He also
informed us that he and Ms. Ugenti-Rita would strategize about how she should handle Mr.
Shooter?s comments toward her, suggesting most or all of Mr. Shooter?s conduct was unwelcome.
While Mr. Ugenti?s statements corroborate certain information, we note that he appears to have
(1) had a protective, and perhaps reactionary attitude when it came to Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s
relationship with some of her colleagues at the Legislature, and (2) a bias in favor of Ms. Ugenti?
Rita. For example, he informed us that there wele many times Ms. Ugenti-Rita had to stop him
from conflonting M1. Shooter and potentially ?dropping him?. Similarly, there were several
allegations against M1. Shooter that Mr. Ugenti did not 1ecall, in response to which he informed
us that Ms. Ugenti-Rita ?probably knew better? than to tell him, because it would have caused him
to find Mr. Shooter and confront him verbally and physically. Based on Mr. Ugenti?s description
of his actual and potential reactions to certain alleged conduct, we find it likely that Ms. Ugenti?
Rita may not have been completely open with Mr. Ugenti about her friendship and interactions
with Mr. Shooter out of concern that Mr. Ugenti would react in a manner Ms. Ugenti-Rita might
have preferred to avoid.

Ultimately, we ?nd that Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter had some type of personal
friendship, beyond professional formalities, after they were elected in 2010 and during at least part
of the 2011 session. While their friendship may not have been as strong as Mr. Shooter perceived,
it was likely not as inconsequential as Ms. Ugenti-Rita described. Others observed reciprocal
interactions between the two legislators beyond professional formalities including David Stevens,
Mr. Mecum, and Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Cobb, Ms. Fann, Mr. Mecum, and Ms. Jacobs also informed us
that Mr. Shooter makes routine ?irtatious comments and jokes but usually (not always; only
among friends (or persons he perceives as f1iends)--not strangers o1 limited acquaintances. This
furthe1 supports a conclusion that Mr. Shooter and Ms. Ugenti- -Rita maintained a personal
?iendship of some kind, at least du1ing 2010 and fo1 part of 2011.

Ms. ALLEGED CONFIDING IN HER Now FIANCE BRIAN


Ms. Ugenti-Rita believed she told Brian Townsend about most, if not all, of her alleged
encounte1s with M1. Shooter. 2 With respect to M1. Townsend?s recollection of whether Ms.
Ugenti-Rita told him about the incidents outlined in this Report, we believe he lacks credibility.

We identi?ed several inconsistencies in Mr. Townsend?s testimony concerning Ms. Ugenti-

 

10 This statement does not mean Mr. Shooter does not make comments about strangers?
appearances, but testimony from other interviewees indicates that if Mr. Shooter makes comments
about strangers or persons he does not know well, he tends to communicate these types of
comments to friends rather than the subject directly.

11 To be clear, again, our conclusion concerning the legislators? relationship does not suggest that
Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s specific allegations against Mr. Shooter were invited or welcomed or
appropriate in any manner. This background informs the subjective perspectives of both Ms.
Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter and provides context for some of the alleged incidents set forth below.

12 Mr. Townsend was a House staff member at the time of many of these alleged incidents.

9

Rita?s allegations against Mr. Shooter. For example, when asked whether he and Ms. Ugenti?Rita
spoke about her going public with her allegations of harassment beforehand, Mr. Townsend denied
it. When pressed, Mr. Townsend admitted that they had discussed whether Ms. Ugenti-Rita should
do so and go to the press. We asked Mr. Townsend for any speci?c topics they spoke about, but
he insisted they simply spoke about possible ?rami?cations? generally and denied that they
considered speci?c rami?cations. We ?nd this unbelievable, if for no other reason, than it seems
nearly impossible to discuss ?rami?cations? without any measure of specificity--other than to say
?there may be rami?cations?, which was not the implication we received from Mr. Townsend
when he ?nally confessed that possible rami?cations had been discussed. Given the amount of
detail Mr. Townsend had about other incidents in this Report and his admitted involvement in Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s preparation for her interviews with us (discussed below), we ?nd it highly unlikely
that he and Ms. Ugenti-Rita did not discuss speci?c possible consequences that could result from
her decision to make public allegations against legislators.

In addition, we believe Mr. Townsend consulted with Ms. Ugenti?Rita concerning the details
he and Ms. Ugenti?Rita intended to disclose to us before we interviewed either of them. Ms.
Ugenti-Rita prepared a list summarizing all of the alleged incidents for our initial interview. While
Mr. Townsend told us he had never seen this complete list, he later admitted that he had spoken
with Ms. Ugenti-Rita about all of the listed incidents while she was forming the list. When asked
whether he could remember Ms. Ugenti?Rita telling him about other incidents, Mr. Townsend
could not recall any. Further, when asked if he could remember how the alleged incidents made
Ms. Ugenti?Rita feel at the time they occurred, or what happened, as conveyed by her to him, Mr.
Townsend referred us to the list as opposed to stating, in his words, what he was allegedly told.
Put differently, he directed us to consult what Ms. Ugenti?Rita had written. We ?nd it likely that
Mr. Townsend had been coached before his interview, or if not, then he refused to be candid by,
among other things, not sharing his personal recollection of events conveyed to him, and instead
directing us to Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s prepared notes. Thus, and in light of certain actions he committed
.which are discussed below, we do not ?nd that Mr. Townsend?s claimed recollection of any of the
allegations against Mr. Shooter, as conveyed to him by anyone to be a credible source of
independent evidence corroborating Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s allegations. 15

Accordingly, in light of this background, we will address Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s speci?c allegations
against Mr. Shooter.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 1: THE LIBERTY CAUCUS 
On MARCH 2011.

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Around February or March 2011, Ms. Ugenti-Rita attended a liberty caucus meeting in a
lobbyist?s of?ce. Before the meeting began, she informed other attendees that she could not stay
long because she had to leave to breastfeed her infant child. After her comment, Ms. Ugenti-Rita
recalled Mr. Shooter stating: ?That?s one lucky baby. I wish I was that ba Ms. Ugenti~Rita
stated that she did not laugh but gave him a dirty look. She felt belittled, isolated, and harassed.
Ms. Ugenti?Rita noted that other members of the liberty caucus may have been in the same room
at the time, but she did not know if anyone else heard the comment.

 

?3 In addition to Brian Townsend, Ms. Ugenti?Rita told us that she reported Mr. Shooter?s conduct
to former Speaker Andy Tobin. We contacted Mr. Tobin about that, and he could not recall Ms.
Ugenti?Rita ever reporting conduct by Mr. Shooter.

10

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter could not recall making this speci?c commentdeny
making it, but stated that if he had made it, it would have been in response to Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s
initial banter. Mr. Shooter stated that when Ms. Ugenti-Rita would bring up the subject of
breastfeeding, she would typically make a gesture in the form of holding her hands, open-palmed,
next to the sides of her chest (palms opened toward either side of her chest) and move her hands
up and down while talking about breastfeeding. Mr. Shooter thought it was likely she
made this same gesture when she announced at the liberty caucus meeting that she would need to
leave early to breastfeed, which prompted him to respond with his comment.14 Although we could
not corroborate this gesture being made at this specific liberty caucus meeting, David Stevens
recalled another time he saw Ms. Ugenti~Rita make a similar hand motion while speaking to
another legislator at a dt'?erenf event.

DAVID RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita stated that she thought David Stevens may have attended this meeting, so we
contacted him.

David Stevens told us that he was likely at this meeting, and if Ms. Ugenti?Rita made a
comment about nursing, he would not have thought much about it. When asked about Mr.
Shooter?s comment, David Stevens did not recall it, but stated that a comment like that would have

stood out to him.
(iv) CONCLUSION.

We find that this incident likely occurred, given Mr. Shooter?s acknowledgment that it sounded
like something he would have said. Based on the totality of the evidence, however, we do not ?nd
that Ms. Ugenti-Rita was subjectively offended and felt harassed by Mr. Shooter?s comment. Their
observed friendship of {his time (which appears to have included this type of and
her demonstrated reputation for engaging in this type of banter, undermine her stated recollection
of her feelings in early 201 1.

While we found Ms. Ugenti~Rita generally credible, facts we discovered during our
investigation suggest that her current memory of her feelings and reactions to certain past conduct
may be clouded by her more recent feelings toward Mr. Shoote1?--rnainly disdain and dislike. For
example, Ms. UgentinRita unequivocally denied having any relationship of any kind with Mr.
Shooter beyond professional salutations. While this statement supports her position that his
conduct was never welcome, others observed the two legislators getting along, socializing as
friends after?hours, and engaging in off-color banter at or around the timeframe during which this
incident occurred. That evidence demonstrates that a personal friendship and comfort?level existed
between the legislators, making it dif?cult to conclude that, in early 2011, the alleged conduct (as
improper, off-color, and offensive as it may be to others) was unwelcome. Based on our
understanding, their relationship at the time was a personal friendship outside of the con?nes of
the Legislature, which likely included suggestive joking. We do not ?nd that a reasonable person
would find that Mr. Shooter?s comment was unwelcome (at least not at the time). Thus, this
alleged conduct did not violate the Policy.

 

?4 Ms. Ugenti-Rita denied ever making the gesture.

ll

 ALLEGED INCIDENT N0. 2: THE RESTAURANT RAFFLE-JUNE 2011.
MS. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita informed us that, in celebration of her birthday in June of 2011 or 2012,15 she
and some other legislators went to a restaurant in Old Town Scottsdale to celebrate. The date of
this dinner was sometime during the workweek and not on her actual birthday. Ms. Ugenti?Rita
recalled that the restaurant was hosting a raf?e for which the prize was a beach cruiser bicycle.

During our initial interview, Ms. Ugenti?Rita stated that, as the dinner was wrapping up, Mr.
Shooter presented her with the beach cruiser (seemingly out of nowhere), while everyone was
getting ready to leave, and told her it was her birthday present. When asked how he got the bike,
he said something like, ?1 have my ways.? Ms. Ugenti?Rita was relatively adamant that no one in
her party participated in the raf?e or even seemed to be paying attention to it. She recalled seeing
Mr. Shooter talking to someone at the raf?e booth at some point during the night but did not know
or inquire why. It did not seem important to her at the time.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita recalled displaying shock and confusion, and not any type of pleasure. She
was caught off guard and did not understand why Mr. Shooter was giving her a bicycle. She felt
like she was put on the spot, trapped, and did not want to ruin her other colleagues? time at the
event. She was not happy about receiving the bike but remembered eventually talking logistics
about how to get the bike home. Ms. Ugenti-Rita still has the bike, which is kept at her parents?
house, but it is missing its seat. She told us that she did not use the bike but saved it as a form of
evidence of Mr. Shooter?s conduct in case it worsened. Ms. Ugenti?Rita believed (and still
believes) Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate and unwelcome.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter remembered this event and the bicycle. He stated that he believed he and Ms.
Ugenti-Rita were still friends (though not as close as earlier that year or in 2010), and he bought
the bicycle at the raf?e to give to her as a birthday gift. He explained that he routinely buys
birthday gifts for his friends. Mr. Shooter said that he paid for the cost of the bicycle and presented
Ms. Ugenti~Rita with the ?winning? raf?e ticket. Her raf?e ticket number was called, and she won
the bicycle.

Mr. Shooter told us that Ms. Ugenti~Rita thanked him for the bicycle after that night and that
she told him she had used the bicycle at the beach during the week after the event. He stated that
he remembered gifting her the beach cruiser because she had told him she was going to the beach.
During a follow?up interview, Ms. Ugenti-Rita denied that she had ever used the bicycle at the
beach, and denied thanking him for the bicycle after that night.

ANOTHER RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

We spoke with lnterviewee 1, who attended this dinner for a short period of time. lnterviewee
recalled that all dinner attendees were in pleasant moods, joking, and laughing. lnterviewee 1
also remembered that the attendees were discussing a raffle and a bicycle, but could not remember
speci?cs. Interviewee 1 left the dinner early, after staying for about an hour. Interviewee 1 never
saw the bicycle.

At some point after this dinner, possibly the next day, Interviewee I asked Ms. Ugenti-Rita

 

?5 Ms. Ugenti-Rita could not recall whether this dinner took place in 201 1 or 2012. lnterviewee 1,
an attendee, believed it was June 2011.

12

about the bicycle and recalled her saying that she had to go back and pick up the bike. Interviewee
1 stated that Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s comment about having to pick up the bike was benign and did not
cause Interviewee 1 think much about it at the time. Interviewee 1 did not recall Ms. Ugenti-Rita
appearing particularly angry or happy about the bicycle--the conversation was not colored by any
memorable emotion.

(iv) DAVID RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

David Stevens also attended the event. David Stevens believed that Ms. Ugenti?Rita invited
Mr. Shooter to the event, but he did not witness her do it. David Stevens based his belief on the
fact that Ms. Ugenti-Rita had invited him.

David Stevens recalled the group having a good time. He remembered Mr. Shooter presenting
Ms. Ugenti-Rita with the bicycle as a birthday present and her thanking Mr. Shooter for the gift.
David Stevens also recalled that Ms. Ugenti-Rita mentioned that she could use it with her children.
David Stevens remembered that Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s ex?husband drove to the restaurant to pick up
her and the bike. Overall, by David Stevens? account, Ms. Ugenti?Rita appeared to appreciate the
gift.

FRANK RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

Mr. Ugenti recalled that he did not attend the event but believed he had to drive back to
pick up the bicycle. He stated that he thought the gift was strange but did not think too much ab out
it at the time.

Mr. Ugenti also stated that Ms. Ugenti-Rita and their children used the bicycle.
(vi) CONCLUSION.

This incident occurred. However, we received two versions of how Mr. Shooter presented the
bicycle and the aftermath. Each account colors the narrative differently.

We followed up with Ms. Ugenti?Rita about this incident, including the raf?e ticket. She could
not recall whether Mr. Shooter gave her a raf?e ticket but did not deny it. This varied from the
way she initially conveyed this incident to us. When asked if she went back to pick up the bicycle,
she stated that she believed her then-husband (who did not attend the event) picked her and the
bicycle up at the restaurant. This reconciles with Interviewee 1?s recollection in that someone, on
Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s behalf, had to make an otherwise unplanned trip to the restaurant to pick up the
bicycle. This alone raises the question: If this was such an offensive and unwelcome gesture, then
why go through the trouble of accepting the gift, let alone coordinating the logistics to get the gift
home? That Ms. Ugenti?Rita went through the effort of retrieving the gift, and it appears by
multiple accounts she welcomed it openly and without apparent hesitation, lends credence to Mr.
Shooter?s version of events.

Similar to Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s signi?cantly understated description of her and Mr. Shooter?s
friendship, at least during 2010 and part of 201 1, her initial account of this event and her subjective
feelings seemed exaggerated and intended to villainize Mr. Shooter?s actions, which were
seemingly friendly at the time. We reach this conclusion based on the inconsistencies during Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s initial interview and follow-up interview, and our interview with Mr. Ugenti.
During our initial interview with her, Ms. Ugenti?Rita told us that Mr. Shooter presented this
bicycle to her out of nowhere, completely unexpected, and that no one in her party participated in
or even paid attention to the restaurant?s raf?e. Mr. Shooter then allegedly bombarded Ms. Ugenti-
Rita with this bicycle while everyone was getting ready to leave. Yet during our follow~up
interview, Ms. Ugenti-Rita conceded that Mr. Shooter may have given her a raf?e ticket that would

13

be announced as the winning ticket, which at minimum paints a somewhat different picture in
which Ms. Ugenti?Rita would not have been surprisingly confronted with the bicycle while
leaving, but would have actually had advance notice that her raf?e ticket would be called.
lnterviewee 1?s and David Stevens? recollections also support this second scenario. Moreover,
while Ms. Ugenti-Rita claimed that she made a point not to appear grateful and did not use the
bicycle, David Stevens remembered Ms. Ugenti-Rita thanking Mr. Shooter and going one step
further by noting that her children would enjoy the bicycle (and they seemingly did according to
Mr. Ugenti).

Based on all of this, we question (1) Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s present recollection of her feelings
and (ii) her reaction at the time this incident occurred, and (2) the veracity of her statements about
Mr. Shooter?s actions and intentions at the time.

Based on the foregoing, we ?nd that Mr. Shooter?s account of this incident is likely more
accurate. Neither Interviewee 1_nor David Stevens recalled any negative, tense, or similarly
uncomfortable exchange between Mr. Shooter and Ms. UgentiuRita during or after the bicycle
incident occurred. lnterviewee I recalled everyone talking about the bicycle as a subject of
conversation and not in any particularly negative way. Were it otherwise, one would think such
negativity would have stuck out in lnterviewee 1?s recollection. Indeed, even Ms. Ugenti-Rita
admits that she was not outwardly hostile.?6 Overall, had this gesture been as immensely
unwelcome as Ms. Ugenti-Rita described, we find it unlikely that she would have acted as reported
by others, let alone coordinated the retrieval of the bicycle, kept it, and allowed her family to
actually use it. In this context we do not find Mr. Shooter?s gift of the bicycle was unwelcome or
otherwise violated the Policy. l7

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 3: THE LA CANASTA MEETING-JUNE 2011.
Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita attended lunch with Mr. Shooter in June 2011. She presented us with a
handwritten memorandum, dated June 30, 2011, describing this lunch (see Exhibit 1) and told us
that she wrote the memorandum at or around the time of the lunch. She also mentioned this
incident and read portions of the handwritten memorandum during a televised interview.

Ms. Ugenti~Rita conveyed the following background to us: Mr. Shooter asked her to go to
lunch at La Canasta after a tort reform meeting. The two attended lunch alone. According to Ms.
Ugenti?Rita, the two had a strained relationship at this time. She claims that she agreed to go alone
because she thought it could possibly de-escalate the situation. She thought she might have the
opportunity to address his behavior she believed was inappropriate. She also thought it was a
controlled environment, a, lunch during the day without alcohol, and would minimize any
inappropriate behavior by him. The speci?cs of Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s allegations are set forth in her
memorandum. See Exhibit 1. Ms. Ugenti-Rita explained that she wrote the memorandum so, if
things got worse, she would have this memorandum to corroborate her claims. She stated that Mr.
Shooter?s comments were so over?the?top and made her so uncomfortable, mad, and frustrated that
she decided to create this memorandum. She stated that, if she did not write the comments down,
she did not know if she would have believed them herself. Ms. Ugenti-Rita explained that she
wanted a contemporaneous statement of the event. She was not scared for her physical safety, but
?was very concerned that it was just going to get worse.? When we asked what she meant by 
she said she meant Mr. Shooter?s ?continued pursuit of trying to get Ugenti-Rita] to sleep

 

16 She also claims she did not express any overt gratitude or excitement either.

17 How Mr. Shooter managed to secure the gift is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether
the actions alleged violated the Policy.

14

 

with him.?

Other than the memorandum itself and her word, we have no evidence that Ms. Ugenti~Rita
wrote this memorandum on June 30, 2011, or otherwise at or around the time of the lunch. There
are several points that cause us to question the veracity of the memorandum and when it was
actually created (although Ms. Ugenti?Rita stands by its truth and contemporaneous creation with
the lunch in question). We note that the memorandum does not list the date of the tort reform
meeting that occurred at or around the date of this memorandum. We ?nd it unusual that Ms.
Ugenti?Rita would not have completed the date (even if incorrect), if she had created this
memorandum at or around the time this lunch occurred, 126., after the tort reform meeting.
Additionally, Mr. Townsend stated that Ms. Ugenti-Rita told him about the events in the
memorandum at or around the time they happened, but he allegedly did not know that this
memorandum existed until after Ms. Ugenti-Rita made public accusations against Mr. Shooter.
We ?nd it curious-and frankly, unbelievable?-that Ms. Ugenti?Rita would not have (I) told Mr.
Townsend that she had memorialized the event when she apparently told him many other details
involving her interactions with Mr. Shooter, including all 11 incidents listed in this Report, or
(2) shared the memorandum with him sometime during their relationship and before speaking
about it with the press (at minimum, perhaps when the couple were generally discussing
unspeci?ed ?ramifications? associated with making public allegations of harassment).

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

We allowed Mr. Shooter to read the memorandum and respond to Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s
allegations. Mr. Shooter could not recall the speci?c lunch. He told us that it was possible he
went to lunch with Ms. Ugenti-Rita and expressed an attraction to her but that he would not have
meant it in any romantic way. Mr. Shooter explained to us that he is ?attracted? to strong and
articulate women, which includes Ms. Ugenti-Rita and others. He adamantly and somewhat
angrily denied telling Ms. Ugenti?Rita that he ?loved? her.18 He speculated that if he had said it,
it would have only been in the context of friendship and in a jovial manner, which he does with
other friends.? Mr. Shooter denied that he would have told Ms. Ugenti~Rita he loved her
romantically.

Mr. Shooter took issue with some statements in the memorandum. First, Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s
memorandum states that Mr. Shooter told her that he had been married for 32 years. Based on the
date of the memorandum, Mr. Shooter stated that he would have been married 35, not 32, years.

Second, despite the memorandum, he stated that he could not recall Ms. Ugenti?Rita ever
expressing to him happiness in her previous marriage. This statement is consistent with Mr.
Shooter?s l) recollection of specific stories, the details of which are not relevant here, Ms. Ugenti-
Rita purportedly told Mr. Shooter during their friendship, and (2) statement that Ms. Ugenti-Rita
would con?de in him about her marital issues before the ?dark? period of their friendship.20

Third, Mr. Shooter denied that he ever uses, or used, his authority as a sword or a shield. He
told us an anecdotal story about when he realized the seriousness of his position and avowed never
to take legislative matters Mr. Shooter recalled the piece of legislation referenced in Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s memorandum and explained that he helped push it through the Senate because he

 

?3 Mr. Ugenti told us that Ms. Ugenti-Rita never told him that Mr. Shooter expressed his love for
her.

19 Before our interview with Mr. Shooter, Ms. Jacobs told us that Mr. Shooter sometimes tells his
friends he loves them.

20 Mr. Shooter told us, at the beginning of the second day of our interview with him, that Ms.
Ugenti~Rita would talk to him about her marriage in 2010 and early 201 l.

15

 

supported it. He denied pushing it through for Ms. Ugenti-Rita.

Fourth, Mr. Shooter remembered Ms. Ugenti~Rita telling him that she could not schedule
meetings with certain people and, at the time, thinking that her need to contact these people was
urgent. He told us that (1) he offered his help to Ms. Ugenti-Rita, (2) she did not decline his offer
to help, and (3) he called these individuals to ask them to speak with her. Mr. Shooter also noted
that he has provided this type of assistance to other legislators.

CONCLUSION.

While we give the memorandum some weight, we have questions as to its complete truth and
reliability. As noted above, the blank date of the tort reform meeting seems out of place if the
memorandum was written very close to the meeting. It seems strange that some date was not ?lled
in, even if it was incorrect, given that the memorandum appears to have been written in an attempt
to document?with temporal and factual precisionuunrequited advances that she worried could
escalate in frequency or severity. The fact that this appears to be the only written memorandum
Ms. Ugenti-Rita created to record her interactions with Mr. Shooter also seems peculiar, given all
she has alleged to have occurred, and further raises concerns about the memorandum?s reliability.
This is based on (1) Mr. Ugenti?s statements that Ms. Ugenti?Rita kept a diary in 2011 and would
write in it on a regular basis, and (2) again, the purported reason Ms. Ugenti-Rita created and kept
the memorandum. Indeed, during a follow-up interview, we also observed Ms. Ugenti-Rita
keeping some notes in a diary or journal of some sort. Ms. Ugenti-Rita did not produce any self?
authored contemporaneous writings related to other encounters.21 Because she did not produce
them to us, we assume they do not exist. Thus, we ?nd it somewhat difficult to believe that Ms.
genti-Rita would deviate from her normal pattern of do cumentin her daily life, which apparently
did not include contemporaneous writings memorializing her other experiences with Mr. Shooter
(some of which, as explained below, clearly violated the Policy), except this one time.

That said, based on the foregoing, we ?nd credible evidence that the following events occurred:
(1) the legislators went to lunch alone, (2) Mr. Shooter helped push a bill through (but not
necessarily on behalf of Ms. Ugenti-Rita), and (3) Mr. Shooter asked certain persons to meet or
speak with Ms. Ugenti?Rita. We, however, could not find independent, credible evidence to
support the allegations that Mr. Shooter told Ms. Ugenti~Rita that he loved her in a romantic
manner, or that he pushed a bill through the Senate on her behalf in an effort to ?ex some kind of
political muscle with the goal of impressing her.

We note that, at the time this lunch meeting occurred, Ms. Ugenti-Rita had not told Mr. Shooter
that his comments were unwelcome. She told us, however, that she had tried to convey her desire
to distance herself from him by de?ecting his comments and choosing not to attend certain events,
so as to avoid having to interact with him. Of course, a victim of harassment need not always
expressly tell the harasser ?no? or to ?stop? before behavior constitutes discrimination or
harassment. But the evidence and the facts in this instance inform us that Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr.
Shooter had a personal friendship from late 2010 through part of 2011. While their relationship
appeared to become more and more distant beginning sometime in the middle of the 201 1 session,
they both remained in the liberty caucus together and seemingly remained cordial. Then, soon

 

2? She also provided audio recordings to her lawyer. Although we were not permitted to have our
own copies of those recordings, we were permitted to listen to them and take notes. Those
recordings appeared to be an audio diary, re?ecting 011 her time at the Legislature. We find them
credible because those recordings included Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s candid opinions concerning a variety
of issues that arose during her tenure as a legislator in April 2012. While those opinions included
an interaction with Mr. Shooter and her related feelings, he was not the primary topic of those
recordings, making them all the more substantively believable.

16

after the 2011 session and days before the date of her memorandum, Mr. Shooter was invited to
Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s birthday celebration. Based on our understanding of how Ms. Ugenti~Rita and
Mr. Shooter got along during her birthday celebration and before, they both exhibited behavior
consistent with some type of personal friendship (though, admittedly not as close as they had been
in 2010 and earlier 2011). That said, Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s recollection of her subjective feelings in
June 2011 may be questionable. In addition to the concerns stated above about the missing date,
we cannot reconcile the obvious contempt Ms. Ugenti~Rita expressed toward Mr. Shooter in her
memorandum with the third?party observations of her having a good time with Mr. Shooter at the
restaurant mere days before she allegedly wrote it. Notwithstanding that inconsistency, we believe
Ms. Ugenti-Rita could have interpreted his remarks in a way that made her feel embarrassed and
angry (particularly his offer to call third parties to. help her connect with them). However, we did
not ?nd evidence that his conduct occurred because of her sex, as opposed to a legislator facing
obstacles that a colleague chose to try and help remedy as a professional courtesy.

In light of the foregoing, we do not believe Mr. Shooter?s conduct violated the Policy.

(1) ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 4: THE ALEC CONFERENCE IN NEW ORLEANS
--AUGUST 2011.

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

In or around August 2011, Ms. Ugenti-Rita attended an American Legislative Exchange
Council conference in New Orleans. Ms. Ugenti-Rita recalled that, a?er she checked
into her room, Mr. Shooter knocked on her hotel room door. She looked out the peephole and saw
Mr. Shooter holding a six~pack of beer. He was alone, and no one else was in Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s
hotel room. Ms. Ugenti-Rita ignored him, and Mr. Shooter left.

Ms. Ugenti~Rita told us that she sent Mr. Townsend text messages about the event when it
happened. Neither Ms. Ugenti~Rita nor Mr. Townsend had copies of these text messages, and
there is no other proof the text messages actually ever existed.

We asked Ms. Ugenti-Rita if she knew how Mr. Shooter knew where to ?nd her in the hotel.
She said she believed their rooms were adjacent (randomly and not purposely) and that they may
have seen each other entering their rooms after checking into the hotel. Ms. Ugenti?Rita thought
Mr. Shooter?s actions were ?very aggressive? because he made an effort to contact her at ALEC
when they otherwise would have had no contact. Ms. Ugenti-Rita told us that Mr. Shooter did not
call her in advance of kno cking on her door. She stated that she felt harassed. She felt like ?clearly
he?s not stopping?. She was getting angry at this point because he was not stopping and she did
not know why someone would not deal with him.2

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter could not remember this speci?c incident but stated that he would not be surprised
if it happened. He told us that he tends to act this way at conferences with both male and female
friends and colleagues. He stated that Ms. Ugenti?Rita never discussed this incident with him.

Ms. REGINA COBB AND Ms. KAREN FANN.

At Mr. Shooter?s request, we asked Ms. Cobb and Ms. Fann whether Mr. Shooter had ever

 

22 Ms. Ugenti-Rita informed us that she told former Speaker Tobin about Mr. Shooter?s alleged
misconduct and harassment toward her. Mr. Tobin could not recall Ms. Ugenti-Rita ever doing
so.

17

knocked on their hotel doors at conferences with beer. Ms. Cobb told us that Mr. Shooter had
never knocked on her hotel room door at a conference but noted that she does not give out her
hotel room number to others. That said, she stated that Mr. Shooter would call and invite her to
join him for drinks in the hotel bar with others.

Ms. Farm stated that Mr. Shooter has knocked on her hotel room door at conferences to invite
her to socialize and drink, along with others.

(iv) MR. RECOLLECTION OF THE ALLEGED EVENT.

Mr. Ugenti also recalled hearing about this event from Ms. Ugenti~Rita. He claimed to
remember her returning from the conference looking distraught and upset and that she relayed the
details of this incident to him. Mr. Ugenti claims that Ms. Ugenti~Rita had to stop him from going
after Mr. Shooter physically (Mr. Ugenti claims he was in his truck and going to go ?drop him?--
meaning Mr. Shooter). Ms. Ugenti?Rita did not tell us during either of her interviews that her
feelings about this incident carried throughout the entire conference until the time she returned
home.

CONCLUSION.

We find it credible that this incident occurred. Indeed, Mr. Shooter did not deny that it
probably happened. We do not find, however, that Mr. Shooter?s knock on Ms._ Ugenti?Rita?s
hotel door at ALEC, with a six pack of beer, violated the Policy.

While we believe Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s subjective feelings are credible,23 we do not believe that
Mr. Shooter acted in this way because of her sex, or that a reasonable person would perceive Mr.
Shooter?s behavior as harassing conduct. When Ms. Ugenti-Rita did not respond, Mr. Shooter
simply moved on. Other interviewees corroborated that Mr. Shooter often invites colleagues to
drink and socialize with him by either calling or knocking on their hotel doors. Thus, this behavior
under these circumstances is consistent with Mr. Shooter?s admitted and corroborated testimony
of his tendency to knock on his friends? and colleagues? hotel doors at conferences to recruit them
to drink and socialize. We also note that, at this time, while Mr. Shooter and Ms. Ugenti-Rita were
not as close as they had been during 2010 and early 2011, they still were friendly. Mr. Shooter
had just celebrated Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s birthday in June of that same year. Without more,24 we
cannot conclude that, in this instance, Mr. Shooter?s behavior violated the Policy.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 5: THE 2011 HOLIDAY 2011.
Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

In December 201 1, around Christmas time, Ms. Ugenti-Rita found a gift bag with tissue paper

 

23 While we ?nd Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s self-described feelings credible, we give no weight to Mr.
Ugenti?s observations of Ms. Ugenti?Rita after the conference. Ms. Ugenti-Rita did not convey to
us that this incident left her distraught for the entire conference. Furthermore, we do not have
evidence to corroborate that Ms. Ugenti?Rita arrived home from the conference feeling upset
because of this incident, as opposed to anything else that happened at the conference or elsewhere
in her personal life.

24 For example, we found no evidence that Mr. Shooter was targeting Ms. Ugenti~Rita or even
knew for sure that it was her room he approached. Interviewees informed us that legislators are
often grouped in adjacent rooms at these types of events. Based on the evidence, it is possible that
Mr. Shooter simply began knocking on all doors down his hallway to try to ?nd colleagues who 
wanted to socialize.

18

sitting on her chair in her legislative of?ce. A bottle of tequila and an unsigned card were inside
the bag.

The card reads, ?Know you like Tequila, There is a song about ?you and Tequila? by Kenny
Chesney. Have a Merry Christmas!? Ms. Ugenti?Rita looked up the song soon after receiving the
card. Ms. Ugenti-Rita recalled that a short time after she received this gift, Mr. Shooter asked her
if she had received it, thereby con?rming the gift and card were from him.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita told us that she did not expressly tell Mr. Shooter that his comments or actions
were inappropriate or unwelcome. However, at this point, by even Mr. Shooter?s account, he was
aware that Ms. Ugenti?Rita had changed her behavior toward him for several months. She would
not answer his telephone calls or communicate with him in the way she once had.

Like the other conduct alleged, this gesture made her feel uncomfortable and harassed.
(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

When we showed Mr. Shooter the unsigned Christmas card, he admitted that it was in his
handwriting and looked like a card he would leave.

The lyrics of the referenced song are as follows:25

Baby, here I am again
Kicking dust in the canyon wind
Waiting for that sun to go down

Made it up Mulholland Drive
Hell bent on getting high
High above the lights of town

You and tequila make me crazy
Run like poison in my blood
One more night could kill me, baby
One is one too many
One more is never enough

Thirty days and thirty nights
Been putting up a real good fight
And there were times I thought you?d win
It?s so easy to forget
The bitter taste the morning left
Swore I wouldn?t go back there again

You and tequila make me crazy
Run like poison in my blood
One more night could kill me, baby
One is one too many
One more is never enough

When it comes to you
Oh, the damage I could do

 




l9

It?s always your favorite sins
That do you in

You and tequila make me crazy
Run like poison in my blood
One more night could kill me, baby
One is one too many
One more is never enough

Never enough
You and tequila
You and tequila

We read the lyrics to Mr. Shooter aloud and asked him what message he intended to convey
by referencing them in his communication with Ms. Ugenti-Rita. He told us that he referred to the
song because he intended it to mean Ms. Ugenti?Rita was ?making him crazy? because she went
?dark? on him and would not communicate with him anymore. Mr. Shooter said that he knew she
liked tequila, which is why he gave her the bottle as a gift. He also told us that he did not reference
the song for its sexual overtones. He simply wanted to know what he had done wrong because he
could not figure out what happened to their friendship.



We find credible evidence that this incident occurred. Mr. Shooter does not deny that he left
the gift as alleged. We also find that, at this point, Mr. Shooter knew Ms. Ugenti-Rita was blatantly
ignoring him and distancing herself from him. We do not ?nd credible that Mr. Shooter referenced
the Kenny Chesney song in a platonic manner. The lyrics are overtly sexual, implying a romantic
desire for another person. By December of 2011, even Mr. Shooter recalled that their friendship
had not repaired and, by this time, it had been nearly six months since Mr. Shooter and Ms. Ugenti?
Rita socialized outside of work similar to how they had for Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s birthday. While a
Christmas gift would not have necessarily constituted harassment, his reference to ?You and
Tequila?, given its overtly sexual implication, pushes his conduct beyond appropriate friendliness
or workplace pleasantries. Indeed, by Mr. Shooter?s own admission, the legislators were not
friendly (or at least she had withdrawn from the friendship) at this point--hence his alleged reason
for referencing the song in the first place.

In this instance, Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and
occurred because of Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s sex. It also contributed to enviromnent that a
reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object of the
harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr.
Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to
prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

(11) ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 6: UNANNOUNCED OFFICE VISIT--APRIL 2012.
Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita recalled that around April 2012, Mr. Shooter stopped by her of?ce
unannounced. He made small talk and then told her that ?everyone? wanted to know whether her
breasts were ?real or fake?. Ms. Ugenti?Rita believed she responded with something to the effect
of: ?What are you talking about? That?s disgusting.? She told us that he did not apologize. Mr.
Shooter left her office, and she went on with her day.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita stated that she felt objectified, belittled, and mad because he clearly felt like

20

he could act in that way without fear of any repercussions.

Later, Ms. Ugenti-Rita allowed her lawyer to play digital recordings for us, over the telephone,
purportedly made on April 4 and 5, 2012. The recordings appeared to be some sort of personal
recorded diary concerning her attempt to have her election bill pushed through the Senate. The
recording addressed several matters related to her legislative effort. However, relevant to this
investigation were her comments that Mr. Shooter had come to her of?ce to discuss her election
bill, and how and why the Senate rejected her bill. The recordings re?ect that during that
conversation, Mr. Shooter made sexual innuendos, including comments about her breasts. Ms.
Ugenti-Rita stated in the recording that the comments made her ?very uncomfortable? and that
?He?ll be next. He?ll be the next person I confront, but not now. Now is not the time.? We ?nd
these recordings particularly credible and re?ective of Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s then perception and
feelings because her statements throughout the recordings, about everything she was discussing,
were especially candid and uncensored.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter ?atly denied that this happened. He stated that Ms. Ugenti~Rita had told him
previously that her breasts were implants, without his prompting.26

MR. UGENTI DOES NOT RECALL BEING TOLD ABOUT THE
INCIDENT.

We spoke with Mr. Ugenti, and he stated that he could not recall being told about any incident
where Mr. Shooter asked Ms. Ugenti?Rita about her breasts (although he stated that maybe he was
not told about the incident because he would have confronted Mr. Shooter and maybe Ms. Ugenti-
Rita wanted to avoid that).

(iv) CONCLUSION.

While we cannot ?nd independent credible evidence that Mr. Shooter specifically asked
whether Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s breasts were ?real or fake?, we nonetheless conclude that, in light of
Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s recordings from April 2012,27 Mr. Shooter made unwelcome sexualized
comments to and about Ms. Ugenti-Rita, including about her breasts.

In this instance, Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and
occurred because of Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s sex. It also contributed to ?[a]11 environment that a
reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the Object of the
harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we find that Mr.
Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to
prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 7: THE SCOTTSDALE PLAZA GOP FUNDRAISER
2012.

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter both attended a GOP Fundraiser at the Scottsdale Plaza
Resort around August 2, 2012. Ms. Ugenti?Rita was confident about the date because Joe Arpaio

 

26 Ms. Ugenti-Rita denied that she made that remark to Mr. Shooter.
2? See footnote 21, supra.

21

and Steven Segal were special guests, and she has a photo from the event that contained its date.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita stated that, when it was time to leave the event, Mr. Shooter insisted on
walking her to her car. She believed she would have declined at ?rst, but he would have insisted,
and she then would have given in. She felt like she had two options: either cause a scene or accept
his offer. To avoid making a scene or appearing rude in front of her colleagues and other attendees,
she allowed Mr. Shooter to walk her to her car. She said that this made her feel uncomfortable.

Ms. Ugenti~Rita recalled that, .once at her car, Mr. Shooter told her that he had reserved a suite
at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort with a fireplace and asked her to join him in his room. Ms. Ugenti?
. Rita responded with something to the effect of: ?No, I?m married. What are you talking about??
She recalled that he would not stop persisting, and it came to the point where she had to get into
her car in order to escape him. Ms. Ugenti~Rita also remembered Mr. Shooter saying something
to the effect of: ?What do you want me to do? I?m just a man.? He allegedly made her feel like it
was her fault he was making these advances.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter remembered this GOP event and recalled attending it with his friend from Yuma,
Glen Thomas (?Spike?) Curtis. Mr. Shooter did not recall walking Ms. Ugenti-Rita to her car, but
told us that it could have happened, because he does that for a lot of women. He denied saying
anything to Ms. Ugenti?Rita about having a suite or inviting her to spend the night with him. He
also noted that he would not have reserved a hotel room because he has an apartment in Phoenix.
Mr. Shooter said that Ms. Ugenti~Rita never mentioned this event to him.

Mr. Shooter provided us with his credit card statement for the month of August 2012. He informed
us that it was the only credit card he used during August 2012. The statement does not contain a
room reservation at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort. While this does not completely contradict Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s allegations, it raises the obvious question: why would Mr. Shooter describe a suite
at the hotel to her if he did not have one, and what would he have done had Ms. Ugenti-Rita
accepted his alleged invitation?

GLEN THOMAS RECOLLECTION OF THE
EVENT.

We spoke with Mr. Curtis, who recalled attending the event. He believed he drove from Yuma
to Phoenix and met Mr. Shooter at Mr. Shooter?s apartment. He recalled riding in Mr. Shooter?s
car to the event. He did not believe that either of them reserved a hotel room, but given the time
that had passed, he was not positive. He told us that he typically slept on Mr. Shooter?s couch
when he visited from Yuma. He also noted that whenever he would visit Phoenix to see Mr.
Shooter, they would stay together the whole time. He volunteered that he has visited Phoenix
relatively frequently to spend time with Mr. Shooter. Mr. Curtis stated that when he visits, Mr.
Shooter does not go out or socialize without Mr. Curtis.

We asked Mr. Curtis whether Mr. Shooter has ever mentioned Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Mr. Curtis
could not recall any conversations speci?cally about her but could remember conversations
involving other former legislators. Mr. Curtis also did not recall Mr. Shooter ever stating that he
was attracted to another legislator,-Ms. Ugenti-Rita or otherwise: Mr. Curtis thinks that, given
their friendship, Mr. Shooter Would have con?ded in him that type of information. Mr. Curtis
recalled Mr. Shooter telling him that another legislator (identity unknown) had made advances
toward him at one point, and that it made Mr. Shooter feel uncomfortable.

22

(iv) MR. UGENTI DOES NOT RECALL BEING TOLD ABOUT THIS
INCIDENT.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita thought she had told Mr. Ugenti about this incident. Mr. Ugenti did not recall
Ms. Ugenti~Rita telling him about Mr. Shooter inviting her to his hotel room. 

Ms. UGENTI-RITA CONFRONTED MR. SHOOTER ABOUT His
BEHAVIOR IN 2012.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita also recalled confronting Mr. Shooter about his general conduct sometime in
2012 but could not recall exactly when. She told us that she went through with him examples of
his actions that she deemed unwelcome and inappropriate, and told him to stop. Although Mr.
Shooter did not believe Ms. Ugenti?Rita ever told him why she ended their friendship, he again
did not deny that she confronted him at some point.

(vi) CONCLUSION.

We ?nd that there is no credible evidence corroborating the allegation that Mr. Shooter invited
Ms. Ugenti-Rita to a hotel room, but we find credible evidence that Mr. Shooter violated the
House?s Policy when he insisted on accompanying Ms. Ugenti-Rita to her vehicle at a time when
he was admittedly aware she was avoiding him, not interested in his friendship, and she was
distancing herself from him.

Regarding the alleged invitation to come to his hotel room, Mr. Shooter denies having done
so, and more critically, we do not ?nd independent credible evidence to support this allegation.
Mr. Shooter?s credit card statements and Mr. Curtis? testimony suggest that Mr. Shooter did not
invite her to a suite or describe a hotel room to her because he does not appear to have had one.
Moreover, while Mr. Shooter is a self~admitted ?bullshit-er?, we ?nd it unlikely that he would
describe a speci?c hotel suite to someone and invite her to join him there, if he did not have one
and then risk embarrassment if she accepted his invitation and he could not deliver the room.252
Moreover, other witnesses support the conclusion that this type of conduct?~soliciting someone to
come to his hotel room, presumably for romantic or sexual reasons--is out of character for Mr.
Shooter. Ms. Cobb and Ms. Farm both conveyed to us that while Mr. Shooter makes off?colon?
sometimes inappropriate--jokes, they have never heard him suggest he wants to have sex with
anyone, let alone proposition someone.

With respect to Mr. Shooter?s insistence on walking Ms. Ugenti?Rita to her vehicle, we believe
that under the circumstances, it violates the Policy. Mr. Shooter does not deny he did so, and in
fact, stated that he could have. Moreover, in this instance, we ?nd Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s stated
subjective feelings credible in light of the time that had passed since she began distancing herself
from Mr. Shooter~~including since Mr. Shooter?s 2011 Christmas card referencing a song with
obvious sexual overtones. We also ?nd that a reasonable person would perceive Mr. Shooter?s
conduct as harassing in light of his previous conduct and Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s ongoing avoidance of
him~~avoidance Mr. Shooter recognized and acknowledged at least by 2012 (and by the time at
issue). Although walking an individual to a vehicle, or insisting upon doing so, may seem (or be)
innocuous in isolation, Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter were not friends?or even neutral
acquaintances--at this point; in fact, she had essentially writtenhim off and he recognized as much
(hence the tequila and song lyrics, which according to him was, at minimum, a gesture made in an
effort to understand why she was distancing herself from him). Thus, the relationship between
them no longer stood on neutral ground--she had conducted herself in a way, for almost one year

 

23 Mr. Shooter could have possibly scrambled to reserve a room, but it still seems unlikely that he
would have acted as alleged.

23

at this point, to convey her desire to no longer socialize with Mr. Shooter in any manner. Yet he
would not relent, even after his 2011 Christmas gift and card yielded no return 011 his advances.
We believe a reasonable person would find Mr. Shooter?s insistence on being alone with Ms.
Ugenti~Rita in a hotel parking lot, at night, at that juncture, to amount to harassing conduct.

If Ms. Ugenti?Rita confronted Mr. Shooter before the Scottsdale Plaza event, her doing so
further supports a ?nding that Mr. Shooter violated the Policy. Although Mr. Shooter stated that
he did not believe Ms. Ugenti-Rita ever explained her reasons for pulling away from their past
friendship, his primary reason for this belief was that he is baf?ed by her allegations and never
knew she believed his conduct was unwelcome. He did not deny that she spoke with him about
his conduct, but he believed she never explained her feelings to him because he could not
?understand? from where her now-expressed feelings of hostility came. But his inability to
?understan why she is now making these allegations, and why she had distanced herself from
him, does not contradict Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s representations that she asked him to stop his behavior
toward her or otherwise undermine her subjective feelings at the time--again, a time when her
desire to distance herself from him was conveyed loudly and clearly.

Moreover, Mr. Shooter may have felt confused by her eventual confrontation due to what he
alleges was her silence in response to what he had allegedly done to offend her, but we do not ?nd
his allegations of silence evidence that she never tried to send a clear message for him to leave her
alone. He has acknowledged her attempts to distance herself from him, and silence can be
deafening when accompanied by overt action (such as going out of the way to avoid someone, not
returning repeated messages, and the like). Indeed, Mr. Shooter has no more right to an
explanation for why Ms. Ugenti~Rita decided to out ties from him than he does to harass her for
one. Even today, Mr. Shooter seems to believe that he did nothing wrong, evidenced by his recent
address to his colleagues during the 2018 session, stating that he did not realize his own conduct
was inappropriate.29 So, perhaps Mr. Shooter?s failure to ?understan ?Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s attempt
to cut all contact with him at this point resulted from his failure to agree with her feelings, rather
than her failure to convey them, since he did not (and still does not) believe he had done anything
wrong. Regardless, his attempts to force interaction with Ms. Ugenti-Rita at the time of this
incident were clearly at risk of offending her, and he knew it, because she had made it clean-at
least by avoidance and silence--that she wanted nothing to do with him or his advances (no matter
how innocent they may have been in his mind).

In the end, Mr. Shooter?s acknowledgment that his friendship with Ms. UgentiaRita began
waning during the 2011 session and was seemingly over light of all the other
facts and information described herein, supports a ?nding that his insistence on walking Ms.

 

29 Ms. Ugenti?Rita said she confronted Mr. Shooter about his conduct, again, in 2015, at a GOP
Salute Dinner. Ms. Ugenti?Rita told us that she ?let him have it? and explained why his past
behavior was unacceptable and inappropriate. She said that he told her he wanted to make amends.
Mr. Shooter vaguely recalled this encounter but stated that he again walked away not
understanding why she had pulled away from their friendship. He remembered believing that Ms.
Ugenti?Rita intended to explain everything to him because he recalled thinking he would ?nally
know why their friendship ended. Yet, he claims that he walked away still not ?understanding?
why they were no longer friends. We believe this interaction took place and that Ms. Ugenti-Rita
likely explained her feelings and the behavior she found inappropriate. We also believe it likely
that Mr. Shooter walked away still not understanding what happened to their friendship, likely
because he did not know why she would find his behavior inappropriate because he does not
believe his behavior to be inappropriate. We believe Ms. Ugenti?Rita did explain her feelings to
him. Again, Mr. Shooter does not deny that Ms. Ugenti?Rita confronted him. Thus, Mr. Shooter?s
comments to his colleagues during harassment training, that he did not know what he had done
was inappropriate, are especially noteworthy. See Exhibit 2.

24

Ugenti-Rita to her car that evening constituted harassing conduct under the Policy. While we ?nd
it reasonable that a person who believes he has lost a good friend, without reason, may attempt to
communicate with that person for some time after the fact to reconcile the loss, we ?nd it
unreasonable that such person 1) would attempt to discuss the falling out or restart a friendship
by leaving an unsigned Christmas card referencing a romantic country song on her of?ce chair,
and (2) then, after prolonged silence and isolation from that person, force an unwanted interaction
by insisting on walking her to her vehicle--alone.

In this instance, Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and
admittedly occurred because of Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s sex. It also contributed to environment
that a reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object of the
harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr.
Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to
prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 8: THE BUSINESS CARD LEFT ON THE


MS. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti~Rita attended a Willetta Partners Open House reception in 2013. 30 When she left
the reception and anl?ived at he1 cat in the parking lot, she found Mr. Shooter?s business card left
on her ca1 window.31 He had written the am onym on the car,d which stood for ?Thinking
Of You?. Finding this card made MS. Ugenti?Rita feel similarly to the other incidents she
complained of, and she found his conduct inappropriate.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter brought up this incident during his interview before we asked him about it. While
he could not remember many details other than leaving the card, he believed he made this gesture
because he was ?mourning? a friendship. Mr. Shooter told us that he had never had a friendship
end so abruptly.

CONCLUSION.

While Mr. Shooter conveyed his actions to be an innocent and friendly gesture, we ?nd his
claimed innocence dif?cult to reconcile with the fact that, at this point (2013), Ms. Ugenti~Rita
had Signi?cantly reduced her contact with him-possibly to no contact at all other than when
necessary at the Capitol--for a signi?cant amount of time. She had rebuffed his prior advances
and confronted him at least once. By 2013, the legislators? friendship had been ?dark?--
nonexistent for at least two years. Mr. Shooter acknowledged this isolation.

In this instance, Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and
occurred because of MS. Ugenti-Rita?s sex. It also contributed to environment that a
reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object of the
harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr.
Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to
prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

 

3? Ms. UgentinRita was not positive of the speci?c date, but believes this occurred in 2013.
31 Whether the card was left on the MS. Ugenti-Rita?s Side window or windshield is unclear, but
also immaterial.

25

 ALLEGED INCIDENT N0. 9: THE EVENT AT TOMMY BAHAMAS
2013.

MS. ALLEGATIONS.

ALEC hosted a reception at Tommy Bahamas in Scottsdale, Arizona around December 2013.
Mr. Shooter allegedly pointed out a waitress to MS. Ugenti?Rita and told her that (1) he believed
the waitress resembled MS. Ugenti-Rita, and (2) because he could not ?have? her, the waitress
would have to do. In response, MS. Ugenti?Rita claims she rolled her eyes and walked away.

When asked why the two legislators would have been having a private conversation, MS.
Ugenti-Rita explained that they were not. Rather, she says, what likely happened was that they
were both part of a larger conversation circle. Then, as individuals began moving elsewhere at the
reception, Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter ended up next to each other for a moment, at which
time Mr. Shooter made these comments.

Ms. Ugenti~Rita felt like Mr. Shooter had an obsession with her. By the end of 2013, she
believed she had given him a clear message that she was not interested in him. She speculated that
he made these comments to try to provoke a reaction from her. Mr. Shooter?s alleged comments
made her feel harassed.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter vehemently denied this allegation and that he made the comments in question. He
told us that he has only been with one woman in the past 40 years (his wife).

CONCLUSION.

We could not ?nd independent, credible evidence to corroborate this allegation.32 Thus, we
cannot conclude this occurred.

(1) ALLEGED INCIDENT NO. 10: THE ALEC CONFERENCE IN SAN 
SUMMER 2015.

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita attended an ALEC conference in San Diego, possibly in the summer of2015.
While waiting with other conference attendees in the lobby of the hotel before a harbor cruise, Mr.
Shooter arrived dressed as a pirate and carrying a toy sword. He poked her with the sword
playfully in the Side of her stomach. She pushed the sword away and told him to stop. Ms. Ugenti?
Rita also told us that after she told him to stop, he went on to poke other attendees with the sword.
His actions made her feel ?marginalized, tiny?, and embarrassed.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter recalled dressing as a pirate for this event and stated that he may have poked Ms.
Ugenti-Rita with a sword. He believed that he likely poked other persons too (a fact Ms. Ugenti?
Rita corroborated). Mr. Shooter told us that if MS. Ugenti~Rita asked him to stop, he would have

stopped.

 

32 Ms. Jacobs informed us that she was at this event but did not witness any interactions between
Ms. Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Shooter and, therefore, could not state whether this did or did not occur.

26

 CONCLUSION.

We ?nd that this incident occurred. Whether it violated the Policy, however, is a closer call.
By this time, it was 2015. Mr. Shooter was well aware that Ms. Ugenti-Rita wanted nothing to do
with him. Indeed, it seemed that he perhaps ?got the message?, since the last alleged incident Ms.
Ugenti-Rita reported to us occurred sometime in the summer of 2013??approximately two years
earlier. To be sure, we ?nd Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s feelings credible given what we ?nd her to have
endured, and Mr. Shooter more or less corroborates her story that the incident occurred.

But notwithstanding his prior misconduct and its pervasiveness vis~a~vis Ms. Ugenti~Rita, he
did not seem to target her at this time. Indeed, by both legislators? accounts, Mr. Shooter did not
seem to seek out Ms. Ugenti-Rita speci?cally and he playfully poked numerous people. Thus,
although the behavior at issue arguably may not be appropriate for a sitting legislator to engage in
while representing the People of Arizona at a public function, we do not ?nd that it rises to a level
of conduct, in this speci?c instance, that violates the Policy from an objective standpoint. That
said, it should have been obvious to Mr. Shooter that he needed to stop engaging Ms. Ugenti-Rita
in any manner unrelated to Of?cial business. Period.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 11: THE ALEC RECEPTION AT 
STEAK CHOP HOUSE-DECEMBER 2016.

(1) Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

In December 2016, Ms. Ugenti-Rita attended an ALEC reception at Donovan?s Steak Chop
House in Phoenix. She recalled standing in a conversation circle, when Mr. Shooter allegedly
approached and pulled the tie on her wrap dress, after which he supposedly made a snarly laugh.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita grabbed the tie before it could come undone, yelled out ?Shooter!? in an
exasperated tone, and walked away to ?x her dress tie. She claims that based on the design of her
dress, her entire dress would have opened and exposed her if the tie had come undone. Ms. Ugenti?
Rita felt ?small? and violated. She perceived his actions as mean and felt bullied by them.

(ii) MR. RESPONSE.
Mr. Shooter recalled this event and remembered poking fun at another legislator. Mr. Shooter
did not recall pulling on Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s dress tie and denied that he would do something like
that, or ridicule her in that way.

SENATOR DEBBIE LESKO.

Ms. Ugenti-Rita believed Ms. Lesko may have witnessed the event but was not sure. We spoke
with Ms. Lesko, but she did not witness this event and did not know whether it happened.

(iv) CONCLUSION.

We cannot conclude that this incident occurred because there is no independent, credible
evidence to corroborate Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s allegations.

27

2. AMY MEETING WITH MR. SHOOTER IN HIS OFFICE.

Ms. Love, the Deputy Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Supreme Court, alleges
that she had an inappropriate interaction in Mr. Shooter?s Senate of?ce where, among other things,
he grabbed and jostled his crotch, at her face level, approximately an arm?s length away from her
face.

(21) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Ms. LOVE AND MR. SHOOTER.

Ms. Love is a lobbyist for the Arizona Supreme Court. She meets with the appropriations
chairs and their policy advisors in both the House and Senate. Ms. Love and Mr. Shooter interact
often, because while in the Senate, and for a time while at the House, he was chairperson of the
relevant Appropriations Committee.

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Mr. Shooter was the chairperson of Senate appropriations. Ms. Love tried to set meetings with
Mr. Shooter three times, but each time he would cancel at the last minute. After the third
cancellation, Ms. Love claims that her colleague asked her how the meeting went. Ms. Love told
her colleague that Mr. Shooter had cancelled again. Ms. Love claims her colleague told Ms. Love
that Mr. Shooter ?needs to see you? and that she needed ?to get in?ow of him?, at which time Mr.
Shooter would talk to her. The message was clear to Ms. Love that, if Mr. Shooter saw her, he
would stop canceling the meetings, because he would find her physically attractive.

On February 12, 2013, Ms. Love went to the Senate Caucus Room and waited for the meeting
to end. Afterward, she approached Mr. Shooter from behind his chair while he was packing up to
leave. She asked him if he had a minute. He peered behind himself, and looked her up and down
twice while saying ?Absolutely? in a slow, exaggerated manner using extra syllables). Ms.
Love said she would wait in the hallway.

The two began walking in the hallway, and when she introduced herself as ?Amy Love with
the Supreme Court,? Mr. Shooter stopped in his tracks and said: ?You?re Amy Love with the
Supreme Court.? Ms. Love told Mr. Shooter that she had been trying to meet with him for quite
some time. He responded that he knew it and that he was trying to send a message to the Courts.
Ms. Love told him that the message had been received. Mr. Shooter then said something to the
effect of: don?t see why we can?t speak? and instructed her to schedule a meeting with him. Ms.
Love was concerned he would cancel again, but he said he would not do so.

On February 13, 2013, Ms. Love testi?ed during a HHS Committee hearing on a new liquor
bill. She spoke with liquor lobbyists afterwards who said that they had a meeting with Mr. Shooter
and asked if she wanted to join. Ms. Love discovered the liquor lobbyists? meeting was 30 minutes
before her meeting with Mr. Shooter, so she agreed to join (and minimize the chances that he could
cancel again).

On February 18, 2013, Ms. Love attended the liquor lobbyist meeting in Mr. Shooter?s of?ce.
He seemed surprised to see her and asked why she was there. She explained she was there for the
liquor bill meeting and that the other lobbyists had invited her.

After all of the liquor lobbyists left, Ms. Love and Mr. Shooter were alone. He began
admonishing the Court of Appeals for its Cave Creek Opinion on school funding. After Ms. Love
had been through her talking points and realized she was not getting through to Mr. Shooter, she
looked out the window to collect her thoughts. Mr. Shooter then stopped in the middle of what he
was saying and asked Ms. Love if she was going to cry. Ms. Love noted that. she gets teary eyed
relatively easily, and when asked if she will cry, almost surely does. Ms. Love responded with

28

something like, just want to help people.? She began to cry.33

Mr. Shooter then stated something to the effect of: ?Calm down. No need to get upset. You?re
killing me with those big brown eyes of yours. You?ve made some good points.?

Mr. Shooter told Ms. Love that they could keep the conversation open. He then began to get
up from his desk and walk toward the door, signaling that the meeting was ending. Ms. Love
began gathering her things from the ?oor.

Mr. Shooter stopped at the side of his desk, in front of Ms. Love (who was still sitting) and
told her not to bring ?that guy? (her male colleague) with her in the future. Ms. Love said that, at
that juncture, she and Mr. Shooter were less than an arms?length away from each other. Mr.
Shooter told her not to bring any guys with her and that he would only meet with her.

He then said something to the effect of: ?I?m a sucker for the pretty ladies. Everyone else
around here thinks it. I?m the only one who has the balls to say it.?

When Mr. Shooter said the word ?balls?, he grabbed his entire crotch, and then shook it. Ms.
Love said she could see the outline of his genital area.

Mr. Shooter?s crotch was about forehead level in relation to Ms. Love, who was still sitting,
and approximately an arm?s length away from her.

Ms. Love then responded with something to the effect of: ?That?s ?ne, Sir. I?m happy to work
with you. Just so you know, my little sister has told me frequently that I?m the only woman she
knows who would enter a pissing contest without a dick.? Mr. Shooter responded: ?I?d kind of
like to see it.?

Ms. Love said the whole meeting made her feel mortified but primarily because she was not
sure how she could successfully lobby Mr. Shooter. She also stated that she felt immense pressure
since he made it clear that he did not want anyone else but her to lobby him from her agency. Ms.
Love recalls telling her supervisor what happened after the incident. She said her supervisor was
very supportive and asked if something should be said. Ms. Love told her supervisor not to say
anything because she ?[has] to work in this town.?

Ms. Love said she didn?t know what to really do at the time of this incident. She felt helpless.
She is concerned that, because of Mr. Shooter, she had to look and act a certain way or else her
client?s budget would be in trouble.34 Ms. Love felt it was important for us to know, and
volunteered on her own without prompting, that one reason for her decision to come forward was
that she had come to understand that Mr. Shooter had been making derogatory comments about
her alleged job performance to others, thus placing her job or future career aspirations in possible
jeopardy.

MR. Sno orsn?s RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS.

Mr. Shooter stated that he has met with Ms. Love quite a bit. When asked about their
professional relationship, be simply stated that she is a lobbyist with the courts. We conveyed to
Mr. Shooter Ms. Love?s narrative concerning his grabbing and shaking his crotch, at her face level,
approximately an arm?s length away. In response, he stated that he did not remember the incident

 

33 She did the same as she recounted her experience to us.

34 Ms. Love also recounted that there have been times she believes Mr. Shooter has attempted to
?look out? for her employer and provide her with warnings of possible looming budget cuts.

29

in question, noted that it co aid have happened, but probably did not happen, because ?Amy Love? 
not that cute? (he stated that looks are just one factor in whether he thinks this happened). Mr.?
Shooter also noted that Ms. Love is very liberal, stated that he does not believe this is a left~wing
conspiracy, but said that there is a fundamental difference in the way people view things (meaning
people from different political parties). Mr. Shooter admitted that he probably told Ms. Love not
to bring her male colleague with her, because Mr. Shooter does not like him.

CONCLUSION.

We find Ms. Love?s detailed allegations credible. We note her incentive to protect her job and
futule car?eei aspirations could be cause for concern, but the fact that she disclosed this motive for
coming fo1wa1d (among othe1 motives) without prompting (we ce1tainly may never have found
out about this) speaks well of her character and credibility. Also, that motive does not diminish
the fact that even Mr. Shootei could not unequivocally deny her allegations. As for her afte1 ~the-
fact verbal reaction to Mr. Shooter?s actions, while relevant, it alone does not diminish what he
did or she endured.

As for the allegations themselves, Mr. Shooter noted that, while he does not really recall the
incident or believe the incident occurred because he finds Ms. Love unattractive, he equivocated
and conceded that it nonetheless could have happened. Putting aside that such actions are
apparently within the realm of those Mr. Shooter cannot unequivocally say he would never commit
so as to deny they occurred outright, his defense against the likelihood of the incident having
occurred seems to be his perception of (1) Ms. Love? physical appearance and (2) her political
leanings.

His perception of Ms. Love?s physical appearance is of no consequence and cannot render him
blameless. Either he acted as alleged or he did not. Given the gravity of the allegations made
against him, one would think he would have a de?nite, concrete position on the matter. Yet, he
was unable to unequivocally deny Ms. Love?s allegations and even conceded they were possibly
true. We cannot ignore this signi?cant fact.

As for Ms. Love?s purported ?liberal? leanings, to the extent this statement was meant to imply
that perhaps her reaction to Mr. Shooter having grabbed and shook his crotch--at her face level,
approximately an arm?s length away from her face, while she was sitting in his office during a
lobbying visit?~would have been viewed differently (read: less offensively) were she more
politically conservative, we conclude that Ms. Love?s reaction was as appropriate as it was 110n-
partisan.

In the end, Mr. Shooter?s inability to unequivocally deny Ms. Love?s allegations, combined
with the detail she provided and her candor and demeanor during her interview, leads us to
conclude that the event occurred just as Ms. Love reported. Mr. Shooter?s conduct was
inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and occurred because of Ms. Love?s sex. It also
contributed to environment that a reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and
the person who is the object of the harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusiVe.? See Policy.
Accordingly, we find that Mr. Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the
House?s Policy was developed to prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct
contributing to a hostile work environment.

30

3. PARRISH (FORMER PUBLISHER OF THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC), DAVID
BODNEY (AN ARIZONA ATTORNEY), AND THEIR MEETING WITH MR. SHOOTER
IN MARCH 2016.

Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney allege that, in March, 2016, while at the State Capitol lobbying
legislators about a bill, Mr. Shooter?~someone Ms. Parrish had no relationship with and had never
before met--made an inappropriate and sexually charged comment directed toward her, namely,
expressing his regret about not having had sexual intercourse with Asian twins in Mexico.

Ms. AND MR. ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THEIR
MEETING WITH MR. SHOOTER.

In March 2016, Ms. Parrish and her lawyer David Bodney went to the State Capitol to meet
with approximately five to seven Senators ab out a bill concerning public notice, which newspapers
opposed.35 Mr. Bodney asked Ms. Parrish to go with him and lobby because she was new to
Phoenix and the new Publisher Of The Arizona Republic. Both believed that Ms. Parrish?s
participation in this lobbying effort would send a positive message. They chose their meetings
based on Senators whose votes were still undecided. During their meetings with various Senators,
Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney learned that legislators were receiving ample pressure from Senate
leadership to pass the bill (and, presumably, making the lobbying effort all the more important).

Some meetings involved other lobbyists, in addition to Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney, lobbying
the issue. Their meeting with Mr. Shooter was in the middle of the various other scheduled
interviews-neither the ?rst, nor the last. Only Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney attended their meeting
with Mr. Shooter.

When they met with Mr. Shooter, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney sat in Mr. Shooter?s Of?ce, in
either chairs or on a couch, while Mr. Shooter sat across from them behind his desk. Ms. Parrish
recalls seeing pink Sheriff Arpaio tent-city underpants and a Duck Dynasty poster in Mr. Shooter?s
of?ce. The Office door was shut. Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney introduced themselves, and Ms.
Parrish began leading the conversation, following her pie-determined talking points. Ms. Parrish
and Mr. Bodney stated the entire meeting was meant to be about business, which they believe that
Mr. Shooter knew, because they had scheduled the meeting to discuss a very speci?c piece of
legislation.

After Ms. Parrish presented her talking points, Ml. Shooter gave a ?soliloquy? about how he
is an independent thinker, independent voice, and takes his own counsel.36 He stated that he often
would think for himself without counsel, and sometimes wouldn?t talk to anyone about issues, as
he wanted to make decisions on his own. He stated something to the effect Of: ?I?m the kind Of
guy who does whatever he wants.? Eventually, this led to him saying, while looking directly at
Ms. Parrish: ?I?ve done everything on my bucket list?--followed by a pause, after which he said
?Well, exceptthat one thing.? (emphasis added) Ms. Parrish responding something to the effect
of: ?Tell me, Senator, what?s that one thing you didn?t do? or ?haven?t done?? (emphasis added)
Mr. Shooter responded to Ms. Parrish: ?Those Asian twins in Mexico.?

Ms. Parrish is Korean-American.

At that time, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Bodney decided that the meeting was over and ended it early.
The meeting lasted about 15?20 minutes in total. Neither Ms. Parrish nor Mr. Bodney felt like he

 

35 A Ballard Spahr employee set up these meetings.

3? Mr. Bodney and Ms. Parrish noted that other Senators asked for facts and ?gures and engaged
in more of a dialogue. Mr. Shooter did not ask questions or appear to take the matter seriously.

31

or she could say anything in response to Mr. Shooter?s statement; they felt as though they were in
a horrible situation.

They described the incident and how it made them feel very carefully and deliberately, calling
it unforgettable and notable. Ms. Parrish added that the incident was memorable and familiar. Ms.
Parrish stated that she was taken aback, and the interaction was unforgettable to her because (1) it
was in a Senator?s of?ce, (2) on of?cial business with an appointment, (3) to discuss a bill that
would affect hundreds of thousands of eople, (4) Mr. Shooter knew who she was and her position,
and (5) Mr. Shooter knew Mr. Bodney was a lawyer. Mr. Bodney generally echoed Ms. Parrish?s
comments and added that he felt awful and ashamed about the situation. He felt bad for asking
Ms. Parrish to accompany him and felt like he put her in that situation. Ms. Parrish described Mr.
Shooter?s behavior as inappropriate, unacceptable, and unprofessional, and Mr. Bodney echoed
her description. -

MR. RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS.

Mr. Shooter remembered meeting Ms. Parrish, and that she had a man with her, but claims that
at the time, Mr. Shooter did not know who that man was. Mr. Shooter believed the meeting was
just a ?nreet-and-greet? with The Arizona Republic?s new publisher. He does not recall Ms.
Parrish lobbying about any legislation.

Mr. Shooter does not remember making the ?Asian twins in Mexico? comment but has no
reason to doubt that he did so. Mr. Shooter said that, if he made that statement, (1) it probably
wasn?t the right time or place to do so in a professional setting, (2) he did not mean to offend
anyone, and (3) if he offended someone, ?then that?s unfortunate.?

Mr. Shooter then stated that he did not know that something had happened to Ms. Parrish
earlier in her life that offended her (we assume this is a reference to Ms. Parrish?s account of prior
instances of harassment she had suffered, which were discussed in The Arizona Republic). Then
he noted that (1) he sometimes tells jokes that he thinks are funny but that other people do not
consider funny, and (2) 80% of the time, however, people think his jokes are funny.

CONCLUSION.

At best for him, Mr. Shooter does not remember making the ?Asian twins in Mexico? comment
but has no reason to doubt that he did so. That Mr. Shooter cannot unequivocally deny having
made this statement is troubling in itself, because it means that at minimum such statements are
not outside the ?norm? for him, such that he can be certain he would not have said something so
highly inappropriate and offensive in his Legislative of?ce. Even so, we are aware of no evidence
that could conceivably transfigure the interaction between Mr. Shooter, MS. Parrish, and Mr.
Bodney as one rooted in humor or satire so as to remotely support his attempt to paint his comment
as a joke of some sort. Moreover, there is no evidence remotely creating any conceivable
contextual avenue by which any reasonable person could conclude that a comment about regretting
having not had sex with Asian twins in Mexico could have been even remotely appropriate
conversation during the meeting in question. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Ms. Parrish
and Mr. Bodney were in Mr. Shooter?s of?ce to lobby him, in his capacity as an elected of?cial,
about pending legislation. In other words, they were there on business.

In addition, Mr. Shooter?s attempt to inject prior familiar instances of harassment that Ms.
Parrish suffered, and his alleged 80% joke approval rating, into the discussion about whether he
made the statements at issue or its offensiveness, was very concerning. Mr. Shooter?s reference
to Ms. Parrish?s prior victimization was apparently meant to imply that those experiences may
have somehow misinformed Ms. Parrish?s perception of his actions, or worse, perhaps somehow
justi?ed what he did as having been taken out of context or blown out of proportion. Suf?ce it to

32

say that, were this what Mr. Shooter meant to accomplish, he failed. That said, even if his position
were true (and we do not believe that to be the case), his theory (1) fails to diminish Mr. Bodney?s
equally troubled and credible perception of the incident, and (2) does not make Mr. Shooter?s
actions?with two complete strangers, in his Senate of?ce, on of?cial business, concerning
legislation??any more appropriate or less shocking. Likewise, Mr. Shooter?s comment about how
well his jokes are usually received seemed meant to diminish his actions, by implying that Ms.
Parrish and Mr. Bodney merely lack a sense of humor. It is inappropriate to tell two complete
strangers who are appealing to your good graces and powerful position, who believed they were
advocating to save Arizona jobs, that your one regret is the failure to have had sex with Asian

twins in Mexico.

We conclude that credible evidence supports Ms. Parrish?s and Mr. Bodney?s allegations. Mr.
Shooter?s conduct, at minimum as directed to Ms. Parrish, was inappropriate, subjectively
unwelcome, and degrading conduct that occurred because of her sex and race. Mr. Shooter?s
conduct also contributed to environment that a reasonable person would consider hostile or
abusive, and the person who is the object of the harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.?
See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr. Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment
that the House?s Policy was developed to prevent, including (1) discrimination, (2) sexual
harassment, and (3) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

33

4. MARILYN ALLE GATIONS OF UNWANTED TOUCHING AND VERBAL
HARASSMENT AGAINST MR. SHOOTER.

Marilyn Rodriguez alleges that Mr. Shooter (1) placed his hand on her knee, without
permission, during a meeting at the Windsor in Phoenix, Arizona, (2) made inappropriate
comments toward her during a social event at Hob Nobs, in Phoenix, Arizona, and (3) made an
inappropriate comment toward her, in passing, in connection with a ?Arizona Capitol Times
Fashion Show? ?tting event. We will address each incident in turn.

ALLEGED INCIDENT N0. 1: THE WINDSOR MEETING WHERE MS.
RODRIGUEZ ALLEGES THAT MR. SHOOTER GRABBED HER LEG.

Ms. Rodriguez alleges that, on May 15, 2013, Mr. Shooter inappropriately grabbed her leg,
without permission, during a meeting at the Windsor, in Phoenix, Arizona.

MS. ALLE GATIONS.

Around budget time in 2013, and while working for Veridus, Ms. Rodriguez claims to have
had a private, one?on?one meeting with Mr. Shooter in his Senate of?ce, during which she
attempted to lobby him.? It was a short meeting, during which she was interrupted, unable to
address her topic, and after which she felt she had done a poor job lobbying Mr. Shooter.
Somketime during that meeting, Mr. Shooter suggested they meet outside of the office and after
wor hours.

Ms. Rodriguez stated that Mr. Shooter?s request put her in a bind; as a new lobbyist she did
not want to fail, but his reputation preceded him. She ultimately decided to accept the invitation,
and asked another lobbyist~~Amanda Rusing-?to attend, mainly?because Ms. Rodriguez did not
want to be alone with Mr. Shooter. Ms. Rodriguez could not recall why she Speci?cally chose to
ask MS. Rusing to attend, but said (1) they had a budding friendship at the time, and (2) she knew
Ms. Rusing was Mr. Shooter?s former assistant and believed he treated her respectfully. Ms.
Rodriguez stated that while she asked Ms. Rusing to attend the meeting, Ms. Rodriguez does not
recall if she told Ms. Rusing that her attendance was requested because Ms. Rodriguez felt unsafe
around Mr. Shooter. Ms. Rodriguez made it clear to us that that she was not going to get drinks
alone with Mr. Shooter, and she was not comfortable being alone with him. The implication
appearing to be that, even if in a public setting like a bar, Ms. Rodriguez was uncomfortable
meeting with, and would not meet with, Mr. Shooter alone.

Ms. Rodriguez was adamant that (1) the meeting at the Windsor occurred within a couple days,
to a week, after her unproductive meeting with Mr. Shooter in his office (at which he allegedly
asked Ms. Rodriguez to meet him outside the of?ce after hours), and (2) she did not ask Ms. Rusing
to schedule the meeting with Mr. Shooter, because he suggested the meeting, and (ii) Ms.
Rodriguez has never asked another lobbyist to schedule a meeting for her because she believes it
would be unprofessional to do so.

Ms. Rodriguez believes she, Ms. Rusing, and Mr. Shooter met at the Windsor around happy
hour, but Ms. Rodriguez could not recall the exact time. She stated that it was not dark outside
when they met, but that it was a beautiful evening. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the trio were sitting
together on the Windsor?s patio, with herself and MS. Rusing sitting next to one another, and Mr.
Shooter sitting across from the two of them.

Ms. Rodriguez stated that, at some point while on the patio, Gretchen Jacobs joined the group.

 

37 At the time, Mr. Shooter was the Chairperson of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

34

Ms. Rodriguez was surprised to see Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Rodriguez does not recall exactly when Ms.
Jacobs arrived, but noted that by the time of her arrival, Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Rusing, and Mr.
Shooter already had started a tab. Ms. Rodriguez does not recall who paid for the patio drinks.38
Ms. Rodriguez stated that this meeting was the ?rst encounter she had ever had with Ms. Jacobs,
although Ms. Rodriguez knew of Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Rodriguez believes (but cannot be certain) that
the four of them had maybe two rounds of drinks and stayed on the Windsor?s patio for about an
hour. Ms. Rodriguez does not recall ever being alone with Mr. Shooter on the patio. Ms.
Rodriguez reported that while on the patio (1) she was unable to lobby Mr. Shooter, and (2) while
she cannot be certain about the conversation, she recalls not talking about the substantive issues
she wanted to address. Ms. Rodriguez noted that she had discomfort with lobbying for her clients
in Ms. Jacob?s presence. Ms. Rodriguez recalls she had a ?bob? haircut at the time, and that Ms.
Jacobs told Ms. Rodriguez that her haircut was a ?bitch haircut.?

Ms. Rodriguez stated that while she does not recall Ms. Rusing leaving speci?cally,
(1) everyone got up to leave from the Windsor patio, (2) Ms. Rusing left before Ms. Rodriguez,
and (3) she watched Ms. Jacobs wait for her car. Ms. Rodriguez stated that while everyone was
leaving, she asked Mr. Shooter if he would stay behind for one more drink because she was
determined to lobby him for her client. This request was allegedly made while standing in the
walkway between the patio seating area and the enclosed restaurant/bar. In other words, Ms.
Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter were to stay behind, at her suggestion and alone,39 to meet without
Ms. Rusing~~the person Ms. Rodriguez claims to have asked to attend the Windsor meeting so as
to not be alone with Mr. Shooter.

According to Ms. Rodriguez, a?er Ms. Rusing and Ms. Jacobs Ie? the Windsor, Mr. Shooter
and Ms. Rodriguez~~again, allegedly a!one--relocated to the indoor bar area. Ms. Rodriguez
believes this was likely around sunset, but cannot be sure. She claims the two sat at the bar and
that Mr. Shooter sat to her right. Ms. Rodriguez claims that she did not know anyone else sitting
in or around the bar. Ms. Rodriguez does not recall Mr. Shooter being noticeably intoxicated and
commented that he appeared to still have his ?wits about him.?

Ms. Rodriguez claimed that while at the bar, Mr. Shooter kept wanting to make small talk, but
eventually she was able to start lobbying him. Ms. Rodriguez reported that the duration of time
spent at the bar is blurred in her mind, but that after she started lobbying Mr. Shooter, he reached
over to her with his left hand and deliberately and intentionally gripped her knee. Ms. Rodriguez
claims that she then (1) pushed his hand away, (2) turned away, and (3) expressed that it was not
okay, she did not consent for him to do that, and it was inappropriate. Ms. Rodriguez believes that
Mr. Shooter then said something to the effect of: ?I?m just like a dog chasing a car, I wouldn?t
know what to do once I caught up with it?--although she cannot be sure he said this at that time.40
Ms. Rodriguez claimed that she did not respond, paid the bar check with a Veridus credit card,

 

33 As will be discussed below, both Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Rodriguez split the cost of this tab.

39 We do not suggest that a person invites misconduct by being alone with someone else. We
emphasize this point, because it is inconsistent with Ms. Rodriguez?s initial statement that she was
uncomfortable and refused to be alone with Mr. Shooter, hence Ms. Rusing?s invitation.

4? Ms. Rodriguez stated that while she cannot be sure this was the precise occasion during which
he made the statement in question, she cannot think of another time when he would have said it.
It is dif?cult to believe that Ms. Rodriguez would not recall whether this speci?c statement was
made at or around the time Mr. Shooter grabbed her leg, when she seems to vividly recall (1) where
people were sitting, (2) who left before she did, (3) that it was a beautiful evening, (4) Ms. Jacobs
waiting for her car, (5) the ?bitch haircut? comment, (6) how she speci?cally reacted to the alleged
touching and how it made her feel, (7) on which knee the touching allegedly occurred, and (8) that
she paid the bar check with a company credit card (which made her feel gross).

35

and then left the Windsor.

Again, Ms. Rodriguez was unequivocal that Ms. Jacobs was never at the inside bar with Mr.
Shooter and Ms. Rodriguez, including when the alleged touching occurred.

Ms. Rodriguez then stated that (1) the next day she returned to Veridus and told a group of
people about the incident and (2) got the impression that she would not have to lobby Mr. Shooter
again. When asked to whom at Veridus she conveyed the Windsor incident, Ms. Rodriguez
identi?ed Jeff Sandquist and Sharon Hossler. Ms. Rodriguez also stated that, at some point after
Elie incident, she told Representative Mark Cardenas what had happened and asked for

IS a wee.

Ms. Rodriguez conveyed that the alleged incident made her feel shocked, ashamed, taken
advantage of, out of control for the first time in a very long time, sick, gross (after picking up the
bar tab), and terri?ed (because if she mishandled the situation, it could end her career).

(ii) AMANDA RECOLLECTION OF THE WINDSOR MEETING.

Ms. Rusing believes the Windsor meeting was mid-session (maybe February or March), but
was unsure of the year. She reported that, at least at that time, she and Ms. Rodriguez were friends,
whereas they are more acquaintances now who get together maybe once a year.

Ms. Rusing recalled that Ms. Rodriguez asked Ms. Rusing to set up the meeting with Mr.
Shooter at the Windsor because Ms. Rusing had once worked for him. Ms. Rusing does not recall
how she contacted Mr. Shooter to schedule the meeting-4t could have been by text, or she could
have walked into his of?ce to schedule the meeting. Ms. Rusing also cannot recall, one way or
the other, Mr. Shooter?s sentiments about meeting with Ms. Rodriguez at the Windsor when asked
to do so. Ms. Rusing noted, however, that Mr. Shooter has stated generally-at times prior to and
after the Windsor meeting-that he does not like Ms. Rodriguez, ?she?s a snake?, and she is not
trustworthy. In Ms. Rusing?s opinion: don?t think he liked her too much.? That said, Ms; Rusing
does not recall Mr. Shooter stating, to her, that he would be uncomfortable meeting with Ms.
Rodriguez at the Windsor. 

Concerning the meeting at the Windsor, Ms. Rusing reported that no noteworthy occurrences
or interactions stick out in her mind. Ms. Rusing does not recall who arrived at the Windsor when,
but that at one point she, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Shooter were there sitting on the patio. Ms.
Rusing does not remember the seating arrangement. She recalls that Ms. Jacobs arrived while the
group was already on the patio (sometime after Ms. Rusing arrived). Ms. Rusing does not
remember why Ms. Jacobs was there but also would not have questioned her attendance.

Ms. Rusing left before the night ended. She believes that she probably stayed for two drinks
and some snacks before leaving. She does not recall if she paid for herself, or if Ms. Jacobs paid,
but would not be surprised if Ms. Jacobs paid. Ms. Rusing recalls that when she left, Ms. Jacobs,
Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Shooter were still at the Windsor. Ms. Rusing does not recall witnessing
1) Mr. Shooter touch Ms. Rodriguez?s leg, (2) Ms. Rodriguez asking Mr. Shooter to stop touching
her leg, or (3) any awkward moments between Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter. Ms. Rusing stated
that the event ?seemed like a fun night?-and that ?nothing stuck out about that night in [her] mind?.

Ms. Rusing further noted that (1) no one called her after that night to discuss the meeting or
report any misconduct, and (2) Ms. Rodriguez specifically did not tell Ms. Rusing about any

 

41 She does not remember when this happened, but believes she may have dene this by calling Mr.
Cardenas.

36

alleged inappropriate behavior. Ms. Rusing stated that, at the time of the alleged incident, she
would have ?assumed [Ms. Rodriguez] would have told [Ms. Rusing]? about any inappropriate
behavior. Ms. Rusing expressed surprise that Ms. Rodriguez did not say anything to Ms. Rusing
about the alleged incident, because if something happened to her with some ?creepy old man,? Ms.
Rusing would want to warn her young female friends to stay away.

Ms. Rusing reports that, when she heard about the alleged incident at the Windsor through the
press, she was surprised and considered the matter ?pretty out of left ?eld?. Ms. Rusing believes
Ms. Rodriguez?s allegation of inappropriate touching is out of character for Mr. Shooter. Ms.
Rusing noted that while he tells ?inappropriate jokes? that may sexualize men or women, she has
never seen him touch people, and he has never made Ms. Rusing feel like ?clutching her pearls?,
harassed, or uncomfortable. When asked if Mr. Shooter would make personal sexual comments
to a person, about that person, Ms. Rusing responded: can?t see him doing that?.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Rusing had considered her and Ms. Rodriguez friends at one point,
and Ms. Rusing did not personally disparage Ms. Rodriguez whatsoever.

GRETCHEN RECOLLECTION OF THE WINDSOR
MEETING.

Ms. Jacobs was at Windsor with Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter on the night in question.42
Ms. Jacobs recalled that (I) Mr. Shooter called her the night before he was scheduled to meet with
Ms. Rodriguez and Ms. Rusing at the Windsor, (2) conveyed his belief that Ms. Rodriguez did not
like him and thought he was a hillbilly, (3) stated that he was dreading the meeting, and (4) asked
Ms. Jacobs to attend because Ms. Rusing could not stay the entire time and he thought the meeting
would be miserable.43 Ms. Jacobs told Mr. Shooter that she had other meetings scheduled for the
day of the Windsor meeting and was not sure whether she could attend. Ultimately, however, she
was able to attend the Windsor meeting.

When Ms. Jacobs arrived at the Windsor, Ms. Rusing, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr. Shooter were
sitting at a round table on the patio. Ms. Jacobs joined them and sat next to Mr. Shooter. Ms.
Jacobs sat across from Ms. Rusing, and Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter were sitting across from
one another. After approximately 20-30 minutes outside, (1) Ms. Rusing left, (2) Ms. Jacobs paid
a bill, and (3) Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Shooter, and Ms. Jacobs went inside to the bar area;

Contrary to Ms. Rodriguez?s recollection of events, Ms. Jacobs adamantly (and convincingly)
stated that she went inside with Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter after the group left the patio and
Ms. Rusing left the Windsor. According to Ms. Jacobs, once inside, she, Ms. Rodriguez, and Mr.
Shooter sat at the bar. Ms. Rodriguez sat between Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter. The three of them
were there, together, approximately 20?30 minutes. Ms. Rodriguez was lobbying Mr. Shooter to
add a line item to the budget, but he told her it was too late in the session. Ms. Jacobs suggested
increasing an existing line item in the budget, such as for the Department of Education, and then

 

42 All percipient witnesses we were able to interview corroborate this. And those to whom Ms.
Rodriguez claimed to have conveyed the alleged incident also state that, according to Ms.
Rodriguez, Ms. Jacobs, at minimum, attended part of the Windsor meeting, and allegedly ruined
Ms. Rodriguez?s lobbying efforts.

?3 Ms. Jacobs conveyed her understanding that Ms. Rusing is Mr. Shooter?s former assistant and
leveraged that relationship to obtain a meeting for Ms. Rodriguez with Mr. Shooter at the Windsor.
Ms. Jacobs stated that she understood that Ms. Rodriguez had been trying to meet with Mr. Shooter
but had been getting stonewalled. Ms. Jacobs noted her belief that Ms. Rusing asked for this favor
of Mr. Shooter to help Ms. Rusing make work-related connections.

37

requesting the Department designate those funds to Ms. Rodriguez?s client.44 Ms. Jacobs noted
that, after this interaction, Ms. Rodriguez appeared irritated at Ms. Jacobs, ignored her suggestion,
and continued to push Mr. Shooter for a new line item. Ms. Jacobs also recalled making a
comment, while sitting at the bar, about Ms. Rodriguez?s haircut looking mean.

Ms. Jacobs was unequivocal that (1) Ms. Rodriguez left the Windsor for the evening before
Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter left, and (2) q??er Ms. Rodriguez left, Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter
remained at the bar for another 20?30 minutes.45 Ms. Jacobs stated that she and Mr. Shooter were
relieved when Ms. Rodriguez left, and both commented on Ms. Rodriguez?s so-called ?millennial?
lobbying style. Ms. Jacobs recalls that Mr. Shooter said something to the effect that Ms. Rodriguez
did not like him before that evening and probably does not like him now. Ms. Jacobs ?nished her
drink and then left.

Ms. Jacobs does not recall any behavior out of the ordinary. She did not get the impression, at
least then, that Ms. Rodriguez would be vindictive about that night but did feel like Ms. Rodriguez
felt contempt for both Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter after the meeting. Ms. Jacobs thought the night
was awkward, but did not believe anyone had been harassed. Ms. Jacobs stated that she felt that
Ms. Rodriguez?s behavior that evening at least implied that she did not respect either Mr. Shooter
or Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would be surprised if anything happened between Ms.
Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter, given the mutual dislike among them at that time, and because the
allegations of improper touching would be inconsistent with her knowledge of Mr. Shooter?s
character (she believes that, other than hugging, Mr. Shooter is generally hands offli?6

(iv) MR. RECOLLECTION OF THE WINDSOR MEETING
AND RESPONSE To Ms. ALLEGATION THAT HE
GRIPPED HER KNEE.

Mr. Shooter does not recall ever meeting with Ms. Rodriguez in his of?ce prior to the Windsor
meeting. He stated that he would be surprised if he ever did because of his ill feelings toward Ms.

 

4? Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Rodriguez do not agree about which of Ms. Rodriguez?s then-clients she
was lobbying. Moreover, Ms. Rodriguez denies that Ms. Jacobs made any such suggestion
because Ms. Rodriguez states that she was never able to actually lobby for her client in front of
Ms. Jacobs in the first place.

45 Ms. Jacobs does not recall if she left Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter alone at the bar for any
moment during the time the three of them were together at the bar. However, Ms. Jacobs is certain
Ms. Rodriguez left before Ms. Jacobs, and in any event, Ms. Jacobs did not witness Mr. Shooter
touch Ms. Rodriguez?s knee, or see a change in Ms. Rodriguez?s demeanor.

46 When Ms. Jacobs read Ms. Rodriguez?s allegations, as printed in the Arizona Capitol Times,
she was concerned with both the allegations, and the omission of Ms. Jacobs as having attended
the Windsor meeting. Ms. Jacobs contacted the Arizona Capitol Times and asked whether Ms.
Rodriguez made the reporter who wrote the article aware of Ms. Jacobs? attendance at the Windsor
meeting (but simply left that fact out of the article). According to Ms. Jacobs, the Arizona Capitol
Times responded that, per the reporter who wrote the article, Ms. Rodriguez never rzzemfoned Ms.
Jacobs. Ms. Jacobs then asked the newspaper to have the reporter ask Ms. Rodriguez whether Ms.
Jacobs had been at the Windsor meeting. In an e?mail, the Arizona Capitol Times responded, in
part: ?One of our reporters called Marilyn, and Marilyn con?rmed you were there but not all the
time. She said you had joined them at one point, but left before she did and it was just the two of
them after you left.? We surmise that Ms. Jacobs? concern with Ms. Rodriguez having left Ms.
Jacobs out of the initial story is because Ms. Rodriguez knew Ms. Jacobs was at the bar and would
contradict the allegations. At minimum, when pressed, it appears Ms. Rodriguez conceded that
Ms. Jacobs was at least at the meeting for a period of time but claimed Ms. Jacobs left before the

alleged touching.
38

Rodriguez. That said, he also stated that ?anything?s possible?, and thus it is possible he does not
remember the meeting.

Indeed, Mr. Shooter withheld very little when describing (1) his opinion of, and feelings for,
Ms. Rodriguez, or (2) his perception of their relationship. Mr. Shooter denied having a working
relationship with Ms. Rodriguez, noting that he ?didn?t like her? and ?didn?t trust her.? He
believed that she ?basically hated? him, because he is a ?conservative Republican?, and he made
it very clear that the two of them did not like each other. Mr. Shooter claimed that he went so far
as to tell his assistant to never schedule a meeting with Ms. Rodriguez because she was banned
from his office.? Mr. Shooter further noted that he had disliked Ms. Rodriguez before the Windsor
meeting and when she made her allegations in the press. He characterized her as
?inconsequential? and on the ?peripheral? as a lobbyist, (ii) not very good at her job, and
not very nice. Mr. Shooter stated that he believes a person cannot be good at anything if that
person is not a good person (presumably, at minimum, implying Ms. Rodriguez is not a good
person).48 In the end, it is clear that Mr. Shooter and Ms. Rodriguez strongly disliked, and still
dislike, each other.

Mr. Shooter stated that Ms. Rusing asked him to take a meeting with Ms. Rodriguez. He claims
he obliged, only as afavor to Ms. Rnsing, and would not have met with Ms. Rodriguez otherwise.
Ms. Rusing and Ms. Rodriguez were already at the Windsor when he arrived. The three sat on the
patio. Mr. Shooter stated that he asked Ms. Jacobs to attend the meeting with him, and she arrived
while he, Ms. Rusing, and Ms. Rodriguez were still on the patio. After Ms. Jacobs arrived, the
group sat on the patio a little longer. Mr. Shooter recalled that Ms. Rodriguez had just had a haircut
that ?looked awful? and that Ms. Jacobs had made a comment about the haircut.

Mr. Shooter recalled that Ms. Rodriguez wanted to talk about a budget item during the meeting.
He could not remember any speci?cs about the item, but he recalls 1) telling Ms. Rodriguez ?it?ll
never work?, and (2) she became ?grumpy? after he shut down her proposal. Mr. Shooter recalled
Ms. Jacobs making a suggestion about how to possibly accommodate Ms. Rodriguez?s budget
request, and that it was a good suggestion. Mr. Shooter noted that he found the entire meeting

pain?il.

Mr. Shooter stated that, eventually, Ms. Rusing left the Windsor. Sometime after Ms. Rusing
left, Mr. Shooter, Ms. Jacobs, and Ms. Rodriguez went inside to the bar and had a few drinks. Mr.
Shooter recalls that Ms. Rodriguez was the next person to leave the Windsor, because he recalls
discussing her hair with Ms. Jacobs again after Ms. Rodriguez left. Mr. Shooter recalls it being a
pretty early evening, and speculated that Ms. Jacobs probably paid.

Mr. Shooter insisted he was never alone with Ms. Rodriguez, and ?made sure of that?, because
it would have been a nightmare. He adamantly denied ever touching Ms. Rodriguez?s leg and is
unwavering that her allegation is false.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK CARDBNAS DOES NOT RECALL Ms.
RODRIGUEZ MENTIONING THAT MR. SHOOTER GRIPPED HER
LEG OR HARASSED HER AT THE WINDSOR.

We interviewed Mr. Cardenas because Ms. Rodriguez unequivocally claimed that she told him

 

47 We attempted, but were unable, to corroborate this statement with Mr. Shooter?s former
assistant.

48 While Mr. Shooter?s description of his feelings for Ms. Rodriguez seemed sincere, we take no
position regarding whether those feelings are justi?ed or empirically supportable. We only report
them because they provide context for purposes of our investigation of this allegation.

39

about the Windsor meeting, the alleged touching, and even asked for his advice about the matter.

Mr. Cardenas had no recollection whatsoever of Ms. Rodriguez (1) telling him about an
incident at the Windsor with Mr. Shooter, or (2) any incident where Mr. Shooter had touched Ms.
Rodriguez inappropriately. Indeed, Mr. Cardenas unequivocally stated that he ?de?nitely would?
remember a story about inappropriate touching if Ms. Rodriguez had told him such a story, because
he remembers ?every instance? concerning when lawmakers cross the line with lobbyists.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Cardenas considers he and Ms. Rodriguez to have a friendly working
relationship, and he generally had nothing negative to say about, and did not disparage, her.

(vi) JEFF SANDQUIST DOES NOT RECALL Ms. RODRIGUEZ
MENTIONING THAT MR. SHOOTER GRIPPED HER LEG OR
HARASSED HER AT THE WINDSOR, BUT INSTEAD, RECALLS ONLY
Ms. FRUSTRATION WITH HER UNSUCCESSFUL AND
INTERRUPTED LOBBYING EFFORT.

We interviewed Mr. Sandquist because Ms. Rodriguez stated that (1) she told him about the
Windsor meeting the next day, including the touching incident, and (2) in light of her report, she
got the impression that she would not have to lobby Mr. Shooter again.

Mr. Sandquist is a principal at Veridus and was so at the time Ms. Rodriguez allegedly met
with Mr. Shooter at his of?ce, and later, the Windsor. Mr. Sandqui st recalled Ms. Rodriguez going
to the Windsor to have drinks with Mr. Shooter, but does not recall the exact issue that the two of
them were supposed to discuss during that meeting.

Mr. Sandquist stated that, the next day after the Windsor meeting, Ms. Rodriguez was very
unhappy with how the meeting went. Mr. Sandquist, however, does not recall her unhappiness
being because of Mr. Shooter harassing or touching her. Instead, Mr. Sandquist recalls Ms.
Rodriguez?s unhappiness being because (1) another female lobbyist (Ms. Jacobs) was there, acted
unfriendly, and interfered with the conversation Ms. Rodriguez was trying'to have with Mr.
Shooter, and (2) the meeting generally was unproductive.

More critically, Mr. Sandquist (I) does not recall Ms. Rodriguez saying that Mr. Shooter
touched her leg, or that she and Mr. Shooter were ever alone (although Mr. Sandquist stated,
somewhat apologetically, that he has no reason to necessarily doubt her story), and (2) has no
recollection of being told Mr. Shooter acted inappropriately at the time of the alleged Windsor
incident or at any other time.49 Mr. Sandquist noted that had Ms. Rodriguez told him of
inappropriate touching or other behavior, he would have remembered and would have met with
other partners at Veridus and addressed the issue immediately. Mr. Sandquist stated that he may
have discussed the Windsor meeting incident with others at his ?rm, and that none, to his
knowledge, have a recollection of the incident as reported to the press by Ms. Rodriguez.

Mr. Sandquist expressed his general awareness that Ms. Rodriguez did not like lobbying Mr.
Shooter, but to Mr. Sandquist?s knowledge, her preference was not because of any allegations of
sexual harassment. Rather, it was because Ms. Rodriguez was primarily a Democratic lobbyist.
Mr. Sandquist also stated that Ms. Rodriguez preferred not to lobby Mr. Shooter because she felt
doing so was not productive (thus, usually someone else would do so). Even so, Mr. Sandquist

 

49 Mr. Sandquist noted that he did not speak with Ms. Rodriguez about the Windsor incident since
the day after the meeting occurred, except as in the sense of how Ms. Jacobs (as Opposed to Mr.
Shooter) had treated Ms. Rodriguez. Again, to the best of Mr. Sandquist?s recollection, Mr.
Shooter?s conduct or alleged treatment of Ms. Rodriguez was not discussed.

40

does not recall any instance of Ms. Rodriguez stating that she did not want to lobby Mr. Shooter.

Mr. Sandquist presents very credibly. He did not disparage Ms. Rodriguez. He apologetically
made it clear that he had no basis upon which to doubt Ms. Rodriguez?s story, but he stood ?rm
on his recollection of what Ms. Rodriguez had reported to him after the Windsor meeting.

(vii) SHARON HOSSLER DOES NOT RECALL Ms. RODRIGUEZ
MENTIONING THAT MR. SHOOTER GRIPPED HER LEG 0R
HARASSED HER AT THE WINDSOR.

We contacted Ms. Hossler because Ms. Rodriguez informed us that she told Ms. Hossler
?everything?.

We asked Ms. Hossler if she recalled Ms. Rodriguez telling Ms. Hossler that Mr. Shooter
touched Ms. Rodriguez?s leg at the Windsor. Ms. Hossler did not recall being told that, and
believed she would have remembered if Ms. Rodriguez had told her. Ms. Hossler, however,
recalled Ms. Rodriguez being unhappy about the Windsor meeting, because Mr. Shooter brought
Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Hossler stated that Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Rodriguez have never gotten along; they
would work together when necessary, but they did not socialize. Ms. Hossler vaguely remembered
that perhaps Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Rodriguez ?had words? at the Windsor meeting but could not
remember the exact words (it may have been related to the ?bitch haircut? comment discussed
above).

Ms. Hossler does not recall Ms. Rodriguez telling her that she would no longer lobby Mr.
Shooter. However, Ms. Hossler believed that, at some point, someone told her not to schedule Ms.
Rodriguez to lobby Mr. Shooter alone because Ms. Hossler always scheduled him to meet with
other lobbyists. Ms. Hossler could not recall when that directive may have been made.

In the end, it is clear that Ms. Hossler could not remember Ms. Rodriguez ever telling Ms.
Hossler about any alleged touching or other harassment at the Windsor meeting.50

CALENDARS AND RECEIPTS.

During her ?rst interview, Ms. Rodriguez stated that she had no documentation or receipts to
support her story regarding the Windsor meeting, but that she would see whether her former
employer at the time, Veridus, had any such information. Rather than wait, we contacted Veridus
ourselves and Obtained (1) the receipts that Ms. Rodriguez submitted for reimbursement for drinks
and food at the Windsor on 5/15/13, and (2) Ms. Rodriguez?s calendar for the relevant time period
as it pertained to any scheduled meetings with Mr. Shooter. In addition, Ms. Jacobs supplied us
with a bank statement for 5H 5/13, evidencing purchases at the Windsor. All of this information
was revealing.

Ms. Jacobs? bank statement for 5/ 15/ 13--the date of the Windsor meeting and the same date of
the receipts Ms. Rodriguez supplied to Veridus for reimbursement~showed two charges at the

 

50 It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the interview, Ms. Hossler stated that she believed it
was a good thing that women could ?nally speak up for themselves and volunteered reasons for
why Ms. Rodriguez would not have shared the Windsor incident (without us asking and without
actually having spoken to Ms. Rodriguez about why she never revealed the incident), projecting
that perhaps Ms. Rodriguez harbored feelings of shame and embarrassment. None of this,
however, reconciles (1) Ms. Rodriguez?s unequivocal position that she shared the alleged touching
at the Windsor meeting with Ms. Hossler, Mr. Sandquist, and Mr. Cardenas, with (2) the reality
that none of them recall ever being told about the alleged touching.

41

Windsor from that date. One of those charges was for the exact same amount as Ms. Rodriguez?s
receipt, including a $10 tip-evidencing that they likely split the bill. The second charge was for a
much lower amount and supports Ms. Jacobs? assertion that she was in the bar with Ms. Rodriguez
and Mr. Shooter. Ms. Rodriguez?s receipt from the bar totaled $13, $3 of which was a tip. Ms.
Jacobs? second charge, although for $23~~more than $13~~is easily explained by Ms. Jacobs? claim
that it is common for her to leave a large tip. Regardless, Ms. Jacobs? bank statement suggests she
paid for a drink or two of the indoor bar and left a tip. This charge was also lower the dinner charge
($64.3 8), further indicating it was likely part of the indoor bar tab. In short, the bank statements
and receipts show that the bills for drinks or food consumed on the patio, and at the bar, were split
between, and paid by, Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Rodriguez. Therefore, the documentation (1) supports
Ms. Jacobs? and Mr. Shooter?s positions that Ms. Jacobs was of the indoor bar, and (2) belies Ms.
Rodriguez?s position that Ms. Jacobs left before Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Shooter went to the
indoor bar after the other two attendees had left, (ii) where the two were always alone, and
Ms. Rodriguez paid the bill and left after Mr. Shooter allegedly gripped her knee. Stated
differently, the documentation places Ms Jacobs at the bar, and corroborates her and M1. Shooter?s
positions that Ms. Rodriguez left the Windsor before the two of them (after which they continued
to discuss Ms. Rodriguez). This, combined with the fact that not one person Ms. Rodriguez claims
to have told about the alleged touching recalls ever having been told about it (but many recall the
presence of Ms. Jacobs, and Ms. Rodriguez?s reaction to Ms. Jacobs? attendance), renders it highly
improbable that the alleged touching occurred.

Ms. Rodriguez?s calendar appointments and related documents are likewise revealing. Ms.
Rodriguez con?rmed that the standard operating procedure at Veridus for scheduling an
appointment with a legislator is that (1) a lobbyist tells the scheduler a meeting is required, (2) the
scheduler works with the legislator?s office to secure a meeting, and (3) once secured, every
lobbyist receives a calendar appointment for the meeting. Ms. Hossler confirmed this practice,
and stated that either she or the front desk will create calendar appointments, and that 99% of
meetings will go through her or the front desk and make it on the calendars of Veridus lobbyists.
She said, very rarely, a lobbyist may run into a legislator and take a meeting right then, but that -
99% of all scheduled meetings are on the calendar.

Under that standard operating procedure for?scheduling meetings with legislators, assuming it
was followed, Ms. Rodriguez should have had an app ointment on her calendar for both the meeting
with Mr. Shooter a few days to a week before the Windsor meeting, and the Windsor meeting.
Ms. Rodriguez?s calendar appointments related to Mr. Shooter, including those before and after
the Windsor meeting, do not re?ect a meeting had been scheduled at Mr. Shooter?s office as
reported. In fact, the closest calendar meeting with Mr. Shooter was on April 4, 2013~~more than
one month before the Windsor meeting. Of course, it is possible that this instance fell within the
1% of those impromptu meetings that do not make the formal calendar, but no one stated this was
the case, and given the evidence and the inconsistencies with Ms. Rodriguez?s story, we carmot
comfortably give her the bene?t of the doubt and conclude that this speci?c meeting occurred.
But, even if we did give Ms. Rodriguez the bene?t of the doubt concerning this meeting, it still
does not reconcile (1) her claim that she told others that Mr. Shooter gripped her knee while the
two of them were atone at her request-someone whom, again, she was clear she would never be
alone with, hence inviting Ms. Rusing to the Windsor meeting, (2) with the facts that none of
those people recall being told about the alleged touching (but recall Ms. Rodriguez?s frustration
with Ms. Jacobs), (ii) Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter insist that Ms. Jacobs was at the bar and Ms.
Rodriguez left before them, and Ms. Jacobs apparently paid at least part of the bill incurred at
the indoor bar.

With regard to the Windsor meeting, it appears there was a calendar appointment created
internally in the Ver?idus system, but not accepted by, or sent to, a recipient. Whereas, there was
another calendar appointment for the Windsor meeting-generated by Ms. Rusing and accepted by
Mr. Rodriguez. This is consistent with Ms. Rusing?s and Mr. Shooter?s position concerning who

42

scheduled the Windsor meeting and why, but inconsistent with Ms. Rodriguez?s story.
(ix) CONCLUSION.

We followed up with Ms. Rodriguez to (1) explain the evidentiary and factual inconsistencies
with her allegations, and (2) give her an opportunity to address or reconcile those issues, or direct
us to any information or other evidence supporting her allegations.

We conveyed our ?ndings and concerns to Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez nonetheless stood
by her prior statements, and offered that Ms. Hossler might recall being told about the alleged
touching, because Ms. Rodriguez told Ms. Hossler ?everything?.5 1 Ms. Rodriguez also told us that
she might have told another one of her friends about the Windsor meeting. Ms. Rodriguez offered
to connect us with him, but she did not.

When asked why there was no meeting scheduled with Mr. Shooter, as would have occurred
per Veridus? standard operating procedure for scheduling a meeting (a procedure Ms. Rodriguez
con?rmed), she could not offer a reason, other than maybe Mr. Shooter?s office informed the
scheduler that he was available that day, she received instructions to go, and went without any
calendar appointment in place for that impromptu meeting. This seems unlikely (albeit, possible),
and there is no evidence to corroborate that was the case. But even were this the case, again, it
does not resolve several other inconsistencies in the evidence that undermine Ms. Rodriguez?s
allegations.

When presented with the calendar invite from Ms. Rusing for the Windsor meeting, Ms.
Rodriguez speculated that perhaps she and Ms. Rusing had created a calendar invite. Even if true,
it does not negate but]? Ms. Rusing?s and Mr. Shooter?s recollection that Ms. Rusing-and not Ms.
Rodriguez--scheduled the Windsor meeting. At most, it just shows that both women sent an invite
for the meeting. Relatedly, when presented with Ms. Rusing?s and Mr. Shooter?s positions that it
was IVS. Rusing who scheduled the Windsor meeting at Ms. Rodriguez?s request, she reiterated
that she scheduled the meeting herself and merely asked Ms. Rusing to attend. Ms. Rodriguez
stated that while she did not want to call Ms. Rusing a liar, Ms. Rodriguez nonetheless recalled the
event differently than Ms. Rusing. There is no evidence, other than Ms. Rodriguez?s recollection,
to support her position that she, and not Ms. Rusing, scheduled the Windsor meeting. Whereas,
the documents Veridus provided, together with other witness accounts (including those concerning
the strained relationship between the accuser and the accused), support the conclusion that Ms.
Rodriguez asked Ms. Rusing to schedule the Windsor meeting with Mr. Shooter, and that she did.

In the end, Ms. Rodriguez stuck by her narrative, but there are simply too many inconsistencies
to conclude that her allegation has merit. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we conclude that
there is no credible evidence establishing that Mr. Shooter gripped Ms. Rodriguez?s leg at the
Windsor on the night in question.

ALLEGED INCIDENT No. 2: THE EVENT AT HOB NOBS.

Ms. Rodriguez alleges that, in 2013 or 2014, Mr. Shooter made inappropriate and sexually
suggestive comments concerning or toward her at a social event.52

 

51 We interviewed Ms. Hossler (see above). She had no such recollection.

52 Ms. Rodriguez said that she did not tell the media about this incident, because (1) it was hard
enough to tell her first story about the alleged touching, but also (2) she did not recall the incident
until after her interview concerning the Windsor incident.

43

 Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Cardenas planned a series of ?fun caucus? events, meant to be a
bipartisan event to bring legislators from both parties together to socialize.

The event in question (1) occurred in approximately 2013 or 2014 at Hob Nobs in Phoenix,
Arizona,53 but (2) after the Windsor meeting. At the event, Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Cardenas, and two
lobbyists began playing the board game RISK. Ms. Rodriguez believes she was sitting next to one
lobbyist (sharing a bench), and Mr. Cardenas and the other lobbyist were across from her.

After the group had started playing the game, Ms. Rodriguez noticed Mr. Shooter was present.
He sat next to Ms. Rodriguez on the bench (to her right), and she recalls then scooting closer to
the lobbyist to her left. While she was shaking the dice in her hands, she noticed Mr. Shooter was
looking at her but didn?t think much about it. When she shook the dice a second time, she realized
that Mr. Shooter was noticing the way her body quavered while she shook the dice. By the third
round, Ms. Rodriguez did not shake the dice, but moved them around in her hand and placed them
on the table. Ms. Rodriguez states that, at that time, Mr. Shooter said something to the effect of:
?No, you?ve gotta shake them. I like it when you do that.? Ms. Rodriguez did not respond but
claims to have made up an emergency and immediately left the event. She stated that she did not

?nish the game.

Ms. Rodriguez recalled feeling angry, gross, and mad after the Hob Nobs incident. She thought
she was in a safe space. She did not choose to sit next to Mr. Shooter, or to attend an event she
knew he would attend. Ms. Rodriguez felt like confronting Mr. Shooter could ruin her career,
which is why she made up an emergency to leave.

At some point after the Hob Nobs event, Ms. Rodriguez spoke to Mr. Cardenas. She conveyed
that she may have spoken with Mr. Cardenas about the Hob Nobs incident multiple times. She
claimed to have told Mr. Cardenas that either she could go to fun caucus events, or Mr. Shooter
could go, but not both of them. She believes (but is not positive) that Mr. Cardenas told her he
would talk to Mr. Shooter about the situation. A short time after the alleged incident, Ms.
Rodriguez reported that she saw Mr. Shooter in the lobby of the Senate, at which time he put up
his hands in a surrender position (a common reactionary description by many who we interviewed
throughout this investigation), looked at her with big eyes, and then left. This made Ms. Rodriguez
think Mr. Cardenas had spoken with him.

(ii) MR. MARK RECOLLECTION OF THE 
EVENT AT HOB Nous.

Mr. Cardenas stated that he met Ms. Rodriguez around January 2013, during his first year at
the Capitol. They were a part of a casual group of younger lobbyists and lawmakers, of similar
age, who started working at the Capitol around the same time. This group would occasionally get
together outside of the office. Mr. Cardenas stated that he and Ms. Rodriguez started a ?fun
caucus? intended to organize all young people, from both sides of the aisle, to socialize together.

Mr. Cardenas believes that sometime in 2014, he and Ms. Rodriguez decided to have a ?fun
caucus? board game night, and decided on Hob Nobs as the location. At this point, Mr. Cardenas
had a Iistserv his assistant would use to notify invitees about the location, time, and date of fun
caucus. Mr. Cardenas recalled that his then~assistant mentioned that Mr. Shooter planned to

 

53 Ms. Rodriguez believed the event may have occurred in either 2013 or 2014. Mr. Cardenas
recalls the event may have occurred in 2014. Both of them, and Mr. Shooter, nonetheless recall

that the event occurred.

44

attend. Mr. Shooter asked Mr. Cardenas for a ride to the event, and he agreed. Mr. Cardenas
picked Mr. Shooter up from his Phoenix residence.?

Mr. Cardenas stated that he could tell Ms. Rodriguez was acting differently at Hob Nobs. Mr.
Cardenas asked her what was wrong during the event, and she said something like, don?t want
to be around Senator Shooter.? Mr. Cardenas asked why, and Ms. Rodriguez responded with
something like, ?He?s just creepy.? Mr. Cardenas asked Ms. Rodriguez if they should call it a
night early, and Ms. Rodriguez told him they could just talk about it tomorrow. After this
conversation, a group of attendees began to play the board game RISK. Mr. Cardenas noted that
Mr. Shooter sat next to Mr. Cardenas, and Ms. Rodriguez was somewhere across from them. Mr.
Cardenas recalled Ms. Rodriguez sitting next to an individual different than the lobbyist she
identi?ed.

Mr. Cardenas recalls Mr. Shooter saying something creepy about Ms. Rodriguez?s chest (but
does not remember specifics), and that Ms. Rodriguez subsequently pulled up her blouse.55 Ms.
Rodriguez did not say anything in response to Mr. Shooter.

When asked about whether Mr. Shooter may have made a comment about how Ms. Rodriguez
shook the dice during the game, Mr. Cardenas recalled Mr. Shooter saying something to Ms.
Rodriguez about shaking the dice harder, or that he liked when she shook the dice (although Mr.
Cardenas could not remember exactly what was said). Mr. Cardenas stated that the table was
surrounded with RISK players, and they all played for about two hours before stopping. Mr.
Cardenas stated that Ms. Rodriguez stayed the entire time (despite her statement that she feigned
an emergency and immediately left). Mr. Cardenas recalled Ms. Rodriguez leaving before he left,
but she did not tell him why she was leaving. Mr. Cardenas also noted that everyone left not too
long after Ms. Rodriguez. Mr. Cardenas stated that Ms. Rodriguez was visibly uncomfortable the
entire night.

The following day, Mr. Cardenas knew Ms. Rodriguez would be at the Capitol, so he found
her to talk about the event the night before. He says he apologized to Ms. Rodriguez for bringing
Mr. Shooter, and stated he would not bring him to any other events. Ms. Rodriguez told Mr.
Cardenas (1) that it was ?ne, (2) but that she did not like being around Mr. Shooter, and (3) that
?he?s creepy.? Mr. Cardenas said that he would talk to Shooter about it, and in response Ms.
Rodriguez thanked Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Cardenas told us that his conversation with Ms. Rodriguez
was very short.

About one week later, Mr. Cardenas had to lobby Mr. Shooter about a bill. He heard that Mr.
Shooter liked to drink, so Mr. Cardenas bought Mr. Shooter a bottle of Scotch and planned to
lobby him. At 8:30 am. one day at the Capitol, Mr. Cardenas saw Mr. Shooter walking from the
direction of the parking lot. Mr. Cardenas shouted to Mr. Shooter, saying something like, ?Hey,
I?m here to meet with you? and showed him the bottle. Mr. Shooter responded that it was too early
to drink. Mr. Cardenas responded that he had the good stuff, to which Mr. Shooter replied: ?Just
a skosh.? At the end of that meeting, Mr. Cardenas told Mr. Shooter, casually, something to the
effect of: ?Hey, just so you or ?I?m just letting you someone at the Capitol said 
you said something inappropriate about her chest. Mr. Cardenas said that he told Mr. Shooter: ?1
don?t want to make it a big deal.? Mr. Shooter responded as though it was not a big deal. Mr.

 

54 The use of the term ?residence? is not meant to state or imply that Mr. Shooter permanently
?resides? in Phoenix. The term ?residence? is meant to convey the place where it is believed Mr.
Shooter had stayed while attending to his business or legislative duties while in Phoenix during
the time in question.

55 Ms. Rodriguez did not convey this incident to us, although we have no reason to disbelieve Mr.
Cardenas? recollection.

45

Cardenas did not say anything else to Shooter about Hob Nobs, mention Ms. Rodriguez by name,
01' discuss it again.

Mn. RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT
AT HOB Nous.

Mr. Shooter remembered attending the Hob Nobs event but did not initially recall whether Mss.
Rodiiguez attended. He remembered people were playing games (not him; he found it b01ing).56
Mr. Shoote1 attended to see what the event was about. He believes he was probably the only
Republican to attend.

Mr. Shooter recalled someone picking him up. When asked 1f1t could have been Mr. Cardenas,
Mr. Shooter said it was probably him.5 He recalled they parked a block or two away and had to
walk a little bit to arrive at the restaurant.

Mr. Shooter emphatically denied making a comment about Ms. Rodriguez shaking dice and
does not recall making a comment about her chest. Mr. Shooter does not remember Mr. Cardenas
ever talking to Mr. Shooter about making an inappropriate comment, but readily confessed that it
could have happened, if Mr. Cardenas said it happened. According to Mr. Shooter, he does not
believe Mr. Cardenas is trying to kill Mr. Shooter politically, so Mr. Cardenas may be telling the
truth. Mr. Shooter also stated that, if Mr. Cardenas heard Mr. Shooter make a comment about Ms.
Rodriguez?s chest, then it could be possible that Mr. Shooter did so (but he did not know for sure).
When asked why Mr. Cardenas would say something happened if it had not, Mr. Shooter said he
would not be surprised if Ms. Rodriguez told Mr. Cardenas something happened when it did not
(a statement that con?icts with his prior indication that Mr. Cardenas may be telling the truth, at
least concerning whether Mr. Shooter made an inappropriate comment). Eventually, Mr. Shooter
stated that he does not recall making any comment about Ms. Rodriguez?s chest (as opposed
to denying having done so), and (2) would be pretty sur'piised if it happened, because he does not
?nd Ms. Rodriguez attractive (compelling ugs to wonder, had he found her attractive, would he not
be su1 piised if he had made the comment).58

(iv) CONCLUSION.

At minimum Mr. Shooter: (1) denies making a sexualized comment about how Ms. Rodriguez
shook dice; (2) does not recall making sexualized comments about her chest, but believes them to
be unlikely because he does not ?nd Ms. Rodriguez attractive; but (3) stated that if Mr. Cardenas
heard Mr. Shooter make a comment about Ms. Rodriguez?s chest, then it could be possible that
Mr. Shooter did so (but he did not know for sure). We cannot ignore the inconsistencies with Ms.
Rodriguez?s allegations concerning the Windsor meeting. However, unlike those allegations, Mr.
Cardenas corroborated Ms. Rodriguez?s story (and offered an additional observation of

 

56 Mr. Shooter also stated that he went because he found out from a lobbyist who worked for Ms.
Jacobs at the time had planned to use Ms. Jacobs? credit card to pay for everything. The lobbyist
apparently would not invite Ms. Jacobs because she was too old for this get together. It is unclear
to us why this fact compelled Mr. Shooter to attend the event 01' why he even mentioned this
information to us.

57 He initially recalled perhaps being picked up by another legislator?s ?gay assistant? whom Mr.
Shooter recalled being a nice person. We have no idea why Mr. Shooter felt it necessary to state
this speci?c information.

53 Later, (during an interview on 12/15/17), when asked whether it was possible that he made a
neutral comment about Ms. Rodriguez?s chest to Mr. Cardenas-not intended for her to bean?Mr.
Shooter noted that it would make more logical sense for that to have happened, than for him to
have made a sexual comment about her chest.

46

inappropriate conduct of his own concerning Ms. Rodriguez?s chest). We cannot discern any
motive for Mr. Cardenas to risk his reputation by being dishonest about his recollection of events,
and we ?nd him??and his recollection of events--credible.

Thus, we conclude that there is credible evidence that Mr. Shooter made inappropriate,
sexualized comments directed toward Ms. Rodriguez at the Hob Nobs event about how she
shook the dice, and (ii) her chest. The comments were of a sexualized nature, and at least with
regard to the ?shaking of the dice? comment, directed to Ms. Rodriguez for her to hear. Thus, in
this instance, Mr. Shooter?s conduct was inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome, and occurred
because of Ms. Rodriguez?s sex. It also contributed to environment that a reasonable person
would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object ofthe harassment perceives it
to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr. Shooter?s behavior amounted
to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to prevent, including
(1) discrimination, (2) sexual harassment, and (3) conduct contributing to a hostile work
environment.

ALLEGED INCIDENT N0. 3: THE NOVEMBER 2015 CAPITOL TIMES
FASHION SHOW FITTING.

Ms. Rodriguez alleged that, in November 2015, Mr. Shooter made an inappropriate and
sexually suggestive comment concerning or toward her,- in passing, as she was leaving a clothing
boutique for a fitting in connection with her participation in a fashion show event hosted by the
Arizona Capitol Times.?

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

In approximately November 2015, Ginger Lamb, then with the Arizona Capitol Times, asked
Ms. Rodriguez to participate in a fashion show event. Ms. Rodriguez agreed. In connection with
the event, Ms. Rodriguez went to a women?s clothing boutique in Arcadia for a ?tting, but cannot
recall the name of the boutique. As Ms. Rodriguez was walking up to the boutique, she saw Ms.
Jacobs and Mr. Shooter leaving the boutique. Ms. Rodriguez claimed to have been cordial to the
two, and said hello. Ms. Rodriguez stated that (1) Mr. Shooter offered to stay behind to help her
in the dressing room, and (2) Ms. Jacobs then playfully hit Mr. Shooter and told him something to
the effect of: ?You can?t say things like that.? Ms. Rodriguez believes she said something to them,
to the effect of she was running late, and then moved inside the boutique.

Ms. Rodriguez recalled feeling uncomfortable, harassed, exasperated, and irritated. Ms.
Rodriguez stated to us: ?Every time I?m around this man, he finds a way to harass me.?

(ii) GRETCHEN RECOLLECTION OF THE FITTING.

Ms. Jacobs did not recall Mr. Shooter making a comment to Ms. Rodriguez at a ?tting for a
fashion show event hosted by the Arizona Capitol Times. Ms. Jacobs recalled (I) leaving the
boutique with Mr. Shooter and worrying that it looked like they had been shopping together and
(2) running into someone going in the boutique while Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter were leaving.
Ms. Jacobs did not remember who it was they ran into but stated it could have been Ms. Rodriguez.
Ms. Jacobs recalled exchanging pleasantries with the person that she and Mr. Shooter ran into and
did not remember Mr. Shooter making any ?irtatious or suggestive comment to that person. Ms.
Jacobs believes she would have remembered any such comment having been made to Ms.

 

59 Ms. Rodriguez said that she did not tell the media about this incident, because (1) it was hard
enough to tell her ?rst story, but also (2) she did not recall the incident until after her interview
concerning the Windsor incident.

47

 

Rodriguez, because it would have led Ms. Jacobs to believe Mr. Shooter actually liked Ms.
Rodriguez, which in Ms. Jacobs? mind would have been something new. Ms. Jacobs noted that
Mr. Shooter only makes those types of comments to individuals he considers friends or those. he
likes, and it is clear on all fronts, at least to Ms. Jacobs, that Mr. Shooter and Ms. Rodriguez dislike
one another. -

MR. RECOLLECTION OF THE FITTING.

Mr. Shooter recalled going to a boutique with Ms. Jacobs for a ?tting. He does not recall
seeing Ms. Rodriguez on the way in, or way out, and does not remember saying anything to Ms.
Rodriguez that day. As the discussion progressed, Mr. Shooter (1) said the alleged ?tting room
comment ?sounds like horse crap to me?, (2) then stated that ?anything?s possible?, (3) then stated
that the comment ?doesn?t sound like me? and he would not interact with Ms. Rodriguez, and
(4) then he denied ever making the comment to Ms. Rodriguez.

(iv) CONCLUSION.

Unlike with the Hob Nobs incident, there are no percipient witnesses to this alleged encounter
to corroborate Ms. Rodriguez?s allegation. Mr. Shooter?s meandering ?denial? aside, Ms. Jacobs
certainly has no recollection of the encounter as Ms. Rodriguez alleged it to have transpired, and
Ms. aeobs? recollection seems credible (and probable) to us. Moreover, and again, it is dif?cult
to ignore the inconsistencies with Ms. Rodriguez?s allegations concerning the Windsor meeting,
and to therefore give her the bene?t of any doubt, when she is the only percipient witness to recall
the incident as she reported it. We readily admit that the comment Mr. Shooter is alleged to have
made certainly ?ts within his well~established reputation for uninvited, unrequited, improper and
off-color comments that rarely (if ever) have a contextual place in ordinary civil discourse. Indeed,
even Ms. Jacobs noted that Mr. Shooter makes those types of comments, but just to individuals he
considers friends or those he likes (among whom, all appear to agree, Ms. Rodriguez is not). But
given concerns with her veracity stemming from her Windsor-related allegations, we simply
cannot conclude this allegation is credible when Ms. Rodriguez?s recollection is her only evidence
supporting her position. Accordingly, we conclude that there is no credible evidence to support
this allegation.

48

5. KENDRA PENNINGROTH.

Ms. Penningroth alleges that, in June 2017, while covering the ?Best Of The Capitol? event as
an intern for the Arizona Capitol Times, Mr. Shooter (a Representative at this time)~~a man she
had no relationship with and did not personally know-embraced her in a prolonged,
uncomfortable, and inappropriate manner.

 

(2) Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

We reviewed with Ms. Penningroth the Arizona Capitol Times article reporting her allegations,
and she confirmed the article?s accuracy.60

Ms. Penningroth stated that he eventually released her from the hug, but kept his hand on her
lower back for approximately 15 seconds. She stated that Mr. Shooter then (I) began telling Mr.
Nicla (another intern for the Arizona Capitol Times) not to take any photos, (2) promised he would
be good that night, (3) told Ms. Penningroth that he was a private man, and he did not want any
photos, and (4) stated that he was there to have fun. Ms. Penningroth stated that she laughed
awkwardly, and tried to step back, but Mr. Shooter would not let her do so. Ms. Penningroth stated
that Mr. Nicla was giving her a ?what the look during the incident. Afterward, Mr. Nicla
asked Ms. Penningroth whether she knew him. She did not and had never met Mr. Shooter before
this incident.

Ms. Penningroth stated that the encounter made her feel awkward and uncomfortable. She
stated Mr. Shooter?s behavior was ?really inappropriate? and that no one around her did anything
about it, which caused her to feel a different sort of discomfort. She stated that she did not feel
scared, or think that Mr. Shooter would hurt her, but she still felt rattled. She went into the
bathroom and cried after the incident.? 

Ms. Penningroth stated that she told her colleagues at the Arizona Capitol Times what
happened to her at the event with Mr. Shooter. She stated that her female colleagues were angry
and wanted to say something. Ms. Penningroth believes she told them to let it go and did not want
to do anything formally or make it a big deal. Ms. Penningroth stated that no one seemed surprised
about her experience, but no one told her that it happened all of the time. She has heard that Mr.
Shooter is where the party is at but has not heard any other instances about similar hugs. She has
heard Mr. Shooter is known to get crazy. Other than the incident, she has had no other encounters
with Mr. Shooter.

MR. RECOLLECTION OF THE INCIDENT.

We spoke to Mr. Nicla because Ms. Penningroth told us that he witnessed the incident at the
June 2017 Best Of The Capitol event.

Mr. Nicla was taking photographs at the event. When Mr. Shooter approached, he hugged Ms.
Penningroth. Mr. Nicla said that the hug lasted too long and looked weird. When asked if he
thought it seemed inappropriate, he responded, ?Absolutely.? Mr. Nicla commented that it was

 

60 The Arizona Capitol Times called Ms. Penningroth (via Katie Campbell) when the Shooter
stories were breaking and asked if Ms. Penningroth would go on the record about the incident.
She did.

51 Ms. Penningroth noted that she worked in Washington DC. in the past, and things like this had
happened before. This statement makes her reaction and feelings all the more profound and
illustrates just how inappropriate and uncomfortable the interaction was for her.

49

probably not how a grown man should conduct himself. Mr. Nicla said that Mr. Shooter probably
said something, but Mr. Nicla could not recall what was said. Mr. Nicla recalled Mr. Shooter was
touching Ms. Penningroth?s back in a weird way, but he did not touch her below the waist.

Mr. Nicla said that, in the moment, the hug looked like a hug that lasted too long. Mr. Nicla
believes Ms. Penningroth pulled away and Mr. Shooter let her go. Mr. Nicla said that he and Ms.
Penningroth packed up soon after that and they did not talk about it again. Mr. Nicla did not see
Ms. Pemiingroth cry. Mr. Nicla recalled that Ms. Penningroth looked disgusted and kind of
uncomfortable. Afterward, he or Ms. Penningroth made a comment to the effect of: ?Well, that
was kind of weird.? Mr. Nicla thinks Ms. Penningroth told him she was uncomfortable.

MR. RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS.

Mr. Shooter did not recall hearing about Ms. Penningroth?s story in the Arizona Capitol Times.
He said it is possible that he hugged her, because he?s a ?hugger? when he meets people. He stated
that he hugged Governor an Brewer when he met her, and he hugs both men and women, but he
does not grab people?s butt (we did not ask him whether he did the latter; he volunteered the
information).

While he believes that it is possible he hugged Ms. Penningroth, he claims that he would not
have pressed her face into him on purpose. He also denies that he would have held her or stopped
her from moving back. He does not remember anyone in particular asking him for a photograph,
but it was plausible he told someone not to take any photographs, and that he is a private man,
because from his perspective, contact with the press is never good. Then, in an attempt to
seemingly reconcile Ms. Penningroth?s story with his own habits, he said that hugs are relative.
He typically hugs people where his arms fall in front of his chest--so typically the shoulders of

people.

Later, on the ?oor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Shooter seemed to apologize for certain
interactions involving him hugging others, recognizing they were ill-received and ?perceived as
creepy and lecherous?. See Exhibit 2. He said: was beyond embarrassed to hear that what I
thought were welcomed and well?intentioned hugs were perceived as creepy and lecherous. I
didn?t know. As soon as I did know, I have been and am, so sorry.? This statement is at minimum
consistent with his concession that he very well could have touched Ms. Penningroth as reported,
and a far cry from a firm denial.

CONCLUSION.

We cannot ?nd any reason to disbelieve Ms. Permingroth?s recitation of both the incident, and
how it made her feel. To the extent he witnessed the incident, Mr. Nicla corroborates Ms.
Penningroth?s story, and while it seems they did not discuss the incident in any great detail after it
transpired, even Mr. Nicla noted that she appeared disgusted and uncomfortable.

Moreover, Mr. Shooter does not unequivocally deny the incident occurred; instead he
minimized the incident, and by implication Ms. Penningroth?s reaction, by claiming a hug is a
subjective act that he does all the time, to men and women alike (but not in any intentionally
inappropriate manner). Then, of course, there is his statement on the House Floor.

The impropriety of intimately touching a complete stranger in any manner whatsoever without
asking for, or at least receiving, permission to do so cannot be ignored. This is so, no matter what
the perpetrator of the touching intended. Basic norms of social interaction dictate that you simply
do not touch someone, on purpose, without permission??by hug or otherwise. Indeed, even a
handshake requires one to extend a hand and the other to grab that hand of free will. Many people
simply do not want to be touched by strangers?~even if the stranger is of fame or repute. And in

50

this instance, Ms. Penningroth--a young student intern just doing her jobucertainly does not appear
to have invited any sort of physical contact with Mr. Shooter by seeking his permission to be
photographed. Yet, the contact occurred anyway ?-uninvited.

We conclude that credible evidence exists to support Ms. Pelmingroth?s allegations. Mr.
Shooter?s physical actions against Ms. Penningroth were inappropriate, subjectively unwelcome,
and occurred because of her sex. Mr. Shooter?s actions also contributed to environment that
a reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive, and the person who is the object of the
harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr.
Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that the House?s Policy was developed to
prevent, including (1) discrimination, and (2) conduct contributing to a hostile work environment.

51

6. TARA ZIKA.

Ms. Zika initially came forward with her allegations against Mr. Shooter in an Arizona Capitol
Times article. She alleges that, over the course of three days in August 2017, while attending the
League of Arizona Cities and Towns annual conference in Tucson, Arizona (at the Hilton El
Conquistador hotel), Mr. Shooter (a Representative at this time): (I) blew her a kiss; (2) made a
comment about her legs; (3) made a comment about her butt; and (4) made a hand gesture toward
her, mimicking oral sex.6 

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.
DAY ONE.

According to Ms. Zika, on the ?rst day of the conference, she and her colleague Aaron Genaro
occupied their booth, for their employer, during a combined exhibit session and networking event.
They ?nished their work in the late afternoon or early evening. They then headed to the dining
area where dinner would be served. Mr. Genaro was walking in front of her. As they were
approaching the doors to the dining area, Ms. Zika noticed a group of ?ve to six men standing
outside the doorway. Mr. Shooter was among these men, but Ms. Zika did not know Mr. Shooter
at the time and, therefore, did not recognize him.

One of the men (whom she now knows was Mr. Shooter) waved her over to the group. She
believed that he may have been a prospective client, so she began to make her way over to him.
As she was walking toward him, she alleged that he blew her a kiss. She rolled her eyes at him
and walked past the group. While she passed, Mr. Shooter made a comment about her legs. She
could not recall the comment, but stated that she clearly heard it at the time and was 100%
con?dent that he made a comment about her legs.

Ms. Zika claimed that she caught up with Mr. Genaro and told him about the incident. She
told Mr. Genaro that the man (Mr. Shooter) must have been intoxicated. Mr. Genaro asked her
where the man was located. Ms. Zika told him ?back there?, and suggested they keep walking
forward. She and Mr. Genaro then ate dinner without issue and without any further encounters
with Mr. Shooter at that time.

Based on her alleged encounter with Mr. Shooter, Ms. Zika decided to go back to her room for
the night, around 8 p.111. When she got to her room, she recalled that she wanted to steam or iron
the exhibit barmer for the next day. She walked back to the exhibit room, grabbed the cloth, and
headed back to her room. To reach her hotel room, Ms. Zika had to pass through the hotel lobby,
which also contains a bar. Various people were sitting and standing around socializing and
drinking in this area. The lobby contained a walkway in its center, which led to the hallway of
elevators and some hotel rooms (including hers). She walked down this path to head back to her
hotel room, holding the exhibit cloth. She saw Mr. Shooter standing with a woman (Ms. Zika later
found out that this woman was Ms. Farm) in the lobby;

As she walked by Mr. Shooter, Ms. Zika claimed to have heard him say: ?I?d take that ass for
days.? She believed he looked her in the eyes when he said it. Ms. Zika rolled her eyes and walked
by, angry. She walked all the way down the hallway but became nervous that Mr. Shooter was
following her. Ms. Zika recalled that Mr. Shooter?s side was facing the hallway. She turned
around and saw that Mr. Shooter was still standing with Ms. Farm but he leaned back, looked her

 

62 Ms. Zika pointed out a few areas in the Arizona Capitol Times article she believed were
inaccurate or a mischaracterization 'of her story. We do not address those specific areas here, but
rather, address Ms. Zika?s allegations as she conveyed them to us.

52

in the eyes, and placed his ?ngers in a shape at his mouth and stuck his tongue out between
his ?ngers, making a gesture for oral sex. Ms. Zika continued on to her room, but then stopped,
because she had become very angry.

She stated that she had decided to confront Mr. Shooter. She walked back toward him, and
according to her, as she did so, he began making hand gestures, placing his palms against his chest
and then up in an surrender? pose, signaling a ?who me? type gesture. As she approached, she
heard Mr. Shooter saying things liketrouble?? She said that he kept
repeating himself. She then recalled saying, ?Listen, you but did not remember the exact
words after that. She remembered telling Mr. Shooter generally that she did not appreciate how
disrespectful he had been or his inappropriate comments. Ms. Zika believed she said something
to the extent of: ?You might be showing off to your little friends, but I guarantee you every woman
in here thinks you?re a creep.? Mr. Shooter then allegedly asked Ms. Zika if she knew who he was
(she did not). Ms. Zika claims that she responded that she did not care who he was, at which point
Mr. Shooter began saying: ?You don?t know me.? At that point, Ms. Zika said she asked Mr.
Shooter where he worked and tried to look at his shirt for a nametag. He then covered something
on his shirt. Ms. Zika later came to believe that Mr. Shooter was covering his pin, which identi?ed
him as a legislator. After Mr. Shooter allegedly refused to reveal his identity, Ms. Zika said that
she instructed him not to look at or talk to her for the rest of the conference or ever again. Mr.
Shooter allegedly told her: ?It won?t happen again.? She then left and went back to her hotel room.
Ms. Zika said that Ms. Fann looked alarmed during this confrontation.

Ms. Zika stated that, afterward, she called or sent text messages about the alleged incident to
her supervisor (Dr. Dodenhoff), her boyfriend, and Angela Cichelero.

(ii) DAY Two.

The next day of the conference, Ms. Zika realized the man from the previous night was Mr.
Shooter. During the symbolic ?ag ceremony, she looked at a ?yer she had received about the
event. One page contained the names and photographs of current State legislators. She recognized
Mr. Shooter from his photograph and sent text messages to Dr. Dodenhoff about her discovery.

Later that night, Ms. Zika and Mr. Genaro attended a ?bash? at the conference. The party was
held in a hotel suite of some sort where beer was kept in the bathtub. They went to grab beers, and
when they turned around, they saw Mr. Shooter. Mr. Genaro asked Ms. Zika if she wanted to
leave but she declined and suggested they just avoid him.

Ms. Zika also saw Gretchen Jacobs at the party, and that she and Ms. Jacobs formally met at
that time. Ms. Zika said she spent some of the party speaking to a ?council member? about one of
Ashton Tiffany?s clients.

At one point, Mr. Shooter approached Ms. Zika and put his hands up in the surrender? type
position, saying that he was ?not touching? or ?not doing anything? when he walked past her. Ms.
Zika said that Mr. Shooter made this remark and put his hands up every time he walked past her
at the party. Ms. Zika told Mr. Shooter that he did not need to keep doing that, and to consider
what he had done ?forgotten?, but not to do it again. Mr. Shooter allegedly apologized to Ms. Zika
and told her he did not realize she was ?so sensitive.? He also told Ms. Zika that he could not
change, he was not politically correct, but that he would not ?do anything.? He told her it had been
a joke. Ms. Zika responded that it was 2017, and Mr. Shooter needed to learn how to treat women
differently. Ms. Zika believed Ms. Jacobs was nearby when Mr. Shooter apologized and may or
may not have heard what he said.

During the party, Ms. Zika recalled being approached by Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Jacobs told Ms.
Zika that she did not realize, at the time of Ms. Zika?s confrontation with Mr. Shooter on day one

53

of the conference, that Ms. Zika worked for one of Ms. Jacobs? clients. Ms. Jacobs also stated that
?they? were all in the hotel lobby making fun of Mr. Shooter after watching Ms. Zika confront
him. Ms. Jacobs told Ms. Zika that Mr. Shooter is harmless. Ms. Zika did not believe she shared
with Ms. Jacobs all of the details of her interactions with Mr. Shooter from the day before.

After formally meeting, Ms. Zika said that Ms. Jacobs began introducing Ms. Zika to other
people at the conference saying, ?This IS the one that went afte1 Shoote1? or something simila1.
Ms. Zika said that people at the conference knew she had confronted M1. Shoote1--it was not a
secr.et

DAY THREE.

The next night, Ms Zika saw Ms. Jacobs 1n the hotel lobby bar. They talked about the incident
again. Ms. Zika believed a woman associated with the conference may have been present and that
Mr. Sonny Bo1relli63 was present, but did not appear to be listening. Both Ms. Jacobs and the othe1
woman told Ms. Zika that M1. Shooter was ?ha11?nless, which Ms. Zika found disappointing.

As expressed by Ms. Zika to Mr. Shooter, his conduct made her feel angry. She believed it
was unwelcome and inappropriate.

MR. RESPONSE.
DAY ONE.

When asked to recall his interaction with Ms. Zika at the 2017 conference, if any, Mr. Shooter
recalled a much more limited encounter. Mr. Shooter remembered being in the hotel lobby/ bar
area standing with other men. He said that Ms. Fann may have been nearby, but could not be
certain. He recalled that Ms. Zika walked by them, which prompted Mr. Shooter to comment to
the group of men (1101? Ms. Zika), ?Boys, that looks like two bobcats ?ghting in a tote sack.? Mr.
Shooter stated that the comment was intended only for the group to hear. He does not believe that
she heard it and denies that he was looking her in the eyes when he said it.

Mr. Shooter remembered that Ms. Zika may have walked about 40 to 50 feet down the hallway
that led to the elevators and other hotel rooms, then turned around and came walking back toward
him. Mr. Shooter believed that when she turned around, the other men in the group were laughing
at his comment. Ms. Zika then confronted Mr. Shooter. He could tell that she was not happy.

Mr. Shooter said that he apologized with his hands up in an surrender? mannerism, and Ms.
Zika told him something like, don?t like your comments.? Mr. Shooter responded with, ?What?d
I say?? Based on Ms. Zika?s response, Mr. Shooter did not believe she had heard his actual
comment. Mr. Shooter recalled apologizing and telling Ms. Zika that it would not happen again.
Mr. Shooter did not recall Ms. Zika saying, ?Listen, you but acknowledged that she may
have stated that he was showing off for his friends. Mr. Shooter adamantly denied trying to cover
his lapel pin, which identified him as a legislator.

We asked Mr. Shooter about Ms. Zika?s other allegations, including blowing the kiss, a

 

63 We interviewed Mr. Borrelli about the discussion, but he did not recall it, and stated the interview
was the first time he had heard of the incident. He stated that had he heard about something as
vulgar as the oral sex gesture, he would have interjected himself into the situation as an
intermediary and confronted Mr. Shooter about the incident. Mr. Borrelli reported that he has
known Mr. Shooter for five years, characterized him as a ?clown?, but never witnessed him be
vulgar with or toward a woman.

54

separate comment about he1 legs the? ass? ?,comment and the o1a1 sex gestme. While M1. Shooter
admitted that he had made the bobcats comment, he denied all of the othe1 allegations. Notably,
M1. Shoote1 became visibly ang1y when we blought up Ms. Zika? othe1 allegations concerning
the alleged kiss and or al sex gesture. He told us that he felt like a ?beach at Normandy? and could
not simply sit back and take it?-with ?it? meaning the allegations he considers false.

(ii) DAY Two.

The next morning, Mr. Shooter recalled Ms. Zika approaching him and apologizing. Ms. Zika
told him that she knew who he was and that her boss has asked?her to apologize. Ms. Zika told
him that she had taken a photo of Mr. Shooter and sent it to her boss and/or boyfriend (Mr. Shooter
could not recall). Mr. Shooter told Ms. Zika that she did not need to apologize and that he was
sorry that he had done something to offend her.

Mr. Shooter also attended the party that night, known as ?Intergov?. He recalled walking by
her with his hands up in an surrender? gesture and thought that he probably said: ?I?m not doing
anything.? He did not recall speci?cally saying that but acknowledged that sounded like
something he would say. He did not remember Ms. Zika asking him to stop doing any of those
things.64

DR. RECOLLECTION OF WHAT Ms. ZIKA TOLD HIM.

We interviewed Dr. Dodenhoff because Ms. Zika believed that she called Dr. Dodenhoff the
evening of day one of the conference, to tell him about her interactions with Mr. Shooter. Ms.
Zika believed that she told Dr. Dodenhoff about the blown kiss, the legs comment, and the butt
comment, but not the oral sex gesture. We asked whether there was any reason she would have
omitted the oral sex gesture detail, and she told us that she was not sure. She speculated that she
may have been embarrassed, but upon further re?ection, she stated that she may have told him
about the oral sex gesture after all.

Dr. Dodenhoff told us that they did not speak, but communicated over a series of text mes sages.
Ms. Zika?s text messages to Dr. Dodenhoff, as summarized by him, mentioned only two alleged
incidents, that Mr. Shooter (1) blew her a kiss, and (2) made a comment about her legs among a
group of men. The text messages also described Ms. Zika?s confrontation with Mr. Shooter, during
which she voiced her disapproval of his conduct. On balance, Ms. Zika?s messages also mentioned
that Mr. Shooter told her ?it wouldn?t happen again.?

Ms. Zika?s messages to Dr. Dodenhoff did not mention a comment about her butt or an oral
sex gesture, and we cannot discern any good reason why, if this happened, she would not have
mentioned it to Dr. Dodenhoff under the circumstances.

Dr. Dodenhoff did not have any additional, relevant information to offer about the allegations
Ms. Zika made against Mr. Shooter.

AARON RECOLLECTION OF WHAT Ms. ZIKA TOLD HIM.

Mr. Genaro could not recall many details relevant to Ms. Zika?s allegations. Mr. Genaro
remembered only that Ms. Zika told him that a man had made ?crude comments? to her. (emphasis
added) He did not recall Ms. Zika telling him that anyone had blown her a kiss or made any other
kind of gesture toward her. We cannot discern any good reason why, if these crude gestures were
made, she would not have mentioned the speci?c gestures to her colleague, or at least mentioned

 

6? Mr. Shooter left the conference and did not attend day three.

55

that a gesture of some kind were made.
ANGELA RECOLLECTION OF WHAT MS. ZIKA TOLD HER.

We inter viewed Ms.Cichele10 telephonically (she lives out of state) because Ms. Zika believed
she also told Ms. Cichelero?-Ms. Zika? close f1iend--about M1. Shootera actions. 65

Ms. Cichelero recalled Ms. Zika telling Ms. Cichelero (1) about a man who made sexual
remarks, and (2) possibly that he made gestures, but Ms. Cichelero was not entirely sure and could
not recall whether Ms. Zika described any of the alleged gestures. In the end, Ms. Cichelero could
not recall for certain if Ms. Zika told her that a man had made any gestures at Ms. Zika at all. Ms.
Cichelero believed Ms. Zika sounded disgusted and uncomfortable, but could not recall any
speci?c words Ms. Zika used.

(I) GRETCHEN RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT AND HER
DISCUSSIONS WITH Ms. ZIKA.

DAY ONE.

Ms. Jacobs met Ms. Zika, for the ?rst time, at the conference. Du1ing the ?rst night6 of the
confelence, Ms. Jacobs lecalled sitting in the hotel ba1, after dinner with a g1oup of people Mr.
Shooter and Ms. Fann moved away from the g1 oup stable, close1 to the center of the hotel lobby,
to have a conversation. They were standing in Ms. Jacobs? front line of vision, but she could not
hear their conversation. She could, however, see their body language while they were talking. At
one point, Ms. Jacobs said that Mr. Shooter may have been talking to some men in the nearby
hallway, but she was not positive. She believed one of those men was Greg Wilkinson.

While still sitting at the table facing Ms. Fann and Mr. Shooter, Ms. Jacobs recalled that,
suddenly, a woman (whom she later discovered was Ms. Zika), stormed up to Mr. Shooter,
interrupted his conversation with Ms. ann, and saw Mr. Shooter?s hands go up in an surrender?
manner. She could not hear what was said but thought it looked like Mr. Shooter was apologizing.

Ms. Jacobs recalled Mr. Shooter and Ms. Fann returned to the group?s table, and Mr. Shooter
told the group that (1) Ms. Zika told him she knew he ?said something? about her, (2) he apologized
and that it would not happen again, (3) he had admittedly made a comment about two bobcats in a
sack, the other men laughed, and Ms. Zika turned around while they were laughing, but (4) he did
not believe Ms. Zika could hear what he had said. Mr. Shooter also told Ms. Jacobs, and the others,
that he embarrassed Ms. Zika and should not have done it. Ms. Jacobs believed he sounded sincere.

Ms. Jacobs did not witness Mr. Shooter blow Ms. Zika a kiss, or display any kind of oral sex
gesture toward her. Ms. Jacobs believes that kind of behavior, especially the latter, would be
extremely out of character for Mr. Shooter.

(ii) DAY Two.
The next day, Ms. Jacobs recalled meeting Ms. Zika during the mid- to late-morning. Ms.

Jacobs saw her client, Ms. Zika?s employer, and then saw Ms. Zika. Ms. Zika told Ms. Jacobs that
she found out whom she had yelled at (Mr. Shooter), and Ms. Zika indicated that she should

 

65 We also attempted to call Ms. Zika?s signi?cant other three times, but we were unable to reach
him. Ms. Zika told us that she told him about these events as well.

6'5 We interviewed other individuals Ms. Jacobs identi?ed at the table, but only Ms. ann had any
recollection of the interaction between Ms. Zika and Mr. Shooter.

56

probably apologize. Ms. Jacobs told Ms. Zika not to worry about it. Ms. Jacobs conveyed her
belief that what Ms. Zika did was funny and ?gutsy? and that Mr. Shooter could handle it.

Ms. Zika described the situation to Ms. Jacobs. She told Ms. Jacobs that she walked by Mr.
Shooter and the other men, could feel them staring at her, and heard the men laughing. Ms. Zika
then walked back to her room, thought or felt like she was being followed, and turned around. Ms.
Zika saw that no one was following her but then went back and yelled at Mr. Shooter (which Ms.

Jacobs witnessed).

Later, at the Intergov party, Ms. Jacobs saw Ms. Zika waiting for the restroom. Mr. Shooter
came out of the restroom and inched by Ms. Zika sideways with his hands up, saying he was not
trying to offend her and smiling. Ms. Zika was telling Mr. Shooter to ?stop it?. Ms. Jacobs
interpreted Mr. Shooter?s actions as sincere and was surprised Ms. Zika seemed offended by his
actions.

At this same event, Ms. Zika rehashed the ?rst night with Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Zika explained that
she had called Dr. Dodenhoff, and Dr. Dodenhoff informed Ms. Zika that the man had been Mr.
Shooter. Dr. Dodenhoff recommended Ms. Zika talk to Ms. Jacobs. Ms. Zika, again, stated that
she thought she had ?messed up? because Mr. Shooter is important. When Ms. Zika went over the
incident with Ms. Jacobs, she did not mention that Mr. Shooter blew her a kiss, made an oral sex
gesture, or told Ms. Zika that he would ?take that ass for days.? Ms. Zika only stated that she
believed Mr. Shooter had said ?something? about her.

DAY THREE.

On the third night of the conference, Ms. Zika, Ms. Jacobs, and another conference attendee
were in the lobby bar talking. Ms. Zika began talking about how she met Mr. Shooter again, and
the other conference attendee said something like, ?Shooter doesn?t scare me. It?s all an act.? The
other conference attendee then took a phone call and left the conversation.

Ms. Zika repeated to Ms. Jacobs that she believed Mr. Shooter said ?something? but never
stated what she believed he said or that she overheard him. Ms. Jacobs told Ms. Zika that she
believed her reaction had been disproportionate to what she understood happened, i. e. Mr. Shooter
made an unknown comment about Ms. Zika and the other men laughed.

Ms. Zika then con?ded in Ms. Jacobs another personal incident (not involving Mr. Shooter)
she had experienced shortly before the 2017 conference. Ms. Jacobs stated that she then
understood Ms. Zika?s reaction to Mr. Shooter. Ms. Zika also told Ms. Jacobs that Mr. Shooter
had made a comment about Ms. Zika being ?sensitive?, which Ms. Zika found demeaning.

Ms. RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

Ms. ann attended the 2017 conference and recalled needing to talk privately with Mr. Shooter
but could not recall the topic of discussion. She remembered being in the hotel lobby bar area,
and stepping away from the group to speak with Mr. Shooter. They stood near the hallway that
led to the hotel rooms so that they could hear one another. To the best of Ms. Fann?s memory, Mr.
Shooter?s back was to the hallway and Ms. Farm was facing the hallway.

When they were speaking, Ms. Fann said it was likely that their conversation was interrupted
by other attendees they knew who were walking past them. Thus, although Ms. Farm and Mr.
Shooter intended to speak to one another, they were also taking breaks to talk to others around
them who happened by.

Ms. Farm recalled a young woman (Ms. 'Zika) walk past the two of them, then turned around

57

after walking down the hallway, come back, and approach Mr. Shooter. She does not recall what
Ms. Zika said to Mr. Shooter, but believed Ms. Zika mentioned something about not appreciating
something. After Ms. Zika walked away, Ms. Fann looked at Mr. Shooter and asked him what it
was about. Mr. Shooter responded that he did not know. Ms. arm and Mr. Shooter then rejoined

their group.

Ms. ann could not tell us one way or another whether Mr. Shooter made any comments about
Ms. Zika or made any gestures toward her. She did not remember seeing or hearing anything and
told us that Mr. Shooter never told her that anything had happened. Ms. Fann mentioned, however,
that there was ?no way? Mr. Shooter was drunk at the time of this run-in with Ms. Zika, but he had
likely had a couple of drinks.

GREG WILKINSON ?s RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT.

We spoke to Mr. Wilkinson because we understood that he may have heard Mr. Shooter make
a comment about Ms. Zika at the conference. Mr. Wilkinson could not remember much about the
event and had dif?culty recalling the timeline of what he could recall. He recalled, however,
witnessing only one interaction between Ms. Zika and Mr. Shooter.

Mr. Wilkinson thought he had been in a talking circle with Ms. Zika, Ms. Jacobs, and two
others. Mr. Shooter was not with them at the time. Mr. Wilkinson believed this was the first night
of the conference at Intergov, but was not positive.? He said that Ms. Zika walked away to talk
to another group of people, and Mr. Shooter came into the talking circle at that point. Mr.
Wilkinson believed Mr. Shooter made a comment about Ms. Zika?s butt, likely about bobcats, but
Mr. Wilkinson could not recall the exact words.

Shortly after Mr. Shooter made his comment, he saw Ms. Zika approach Mr. Shooter. He
believed Ms. Zika either overheard the entire comment or part of it, and believed that was why she
had confronted Mr. Shooter. Mr. Wilkinson does not recall exactly what was said but remembered
Mr. Shooter apologizing and saying something to the effect of: ?I?m sorry. I didn?t mean anything
by it.? Mr. Wilkinson said that Mr. Shooter acknowledged that he had made an inappropriate
comment. Mr. Wilkinson thought Mr. Shooter?s apology put an end to the incident for both
himself and Ms. Zika.

We asked whether it was possible Ms. Zika was discussing an incident other than the bobcats
comment with Mr. Shooter. Mr. Wilkinson was confident that they were discussing the bobcats
comment.

Mr. Wilkinson did not witness any other encounters between Ms. Zika and Mr. Shooter.
CONCLUSION.

Of the four allegations Ms. Zika makes against Mr. Shooter, we conclude there is credible
evidence supporting only one of her allegations.

We ?nd credible evidence that Mr. Shooter made I a crass and inappropriate comment
comparing Ms. Zika?s butt to ?bobcats in a tote sack?, in the hotel lobby bar, just before Ms. Zika
confronted Mr. Shooter about his behavior. Mr. Shooter admits that he made this comment (and

 

?37 Based on our understanding, lntergov was on the second night of the conference. We believe it
is likely that Mr. Wilkinson?s memory may have confused events and timeframes.

58

others, like Mr. Wilkinson68 and Ms. Jacobs, corroborate the comment was made). Mr. Shooter?s
bobcats remark was subjectively unwelcome and resulted in Ms. Zika?s embarrassment, anger, and
humiliation-ell as evidenced by her reaction to the comment and the apparent spectacle that
followed. There is no plausible way, under the facts as we understand them, that Mr. Shooter
could have expected this comment to be remotely acceptable to Ms. Zika?-or any reasonable person
under these circumstances. Regardless of whether she heard or knew the exact words spoken,
she claims to have heard something, (ii) Mr. Shooter admits he made the bobcats comment, and
his words were degrading and made based on her sex. Mr. Shooter?s actions in this regard
also contributed to environment that a reasonable person would consider hostile or abusive,
and the person who is the object of the harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.? See
Policy. Accordingly, we ?nd that Mr. Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment that
the House?s Policy was developed to prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct
contributing to a hostile work environment.

That said, we cannot conclude that credible evidence supports any of Ms. Zika?s remaining
allegations.

First, although we ?nd Ms. Zika?s text to Dr. Dodenhoff concerning the kiss signi?cant, we
cannot conclude that this text alone proves that Mr. Shooter blew a kiss at her. While it is possible
that she simply omitted this detail from the information she relayed to Ms. Cichelero, Mr. Genaro,
and Ms. Jacobs, we ?nd it unlikely that she would not have shared this information with at least
one of them--especially in light of her assertion to us that she did tell Mr. Genaro (who had no
recollection of being told as much) and that Ms. Cichelero is Ms. Zika?s close friend (and likewise
had no recollection of a specific gesture). Moreover, our interviews with Ms. Zika, Ms. Cichelero,
Mr. Genaro, and Ms. Jacobs left us with the strong impression that Ms. Zika has no problem
speaking her mind, or discussing issues or events with others. For example, we understand that
she shared the details of a very personal story, involving harassment, with Mr. Genaro and Ms.
Jacobs (after knowing Ms. Jacobs for the mere length of the conference). It seems Ms. Zika shared
that very personal story as part of an attempt to justify to others her reaction to Mr. Shooter at the
conference. Given all this, we believe it is unlikely Ms. Zika would not share with Mr. Genaro or
Ms. Jacobs that Mr. Shooter blew her a kiss, if he had done so. Moreover, no one we interviewed
claims to recall seeing Mr. Shooter blow Ms. Zika a kiss. On balance, we cannot conclude that
this incident actually occurred.

Second, we also cannot conclude that Mr. Shooter made additional comments about Ms. Zika
(either about her legs, or that he would ?take that ass for days?). Ms. Zika told Mr. Genaro that a
man (Mr. Shooter) had made ?crude comments? toward her on one occasion during the 2017
conference. Ms. Zika told Ms. Jacobs that she knew Mr. Shooter had ?said something? during the
incident in the hotel lobby after dinner. Yet, Ms. Zika?s texts to Dr. Dodenhoff relay that Mr.
Shooter made only one comment about her, after which she confronted him, and the only comment
Ms. Zika mentioned to Dr. Dodenhoff was one about her legs. We believe that, in light of all the
credible evidence, the purported ?legs? comments was actually the bobcat comment.

As for the ?take that ass for days? comment, we ?nd it dif?cult to believe that Ms. Zika would
not have also mentioned Mr. Shooter making that speci?c comment (or at least having made

 

68 Although Mr. Wilkinson believed this occurred at the Intergov party, our interview with him
made obvious that he did not have a clear recollection of the timeline of events. For example, he
believed that Mr. Shooter made these comments on the ?rst night, but at the Intergov party. We
?nd it likely that Mr. Wilkinson is confusing the timeline of events. Regardless of timing,
however, Mr. Wilkinson?s account is consistent with other witness statements--including Mr.
Shooter?-indicating that Mr. Shooter made an inappropriate comment about Ms. Zika, which she
confronted him about.

59

multiple comments) to Dr. Dodenhoff the night of the alleged incident, or to Ms. Jacobs, or Mr.
Genaro, or Ms. Cichelero.69 We reach this conclusion, given (1) the intensely offensive nature of
the alleged comment, and (2) Ms. Zika?s apparent repeated discussions of the incident (for
example, with Ms. Jacobs) over the course of the conference, in what seemed to be an effort to
justify her reaction or seek assurances from others that her reaction was appropriate. It is very
dif?cult to conclude--under the facts as we understand them, and based on our interview with Ms.
Zika and others-anything other than: had Ms. Zika heard this precise statement, she would have
at least told someone about it. There is no evidence, however, that she did so--let alone
corroborating evidence that Mr. Shooter made the statement.

Finally, we cannot conclude that Mr. Shooter made a gesture at Ms. Zika mimicking oral sex.
Based on our interviews, and witness recollections, Ms. Zika did not tell Dr. Dodenhoff, Ms.
Cichelero, Mr. Genaro, or Ms. Jacobs about this gesture, but told each of them other details about
her alleged interactions with Mr. Shooter (and told Ms. JacObs about a very personal unrelated
harassment incident). While it is possible Ms. Zika simply decided not to tell anyone this detail
for unspeci?ed personal reasons, we do not believe it to be probable. No persons who were present
at the time Mr. Shooter would have made this gesture saw it happen. While Ms. Fann could not
speak one way or another about whether it happened, other witnesses denied seeing Mr. Shooter
make this gesture at the time Ms. Zika alleged it occurred--just before she confronted him. For
example, Mr. Wilkinson, who was present during the bobcats comment, which we believe was the
comment made just before Ms. Zika confronted Mr. Shooter, never saw Mr. Shooter make any
type of oral sex gesture after his bobcats remark. Similarly, Ms. Jacobs did not see Mr. Shooter
make any gestures resembling oral sex in the hotel bar lobby that first night:F0 Given all this, and
the lack of corroborating evidence, we find there is no credible evidence to support this allegation.

 

69 We find it difficult to conclude that Ms. Zika confused the ?bobcats in a tote sack? comment
(the comment Mr. Shooter admits making and others corroborate he admittedly made) with the
alleged ?I?d take that ass for days? comment (a comment that is not corroborated anywhere).
Indeed, her text messages sent shortly after the encounter only reference one comment about her
legs.

70 This is not to say that Mr. Shooter has never made an offensive gesture toward another person.
Ms. Love, for example, would beg to differ. See, above. That said, according to some who know
Mr. Shooter, they leave the impression that this sort of public activity is a bridge too far, even for
Mr. Shooter. Ms. Cobb, who socializes with Mr. Shooter often, stated that she has witnessed Mr.
Shooter make off-color jokes but never any gestures toward anyone. Mr. Borelli, who has known
Mr. Shooter for ?ve years, also stated that he has never seen Mr. Shooter be vulgar with or toward
a woman. Indeed, by many accounts-who each acknowledge Mr. Shooter?s penchant for
inappropriate, off-color, and improper sexualized comments--this behavior would apparently be
out of character for Mr. Shooter. We cannot say for sure whether this is generally the case (nor
are we charged to do so). But we can conclude, at least in this instance, we are aware of no credible
evidence corroborating the allegation that Mr. Shooter made this specific gesture.

60

7. MR. COMMENTS To REPRESENTATIVE ATHENA SALMAN ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR.

Ms. Salman alleges that during the ?rst week of the 2017 session, she was introduced to Mr.
Shooter for the ?rst time, and he responded, on the House ?oor: ?You?ll be a nice view to look

at.?
Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Salman informed us that the Arizona Capitol Times, in an article, accurately summarized
her allegation against Mr. Shooter. She informed us that her interaction with Mr. Shooter occurred
on the House ?oor. She stated that this interaction was the ?rst time she had met Mr. Shooter. It
made her feel uncomfortable and as though Mr. Shooter had reduced her to her appearance. His
remark made her realize that she would have to navigate a culture of discrimination against women
at the House. At the time he made this comment, Ms. Salman was not aware that Mr. Shooter had
a reputation for making inappropriate comments or off?color remarks.

Mn. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter admitted to making a comment similar to what Ms. Salman alleged. Mr. Shooter
recalled he said something to the effect of: ?You?ll be a pretty addition to the House.?71 Mr.
Shooter also states: am amazed my statements have such a profound effect on people.?

He also acknowledged that he intended his remark to be a commentary on her looks. He noted,
however, that he intended it as a compliment and said it to make Ms. Salman feel welcome. Mr.
Shooter said that his comment was not meant to be ?sexual?. Mr. Shooter stated that he believed
women like to feel pretty and that he tells a lot of women they are pretty, even when he thinks they
are not pretty, because he wants to make people feel attractive.

(0) CONCLUSION.

We find Ms. Salman?s subjective perception credible. She had never spoken with, or formally
met, Mr. colleague--before that day. Given her new position in the Legislature, we
believe she was sincere in stating that she found Mr. Shooter?s comment inappropriate and
unwelcome.

We also find that a reasonable person would ?nd Mr. Shooter?s comment to be degrading and
made on the basis of seX. Mr. Shooter admittedly made this remark because (1) Ms. Salman is a
woman and (2) apparently he wanted to make her feel pretty--as opposed to welcome her to the
Legislature on the merit of her own achievements and treating her as an equal. We believe a new
female legislator, meeting a senior legislator (and chairperson of the Appropriations Committee)
for the ?rst time on the House ?oor, would feel demeaned and humiliated by a blatant comment
reducing her merit to her appearance (and the implication that Mr. Shooter looks forward to ogling
at her). While there may be a time and a place to compliment a person?s appearance, we believe
a reasonable person would ?nd it offensive if a senior colleague?s first and only remarks in meeting
her focused on her ability to add to the sexually aesthetic pleasantness of the House. Mr. Shooter?s
actions contributed to environment that a reasonable person would consider hostile or
abusive, and the person who is the object of the harassment perceives it to be hostile or abusive.?
See Policy. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Shooter?s behavior amounted to the sort of harassment

 

7'1 Mr. Shooter started by stating: remember stating only to then inteij ect ?If I remember?.
Obviously, he either remembered or he did not. Suffice it to say, we believe he remembers the
interaction and his comment on Ms. Salman?s physical appearance.

6i

that the House?s Policy was developed to prevent, including (1) discrimination and (2) conduct
contributing to a hostile work environment.

62

8. REPRESENTATIVE WENONA INTERACTION WITH MR. SHOOTER IN
THE HOUSE LOUNGE.

Ms. Benally alleges that she overheard Mr. Shooter tell an offensive and sexually suggestive
joke to another Representative, in her presence, while they were in the House Members? Lounge. 

Ms. ALLEGATIONS.

Ms. Benally recalled that the incident occurred around the end of March or beginning of April
2017, during a ?oor session. She recounted that she had to leave the ?oor, during debate, to
participate in a conference call. She moved to the Members? Loungecouch. She was the only person in the Members? Lounge at that time.

Approximately 10 minutes before her call ended Mr. Shooter exited the floor and sat on the
couch across from her, on the opposite end. They were not directly across from one another. Ms.
Benally recalled that another legislator sat across from Mr. Shooter, on the same couch as Ms.
Benally, but at the opposite end.

Ms. Benally could hear the two men speaking as her conference call ended, because they were
talking loudly and were close to her. She stated that they were talking and laughing. Mr. Shooter
started the conversation stating that the ?oor debate was taking too long and people were talking
too much and grandstanding. Ms. Benally told us that Mr. Shooter routinely made these comments
and jokes, and she was not offended by them. When Ms. Benally?s call ended, she turned her body
toward the men, because she thought that they were going to continue to joke about the ?oor
debate. Ms. Benally could not recall whether other legislators were present in the Members?
Lounge at this time.

Ms. Benally claims that Mr. Shooter said to another legislator: ?Well [legislator], I keep my
gun locked and loaded right here.? Mr. Shooter then patted the upper inside of his thigh, close to
this groin. Mr. Shooter then added, like to keep it under my desk.? The other legislator laughed
and responded to Mr. Shooter, something to the effect of that he did not ?swing? that way. Ms.
Benally could not recall Mr. Shooter?s exact retort, but told us that he said something about
approaching the other legislator from behind. While Mr. Shooter was in the middle of making this
statement, Mr. Shooter locked eyes with Ms. Benally, immediately stopped talking, abruptly stood
up, and walked back to the ?oor. The other legislator followed.

Ms. Benally stated that she felt invisible and stunned. She wondered how two male colleagues
could have this conversation in front of her, and was shocked that Mr. Shooter was talking about
his penis in front of her. That said, Ms. Benally did not believe Mr. Shooter was directing this
comment at her, but she perceived that Mr. Shooter felt like he could say whatever he wanted,
regardless of his audience. She did not believe Mr. Shooter made this comment to make her feel

uncomfortable.

63

 MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter vaguely remembered this event after we recounted Ms. Benally?s recollection.?
He told us that his joke was not intended for Ms. Benally. He acknowledged, however, that he
was probably talking about his penis and not about a gun.

CONCLUSION.

While we find that this incident occurred, we do not find that it violates the Policy. We cannot
conclude that Ms. Benally felt subjectively degraded, humiliated, or harassed by Mr. Shooter?s
juvenile banter with another legislator. During the interview and without prompting, Ms. Benally
told us that she did not believe her allegation constituted harassment. When asked why, Ms.
Benally stated that she did not trust the process~~a response that did not necessarily answer the
question posed.? Ms. Benally said she felt harassed only after we later asked her, bluntly, whether
she felt harassed by this conduct. This response, however, came a?er her spontaneous remark that
she did not believe Mr. Shooter?s conduct constituted harassment. We consider her spontaneous
remark that she did not believe Mr. Shooter?s conduct constituted harassment to be a more credible
recitation of her true feelings about the incident.

We believe that she thought the incident she witnessed was inappropriate. We also ?nd
credible that she believes some at the House have a deep-rooted misogynistic attitude~~an inquiry
far beyond the scope of our investigation, however we calmot ignore that some of the conduct we
?nd to have occurred, and in some instances been minimized, is certainly consistent with that sort
of culture. We have not ignored Ms. Benally? 3 concerns, and we have conveyed them to our client.
Ms. Benally seems eager to be a constructive part of that process. We do not, however, believe
that Ms. Benally felt subjectively discriminated against, because of her sex, at the time Mr. Shooter
made those comments. By Ms. Benally?s own account, the circumstances strongly suggest Mr.
Shooter did not intend for Ms. Benally to hear his conversation with another legislator, and it seems
Mr. Shooter may have been unaware that she was paying any attention to their conversation. As
soon as Mr. Shooter became aware that Ms. Benally was listening, he immediately stopped talking
and left the room. Mr. Shooter also stated that his remarks were intended for the other legislator
(not Ms. Benally) only, and we believe that to be the case given how Ms. Benally described the
conversation to us. Indeed, Ms. Benally knew that Mr. Shooter was not directing the comment at
her, and she told us that she forgot about the entire incident for nearly two weeks, after which time
something else triggered this memory for her.

In the end, colleagues engaging in crude banter should be aware of third parties who may not
welcome this type of conduct. And under the right circumstances, such banter may well violate

 

7'2 Initially Mr. Shooter recounted a very different event, which he apparently believed to be the
allegation Ms. Benally had made. That event concerned Mr. Shooter walking from the Members?
Lounge to the ?oor, when another male legislator suddenly stopped, Mr. Shooter bumped into him,
and then apparently said ?be careful big fella, this thing is loaded.? Mr. Shooter stated that he did
not know where Ms. Benally was in relation to that incident but that it was not directed toward her
and was just ?another ill-advised comment?. That incident, however, was not the incident Ms.
Benally reported to us. Regardless, Mr. Shooter?s recounting of a totally different incident, and
characterization of it as ?ill?advised?, reveal his knowledge that his irreverent actions (apparently
plentiful enough to not know for sure which action is at issue} are not always appropriate.

73 We note that Ms. Benally expressed a strong distrust of the investigation process throughout the
interview. She stated that she believed nothing would happen, because nothing happened ?before.?
She based this opinion on her previous reporting of this incident to her leadership and what she
perceived to be a lack of follow up with her.

64

the Policy. That said, we do not ?nd, under these circumstances, a Violation of the Policy.

65

9. ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING Coma-113mm MADE ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE
DARIN MITCHELL.

We interviewed Mr. Mitchell and his wife, Sondr,a concerning their allegations against Mr.
Shooter. While they shared with as various general complaints about his behavior and demeanor
throughout the time they have known him,?M the focus of their complaint relevant to this
investigation concemed statements Mr. Shooter made, concerning Mr. Mitchell to Adam Stevens
at a 2016 GOP Awards Dinner at the Biltmore The Mitchells had no pe1sonal knowledge of these
events and they were not present when Mr. Shooter made his c?onunents Because of their lack
of ?rst hand knowledge, we interviewed Adam Stevens to receive his ?rsthand account.

ADAM RECOLLECTION OF MR. STATEMENTS
CONCERNING MR. MITCHELL AND HIS WIFE.

Adam Stevens stated that he called Mr. Mitchell the day after the 2016 GOP Awards Dinner
to tell him what had happened. Adam Stevens explained that he went to the hotel bar after the
dinner with a handful of other people. 76 As they were sitting together, Adam Stevens could hear
Mr. Shooter approaching from behind him, and all the people at his table turned to look at Mr.
Shooter. Once at the table, Adam Stevens recalled that Mr. Shooter spoke with him for
approximately 1.5 hours. Their conversation began with small talk and then Mr. Shooter brought
up the then?occurring election for Speaker of the House. At that time in 2016, Mr. Shooter, M1.
Mitchell, and others were in the running.

Adam Stevens stated that Mr. Shooter said something to the effect of: ?You?re looking at the
next Speaker of the House?. Adam Stevens then asked Mr. Shooter how he was going to win and
whether it was strange running against someone from the same district.

Mr. Shooter then told Adam Stevens that he would take Mr. Mitchell into a bathroom and ?ass
1* him, make Sondra Mitchell watch, and do it until Mr. Mitchell loved Mr. Shooter and would
vote for him. Adam Stevens said that Mr. Shooter made ?air humping? movements while he made
this comment.

Adam Stevens said it was an uncomfortable moment and perceived that the women at the table
were uncomfortable}? He also noted, however that he did not believe anyone at the table took

 

7? Mr. Mitchell was forthcoming about his general dislike of Mr. Shooter, and stated that the feeling
was mutual from Mr. Shooter. Mr. Mitchell conveyed that their dislike for one another was well
known at the Legislature. Mr. Shooter agreed.

75 Mr. Mitchell also made additional allegations against Mr. Shooter concerning what seem to be
nothing more than politicking. We questioned Mr. Shooter about these allegations, who denied
that any of his actions were done improperly or for an improper purpose. We ultimately concluded
they did not ?t within the realm of potential harassment or discrimination for purposes of our
investigation. They appeared to be more of a product of political brinksmanship, which Mr.
Mitchell also acknowledged.

76 We reached out multiple times to three other individuals sitting with Adam Stevens in the bar
after dinner. Matt Morales did not return any of our calls and Aimee Rigler declined to speak with
us. Ban Witbeck was the only other person present who was willing to speak with us about Adam
Stevens? allegations.

7? Again, we were unable to con?rm whether any women at the table were uncomfortable because
they were either (1) unidenti?ed, or (2) if identi?ed, we were unable to reach them, or (3) they
declined to speak with us.

66

Mr. Shooter?s comments seriously. Adam Stevens said he called Mr. Mitchell the next day.
MR. RESPONSE.

During our initial interview, Mr. Shooter did not recall this speci?c incident in 2016. He
acknowledged that he would have said ?rough stuff? about Mr. Mitchell if he was ??red up?
angry) at the time. More importantly, during our initial interview, Mr. Shooter denied that
he would have said anything sexual about Mr. Mitchell.

Then, on January 9, 2018, Mr. Shooter read a statement on the House ?oor, apologizing for
some of the allegations made against him. See Exhibit 2. In this statement, Mr. Shooter
aetnor-viedged making comments at this 2016 GOP dinner and described them as relating ?to
buggery?. Buggery is a synonym for sodomy. Either Mr. Shooter was not being totally
forthcoming during our interview, or upon re?ection he determined that the allegations were in
fact true. Regardless, we interpret Mr. Shooter?s January 9, 2018 statement as an admission that
Adam Stevens? allegations about Mr. Shooter?s comments are accurate.

GRETCHEN JACOBS STATED THESE COMMENTS WERE LIKELY MADE.

Ms. Jacobs con?rmed that Mr. Shooter likely made comments about Mr. Mitchell at the GOP
dinner. Apparently, when Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Shooter discussed this allegation, Mr. Shooter told
her that he did not recall making that statement, but that it sounded like something he would say.
MS. Jacobs told us that she agreed with him that, indeed, he probably did say it.

BOAZ WITBECK WAS THERE, BUT DOES NOT RECALL ANY COMMENTS.

Mr. Witbeck did not recall hearing any of Mr. Shooter?s comments. He stated that he
remembered seeing Mr. Shooter at their table, but Mr. Witbeck was engaged in a different
conversation. He also told us that he did not believe Mr. Shooter stayed at their table for 1.5 hours
straight, but would visit for a moment, then move along and talk to others, and then come back.
In any event, Mr. Witbeck did not witness the alleged incident.

CONCLUSION.

We conclude that Mr. Shooter made these awful comments to Adam Stevens (and probably
around others) about the Mitchells. While the Mitchells may perceive Mr. Shooter?s comments as
inappropriate, unwelcome, and/or humiliating-arid correc?y so, Mr. Shooter did not make these
comments directly to the Mitchells or, as far as we can ascertain, for their personal consideration.
Indeed, we have no evidence that Mr. Shooter intended for his remarks to reach the Mitchells at

all.

We do not discount the Mitchells? subjective feelings and ?nd them completely credible. What
Mr. Shooter said was horrible, unacceptable, and inappropriate. But we cannot conclude that his
comments (1) made to a third party non~c0mplainant, (2) who does not work at the House or with
the House, (3) without the intent of having that third party actually convey those comments to the
Mitchells, violate the Policy under these speci?c facts.

To be sure, our conclusion should not be read to condone such statements or conduct, or render
such statements never to violate the Policy. Indeed, Mr. Shooter stated on January 9, 2018, that
he ?should have never said it?, and he is absolutely correct in that regard. We ?nd his conduct to
be inappropriate and reprehensible. But, given the scope of the investigation, we are constrained
to conclude that Mr. Shooter did not violate the Policy under these speci?c circumstances.

67

10. AN UNKNOWN CITY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. SHOOTER.

In an Arizona Capitol Times article dated November 8, 2017, an unknown woman, identi?ed
as a ?city employee? alleged that (1) she attended the 2015 League of Arizona Cities and Towns
conference in Tucson, where (2) she met Mr. Shooter at an ?after-hours? event. When she greeted
him, he proceeded to hug her and grabbed her butt. She told the Arizona Capitol Times that she
pushed him back and pulled away. When she went to tell her friends what happened, she stated
that Mr. Shooter began mocking her.

We were unable to identify the person who made these allegations and, thus, could not con?rm
their veracity. Nonetheless, we asked Mr. Shooter whether he remembered this incident, but he
did not. He stated that he likely hugged this unknown person, but denied that he would have
hugged her in a ?creepy way? 01' grabbed her butt.

We found no credible evidence to support these allegations and, thus, cannot conclude this
incident even occurred.

68

11. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT AT THE PHOENIX PUBLIC MARKET.

In a November 8, 2017 Arizona Capitol Times article, two unidenti?ed female lobbyists
alleged that Mr. Shooter made inappropriate sexual comments to them at the Phoenix Public
Market during an education event. The article describes Mr. Shooter?s comments as ?extreme and
sexual in nature?, but does not detail any specifics. Geoff Esposito, however, was quoted in that
article as corroborating the allegations.

GEOFF OBSERVATIONS. AND OF WHAT HE
WAS TOLD, BY SOMEONE ELSE, ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED.

We were unable to identify the two lobbyists referenced in the Arizona Capitol Times article,
and they did not reach out to us.

We began our investigation into these allegations by speaking with Geoff Esposito, who was
quoted in the article concerning these allegations.

Mr. Esposito recalled that sometime during the 2017 session, likely near the beginning of it,
he was at the Phoenix Public Market on a Thursday for a regular happy hour hosted by an
educational organization. He was sitting in the outdoor bar area near the window that opens into
the restaurant. From his viewpoint, he could see two young, female lobbyists inside the restaurant
speaking with Mr. Shooter. He could not hear their conversation and did not observe any
inappropriate touching. He also noted that around this same time, he was engaged in a
conversation with his friends and, thus, his attention was directed more toward his own

conversation.

Mr. Esposito then began receiving text messages from one of the lobbyists, which said things
like This prompted Mr. Esposito to enter the restaurant. He attempted to interrupt the two
lobbyists? conversation with Mr. Shooter by introducing himself to Mr. Shooter. Mr. Esposito had
never met Mr. Shooter before this event.

When Mr. Esposito approached, Mr. Shooter allegedly pressed his palm in the center of Mr.
Esposito?s chest, pushed Mr. Esposito away (physically moving Mr. Esposito) and said, ?l?m
working on something here, buddy.? Mr. Esposito then stepped back into the talking circle and
turned his back to Mr. Shooter, attempting to exclude Mr. Shooter from the conversation. As Mr.
Esposito began engaging the lobbyists in conversation, Mr. Shooter almost immediately walked

away.

Mr. Esposito provided us with a secondhand account of Mr. Shooter?s alleged remarks as
conveyed by those to whom they were allegedly directed, but Mr. Esposito made it clear that he
did not have personal knowledge of any of the conversation between Mr. Shooter and the two

female lobbyists.

We asked Mr. Esposito to provide us the names and contact information of the two female
lobbyists. Mr. Esposito would not do so. We asked him to reach out to them, and ask if they
would be willing to speak with us. He agreed to do so. We followed up with him after the meeting
and he told us that the two female lobbyists would not speak with us. We understand from Mr.
Esposito that the anonymous lobbyists, who are in their twenties, are afraid to come forward
because they fear this investigation is a witch hunt, fear nobody will believe the story, and fear
their careers could be compromised.

00) MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Shooter did not remember any details of this event, but recalled attending an event at the

69

Phoenix Public Market. He does not normally go there, and he could not recall the purpose of the
event. He believed that he was the lone Republican at the event he attended. When asked whether
he made sexual comments to anyone at the event, he adamantly denied doing so.

CONCLUSION.

We cannot conclude that Mr. Shooter made sexually charged comments to two unidenti?ed
female lobbyists at the Phoenix Public Market, as alleged in the Arizona Capitol Times article,
because we have no information, other than hearsay, that the incident occurred.

As we noted in the beginning of this Report, our investigation was never intended to be-?and
was not?~a ?shing expedition. We typically would not pursue the investigation of witness accounts
without ?rst having a complainant, 216., a person with ?rsthand knowledge of the alleged incident.
In this instance, however, we interviewed Mr. Esposito: for his ?rsthand account of Mr.
Shooter?s behavior toward Mr. Esposito; and (2) to request that he inform the two unnamed
lobbyists that we would need to interview them before we could consider whether their allegations
constituted a viOlation under the Policy.? Again, Mr. Esposito informed us that he had relayed
our message to the unidenti?ed lobbyists, but they never contacted us, and we were never provided
with their contact information. Thus, regardless of how credible we ?nd Mr. Esposito, because
nobody with ?rsthand knowledge of the alleged incident has come forward, we cannot conclude
there is any credible ?rst-hand evidence that this incident occurred.

Similarly, even assuming that we ?nd Mr. Esposito entirely credible, under the facts available
to us, we cannot conclude that his allegation that Mr. Shooter physically pushed Mr. Esposito
violated the Policy. First, we have no evidence corroborating the alleged pushing, and that alone
gives us pause, because it appears that the only people who could provide that information are the
anonymous lobbyists who refuse to speak with us. Second, and in any event, without more, there
is no evidence that the alleged pushing-while highly inappropriate for anyone (especially a
legislator) and improper--occurred in a manner that violates the Policy.

 

73 Although Mr. Shooter could have admitted to the allegations, we would still be unable to con?rm
that his actions were subjectively unwelcome without speaking with the complainants directly.

70

12. MR. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST Ms. UGENTI-RITA, MADE IN THE
MEDIA. AFTER SHE WENT PUBLIC WITH HER ALLEGATIONS.

MR. Snoorsa?s ALLEGATIONS.

A?er Ms. Ugenti-Rita came forward with her public allegations against Mr. Shooter, he made
a statement to BTV on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, apologizing in response to her allegations and
stating he ?apparently said things that were insensitive and not taken well.?jig Later that night,
after learning of Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s speci?c allegations, Mr. Shooter issued the following
statement:

?Earlier today I was told that Ms. Ugenti was upset by some comments I made, but I
wasn?t given any details on what she had accused me of saying. I responded that if I
had said the wrong things I was sorry and that I would talk with her. Since then, I?ve
actually seen the text of Ms. Ugenti?s accusations and I absolutely withdraw my
apology. I?ve been happily married for 41 years, I?ve never cheated on my wife, and
there isn?t a woman on this planet I would leave my wife for. Michelle and I got along
well when we were both first elected, as we shared a similar irreverent sense of humor,
were both conservatives, etc. But that?s all.

The trouble with Ms. Ugenti stems from my publicly voiced disapproval over how she
has conducted herself personally, with staff, and later with legislation. While virtually
every member of the legislature just whispered disapprovingly at Ms. Ugenti?s conduct,
I actually said things out loud. I was particularly critical of her carrying 011 a very
public affair with House staff, speci?cally the House Speaker?s Chief of Staff. I knew
Frank, Michelle?s husband and the father of her kids, and I thought it was a lousy thing
to do. In fact, I complained about it to the Speaker at the time. Obviously, she didn?t
want my advice or opinion and she continued the affair until it destroyed her
marriage. To say that we didn?t get along after that time would be an understatement.
Later I took offense to the way she screwed with really good bills, like being the only
Republican to vote no on a Blue Lives Matter bill to better protect the police from
violent assault.

I can?t speak to anything anyone else did or didn?t do, but Ms. Ugenti is the only
member of the Legislature to make masturbation jokes to a fellow member (and pastor)
during a committee hearing, and to my knowledge she is the only member of the
Legislature to carry on a very public affair with a subordinate.

Ms. Ugenti is lying about me and I have asked Speaker Mesnard to have the entire
matter investigated by the House Ethics Committee I Counsel.

At the (?gnclusion of their work, I will consider taking further legal action in this
matter.?

Mr. Shooter?s public statement raised two possible allegations concerning Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s
violation of the Policy: (1) an alleged extramarital affair; and (2) Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s statement to
another Representative, during a House Government Committee session, concerning masturbation.

 

I9 
at?az?state~capitol.
80 Id

71

Consistent with the Policy, we interviewed Mr. Shooter about his allegations.31

We asked Mr. Shooter about his personal knowledge of either of these incidents and how these
incidents made him feel.

First, though not necessarily dispositive, Mr. Shooter did not have ?rsthand knowledge of
either of the incidents. Neither Ms. Ugenti?Rita, nor the former staff member involved in the
alleged affair, ever told Mr. Shooter that they had any kind of personal relationship, and he did not
witness interactions conclusively evidencing any extramarital affair. Mr. Shooter also
acknowledged that he did not know Frank Ugenti, but recalled seeing him once on the mall at the
Capitol, despite his statement to 3TV. Similarly, Mr. Shooter was not in attendance at the 2012
committee meeting in which Ms. Ugenti?Rita made her comment, nor was he watching the
comment contemporaneously when it was made.

Second, regardless of Mr. Shooter?s firsthand knowledge, he made clear to us that he did not
feel offended, harassed, or uncomfortable by either of the foregoing allegations. Neither incident
was directed at him, or occurred in his presence.

CONCLUSION.

Our approach to this investigation has been pointed and focused on allegations supported by
persons with firsthand knowledge. In instances where allegations are made, but through hearsay
and without corroboration by persons with firsthand knowledge, we could not conclude that they

occurred or that they violated the Policy.

Under certain circumstances, we are sure that acts between separate parties, neither of whom
lodge a complaint under the Policy, may constitute a violation of the Policy vis?a-vis a third person.
However, this is not such a circumstance. Mr. Shooter readily acknowledged that he did not
witness either of the allegations, nor feel that the conduct was harassing or otherwise
discriminatory toward him on the basis of a protected class, such as his sex. His reason for making
these statements appeared to align more with his objective of challenging Ms. Ugenti~Rita?s
credibility (that she was offended by certain alleged conduct). In the end, with regard to Mr.
Shooter?s public allegations against Ms. Ugenti?Rita, (1) he lacked ?rsthand knowledge, (2) he
did not feel offended, uncomfortable, or otherwise harassed by the her alleged conduct, and (3) no
persons with firsthand knowledge and a plausible claim of discrimination or harassment came
forward to complain of a violation of the Policy regarding the incidents Mr. Shooter identi?ed in

the media.

Accordingly, under the facts as presented to us, we ?nd that there is no credible evidence that
Ms. Ugenti?Rita violated the Policy.

 

31 We corroborated that Ms. Ugenti-Rita made this statement, as stated in Section No
other complainants came forward concerning this statement.

72

13. THAT MS. UGENTI-RITA ENGAGED IN. OR FACILITATED.
UNWELCOME HARASSING AND OFFENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

During the course of our investigation, multiple third parties, and Mr. Shooter, brought to our
attention that Interviewee 2 and Interviewee 3 may have information concerning multiple
violations of the Policy by Ms. Ugenti-Rita.

We approached these allegations in the same manner as those levied by third parties against
Mr. Shooter. We reached out to Interviewee 2 and Interviewee 3, the persons we understood to
have personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, to determine whether they would participate in
an interview with us. They both did 30.82

THE ALLEGED UNWELCOME HARASSING AND OFFENSIVE
COMMUNICATIONS.

Interviewee 2 and Interviewee 3 described to us three specific incidents involving Brian
Townsend and possibly Ms. Ugenti-Rita.83 The conduct involved unsolicited, sexually explicit
communications from Mr. Townsend, possibly with MS. Ugenti~Rita?s knowledge and
participation. We have no doubt that the unsolicited, unwelcome, and harassing contact occurred
and would qualify as a violation of the Policy, leaving the only question being whether and the
extent to which Ms. Ugenti?Rita participated in, or knew of, the alleged misconduct.

MS. RESPONSE.

Ms. Ugenti?Rita unequivocally denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the conduct. We
found her testimony in this regard credible. She was visibly distraught, brie?y lost the composure
and con?dence she had generally displayed during our interactions with her, expressed genuine
surprise and shock, and conveyed sincere sympathy for Interviewee 2.84

MR. RESPONSE.

Mr. Townsend corroborated Ms. Ugenti?Rita?s denial of involvement or knowledge, taking
complete ownership for the alleged conduct and explaining that he acted in this manner to hurt and
humiliate her. While we noted his lack of credibility in connection with other matters, we observed
a visceral reaction from him when confronted with these allegations. Mr. Townsend immediately
became emotional, expressing that he knew the discovery of his actions would be the ?death knell?
in his career and relationship with Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Although he attempted to calm himself several
times, he would become wrought with emotion time and again as we pressed him further for
answers and explanations concerning the allegations and Ms. Ugenti-Rita?s potential involvement.
He would cry at times and appeared to tremble throughout the discussion of this topic. His answers
and recollection were consistent throughout and consistent with the information we had already

 

32 If Interviewee 2 and lnterviewee 3 had chosen not to participate in these interviews, we likely
would have reached the same conclusion as we did in other similar scenarios?~which we were
unable to conclude the event happened, because of a lack of credible evidence.

33 Both individuals also conveyed a fourth incident to us, which we have concluded is immaterial
to our ultimate conclusion.

8? Before ?nalizing this Report, we reached out to Interviewee 2 to inform the Interviewee of Ms.
Ugenti-Rita?s denial of involvement to provide lnterviewee 2 with an opportunity to respond.
Interviewee 2 did not deny that Ms. Ugenti~Rita may not have been involved and ?hoped? that was

the case.

73

obtained.
CONCLUSION.

While we conclude the foregoing incidents occurred, we found no independent, credible
evidence that Ms. Ugenti~Rita was involved in, or even knew of, those incidents. To the contrary,
the independent, credible evidence supports only a ?nding that Mr. Townsend acted alone and
without MS. Ugemi-Rz'fa ?s imam-pledge or participation when committing the egregious and
potentially unlawful acts at issue. Thus, we conclude that, with regard to these allegations, Ms.
Ugenti?Rita did not violate the Policy.

74

VI. SUMMARY.

As we stated at the beginning of this Report, our sole function was to investigate allegations
reported to us that appeared to be supported by someone with personal knowledge of the alleged
misconduct, or other veri?able evidence. We were not tasked with providing any recommendation
to the House about how to address those allegation that we found credible and in violation of the
Policy. After conducting dozens of interviews, often several hours in length, and reviewing all
evidence offered to us, our investigation led us to the following ?ndings:

1. There is credible evidence that Mr. Shooter has violated the Policy. His repeated pervasive
conduct has created a hostile working environment for his colleagues and those with business
before the Legislature. Although we could not conclude that all of the allegations made against
Mr. Shooter occurred, or if they did, also violated the Policy, there remain several credible
allegations evidencing that Mr. Shooter has engaged in a pattern of unwelcome and hostile conduct
toward other Members of the Legislature and those who have business at the Capitol. That pattern
of conduct has occurred from the time he was ?rst elected to the Senate to as recently as 2017; and

2. While we investigated multiple allegations against Ms. Ugenti?Rita, we could not conclude
that there is any independent, credible evidence that Ms. Ugenti-Rita personally engaged in, or
otherwise participated in, conduct that violated the House?s Policy.85

Respectfully submitted this 2 9* day of January, 2018.

   

 

CIainrgan



if -
Lind/say SfPlesketh

 

85 We note that the investigation and ?nal Report would not have been possible without the support
of the House and its many employees, (2) the trust of, guidance from, and collaboration with
the House?s bipartisan special investigation team, and (3) the cooperation of all interviewees,
including those who are not identi?ed in in this Report.

75
4762331420

EXHIBIT 1

 

50,..29113IVI. naIfI Dom -

YY3 @30th me, I?m syenIImIg 
.- kawat?d- 4th Sen ?E?hm?I'evr WWII I

aIImoYecI he I163 m3 how axiom/(II Vme/ 
IYI, 336 3 he, 613.3653 61/1/33 IVI-36 
. he mm?Y 

has again-g}- Yo I: donY know how Y0 Q3pomi abY ddII

 

 

 

 

33va I Yo 66 666333 I anY Yo 121636 
.TL Yell my? 33333 VII 36% I: 33.43? I3 YEII -33 Io 662.-..
EVIY- :Yw mam .. MM
101m? max/I66 33.13! ISIrIvme, rad/.1119- me. 66.15: ..- .. 636.
WMIVVI6QL I 
I3 mY ?62.36 em, 363V @1344 he. :Id II.
Wm) asks 13 633 IV
.IVI- YUIY :Yheh he. .. i
3 hem mamad Ivi 3?2. W3 and .
8.66% 683. 0+0 (AIM mi W6 (3 644361. I
-116.-- __me I3 6 
IV (II. (I unwk?emihaoi 
33 (VII 3333 WI 62344 GIOI sex/(IV.
I363. In 3.668.603; MIIWII IQIIBIAA I313 
mh)_ ISM-B .WWJ 60mm) hm?

.. 6V3, I -1166 - 5

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

010 .VII. II i
Wg?mmj?l I0. 30. .910 .4416

 

 b? mm? 5? mp} \?gquoj 2&5 

.0an ?69 
39!)!!er mghewbm he, was malcmo} "wan Waf 1_ __th ?x
t) pass 9% Fm?uw, 1 

WK cm Hwy 111 wan??qu .Mrg?
(KT). Eon/\wa ?ux-K WW Aw? at 
hm axial/hambj

._Hms ?nes-km)? ?hoo-K'M 9%392r-Km3 hm?) 
Kat} h?x hag b? pawns I. 

.. .. "fa/J 10% 09M 47L xix/xx. 
I .. .. ?117/4 70a! 94%? mi;

1:?me 9-0394 rah! 
_wx 9% Md each crux erg max ma, mo! ch:

cw m9, ?Th9 Comma-K919 unciermm?? me, 1(6) and 
A ?3 "(?0ch 36!) I.

 

 

 

    

 

 

       

33189; .. 

   

 

 

EXHIBIT 2

Point of personal privilege:

Our legislative community is currently going through an intense period of self-evaluation on the
topic of how we treat each other, where we have been failing to do things right, and how we need
to do things better.

My own involvement in all of this has been greatly magni?ed as a result of a complaint that was
?led against me for reasons that I believe are largely unrelated to the complaint itself.

But that complaint was followed by a number of additional complaints, the majority of which
were sincere and which exposed me to the knowledge that my actions were not always received
as intended, and that worse still, they caused genuine discomfort or pain.

At ?rst, my response was largely defensive, borne of frustration at a few complaints that were
not true or were made for a personal or political vendetta.

But it would be a mistake to treat each and every complaint the same, if I failed to learn from
legitimate complaints, and if I failed to recognize and apologize for those actions that caused
damage or hurt.

We, as a larger Capitol community, cannot begin to heal until those of us who have made
mistakes begin the process ourselves. For me, that means learning and changing, so I stand
before you today because it is my desire that we now begin to heal.

The healing won?t start in earnest, at least with respect to the people whom I have hurt, without
me recognizing that comments I have made in jest, over the past seven years, were not received
in the spirit in which they were intended. Quite the contrary. Some were jarring, insensitive, and
demeaning.

I don?t need to wait for an investigative report to know that.

In the past, when I?ve told ajoke that landed badly and realized it, I have always apologized. My
purpose is always to entertain and to get people smiling and laughing, and that has been my style
as a farmer and a legislator. But when someone reacts badly or tells me I?ve hurt their feelings I
feel terrible and try to immediately remedy it.

it has been hard to sit on my hands during this political and legal process and not acknowledge
that I care. I want to get it right and I want to make it right.

I was beyond embarrassed to hear that what I thought were welcomed and well-intentioned hugs
were perceived as creepy and lecherous. I didn?t know. As soon as I did know, I have been and

am, so sorry.

I will confess that there were times that, when hearing that 1 had offended someone with a
boorish comment or that- what I intended as a simple hug turned into someone believing that I
had crossed some line, I was sorry but, I also reacted defensively and thought to myself that
some people are just too sensitive.

It has taken me time to understand, that - I - have been insensitive, and it is unfair to expect
everyone to react to things the way I might react. If I?m going to be a comedian, I have to
understand and be sensitive to my audience, not blame them when myjokes fall ?at.

I now know that comments intended to be hospitable, harmlessly ?irtatious or outrageous ?and
above all intended to be humorous, weren?t at all humorous and caused others to believe 1 did not
value who they are as individuals. I?ve taken all of this very hard because those who know me
well, know that under all of the clowning the schtick I put on? I care a great deal.

Nor was this reaction limited to how women reacted to my behavior. During this investigative
process, I learned that I not only offended women; one complaint was even from a man!

I learned that a crass and offensive comment I made in jest at an after-hours event to a legislative
candidate-- in response to a political prediction-- was perceived as sexual harassment which I
never would have imagined. My sarcastic response related to buggery. Repeating my response
now, during the day, in front of my colleagues, including women, is evidence enough that I
should have never said it. It?s a little rough. This candidate interpreted my remarks as serious,
not sarcastic, for which I am embarrassed and deeply regretful. I look forward to apologizing
personally.

It is important that you all know that while my actions have unintentionally offended some, I
have never attempted to kiss anyone, made obscene gestures at a woman, nor sought a or
sexual relationship. It may seem inconsistent with my attempts at humor, but I have lived my life
as someone who absolutely reveres and respects women. I have been blessed to be married for
41 years to an incredible woman, to whom I have remained devoted.

I was brought up to be a gentleman who will hold the door, pull out the chair, stand when a
woman leaves the table or lend her myjacket when she is cold.

However, I now am acutely aware that not everyone understood my attempts at humor and
resented that I did not show the respect and value each individual deserves. That is one of the
things that bothers me the most.

I am sorry for the distraction and strain that this matter and the subsequent investigation have
caused all of you. That was not my intent when I asked for the investigation. I don?t want to go
one more day without apologizing and honoring all of you by not only saying I'm sorry, but by
doing better. This has been a painful process for all. Hopefully to those I hurt, you feel
empowered for speaking up. Your courage has already had a profound impact on the way I relate
to others. I am sorry.

I also want to tell all of you that I am still your friend and I still want to hear from you. I
especially want to hear if I?m doing something wrong. I wish that the people who came foxward
months or years later had said something immediately at the time so that I could have apologized
and made improvements right away. But, I understand why they didn?t. I hope that while I strive
to be better, you all help me along the way if you see things I can improve. It is time to repair
and begin to heal. I want to get this right.

It can be tough to teach old dogs new tricks, but this old dog can and will do better. I look
forward to personally listening and expressing my remorse once the investigation is over - to the
extent those I have offended are interested. I am sorry.

Thank you.