Arizona Citizen Voice - Recent changes [en]

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sun, 04 Oct 2026 01:57:30 GMT

To Be Developed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 3 October 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 42:		Line 42:
	The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]		The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]

	In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. ~~Howe~~ can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?		In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?

	Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.		Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.
Line 197:		Line 197:
	By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:		By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:
	#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']		#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']
	The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County ~~did prevail in~~ court~~, but it's~~ a ~~lie~~ to ~~say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by~~ this court case.		The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County won their court against a citizen wanting their vote to be counted. However, Maricopa County is lying when they claim their court victory for this court case debunked Sharpie Gate.

	* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]		* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]
Line 257:		Line 257:
	Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):		Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):
	Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...		Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...
	The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.		The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county. Implying no records exist to share.

	Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452.		Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. In inspector concluded Maricopa County Election Procedures for drop boxes had been violated based on the documentation the investigator reviewed.

	~~Contrary~~ to the ~~legal team~~'s ~~position~~, ~~it appears~~ that the Election Procedures Manual ~~for Maricopa County does exist~~. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. ~~The request~~ seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.		Maricopa County's legal team' claimed Maricopa County has no records to "create" the documents Jamie requested in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-452. The Arizona Attorney General's inspector found Maricopa County must create election procedures in accordance with the Arizona Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual, which was established to comply with A.R.S. § 16-452. In fact, the investigator found the county had violated county and state election procedures based on documentation that was not stated in A.R.S. § 16-452, but contained in the State's Election Procedures Manual, which was mandated to the county.

			Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. Maricopa's legal team may have been legally corrected by ethically wrong. Maricopa County is required to maintain documentation to fulfill A.R.S. § 16-452 as mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State, which has responsibility for A.R.S. § 16-452. Jamie's requests seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.

	* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]		* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]
Line 267:		Line 269:

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===
	<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way ~~to the~~ Election Management System!</u>		<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way t,Election Management System!</u>

	<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u>		<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u>

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 22:29:35 GMT

Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 3 October 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 61:		Line 61:
	This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information.		This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information.

	==== ~~Second~~ Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====		==== Third Priority - Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====
	The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:		The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:
	'''[[1.01\|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values.		'''[[1.01\|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values.
Line 84:		Line 84:
	Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences\|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"		Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences\|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"

	==== ~~Third~~ Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====		===== Lack of Oversight =====
			Intuitively, ACV saw clear link between ineffective organizational oversight and organizations prone to unethical behaviors and integrity lapses. In ACV's first use of Artificial Intelligence (Google-based), ACV searched "What role does lack of organizational oversight lead to poor organizational ethics?" and received the following response:

			<nowiki>***</nowiki>

			Lack of organizational oversight significantly contributes to poor organizational ethics. Without effective oversight mechanisms, organizations may experience several detrimental effects:

			* Inconsistent Decision-Making: When oversight is weak, there are often no clear guidelines or processes for ethical decision-making. This can lead to reliance on personal judgment, resulting in varied responses to similar ethical dilemmas.
			* Increased Risk of Misconduct: Weak oversight can create an environment where unethical behavior goes unchecked. Employees may feel empowered to engage in unethical practices if they believe there will be no consequences.
			* Erosion of Accountability: A lack of oversight diminishes accountability at all levels. When individuals are not held responsible for their actions, it can foster a culture of impunity, further undermining ethical standards.
			* Failure to Address Ethical Issues: Without proper oversight, ethical concerns may not be identified or addressed in a timely manner. This can lead to a culture where ethical violations become normalized.

			<nowiki>***</nowiki>

			This AI response confirmed ACV's belief that a '''Lack of Effective Oversight was a higher priority than Ethical and Integrity Issues.''' Negative outcomes result from both. However, effective oversight is needed to improve ethical and integrity issues. Conversely, oversight is not made more effective from strong organizational ethics and integrity.

			* '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was ranked as our highest priority, even with a low heat map score.
			* '''Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' was ranked as our third priority.

			==== Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====
	The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:		The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:
	'''[[17.01\|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.		'''[[17.01\|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.
Line 94:		Line 113:

	Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.		Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.

	Finish this section!!!!!		Finish this section!!!!!

	==== ~~Fourth~~ Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====		==== Fifth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====
	The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:		The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:
	'''[[12.01\|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.		'''[[12.01\|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.
Line 107:		Line 127:
	Finish this section!!!!!		Finish this section!!!!!

	==== ~~Fifth~~ Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====		==== Sixth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====
	The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:		The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:
	'''[[8.01\|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.		'''[[8.01\|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.
Line 120:		Line 140:
	Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.		Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.
	Finish this section!!!!!		Finish this section!!!!!
	~~<big>FIx the following:</big>~~
	*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''
	* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).'''
	* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''
	* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''

	'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''
	=== Heat Map? What's that? ===		=== Heat Map? What's that? ===
	A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet.		A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet.

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 21:43:17 GMT

Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 12:55:49 GMT

Disclaimer

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 3 October 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2:		Line 2:

	You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''		You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''

			If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?\|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage.

	After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:		After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:
Line 8:		Line 10:

	=== Special Findings ===		=== Special Findings ===
	This section identifies governance gaps that were ~~not~~ identified as problematic from the Heat ~~Maps~~.		This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense.

			* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented.
			* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes.
			Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings.

	==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====		==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====
Line 88:		Line 94:

	Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.		Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.
			Finish this section!!!!!

	==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====		==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====
	The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:		The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:
Line 97:		Line 105:

	Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.		Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.
			Finish this section!!!!!

	==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====		==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====
Line 110:		Line 119:

	Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.		Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.
			Finish this section!!!!!
	<big>FIx the following:</big>		<big>FIx the following:</big>
	*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''		*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''
Line 118:		Line 127:

	'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''		'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''

	~~=== Disclaimer ===~~
	~~The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability.~~

	* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.
	* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.

	Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.

	An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''

	=== Heat Map? What's that? ===		=== Heat Map? What's that? ===
	A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet.		A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet.
Line 218:		Line 216:

	[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]		[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]

			=== Disclaimer ===
			The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability.

			* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.
			* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.

			Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.

			An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 05:27:03 GMT

To Be Developed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 2 October 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 251:		Line 251:

	* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].		* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].

			=== Do They or Don't They? ===
			Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county does not have any records to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 with the following statement from Page 6, Line 4:
			Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.
			Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):
			Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...
			The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.

			Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investgator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452.

			Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.

			* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]
			* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 04:38:03 GMT

Heat Map Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 2 October 2026
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained\|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.		Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained\|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.

			The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?\|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.

	=== Heat Map Findings ===		=== Heat Map Findings ===

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 04:31:36 GMT

To Be Developed

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 2 October 2026
Line 230:		Line 230:

	* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]		* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]

			=== Can you see a pattern? ===
			Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.

			The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):

			* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)
			* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)
			* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)
			* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)
			* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)
			* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)
			* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)
			* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)
			* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)
			* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)

			The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court rule. As noted above, the count's primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, then the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.
			Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable.

			* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===

March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 03:43:24 GMT

Defense Brief

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 2 October 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Maricopa County's Defendants' Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County was submitted on March 12, 2026, which is available from the following hyperlink.		Maricopa County's Defendants' Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County was submitted on March 12, 2026, which is available from the following hyperlink.

	[[Media:2026-03-20 Defendants' Response Brief.pdf\|The Complete Defendants' Briefing to Court]]		>>[[Media:2026-03-20 Defendants' Response Brief.pdf\|'''The Complete Defendants' Briefing to Court''']]<<

	=== Topics from Defense Briefing ===		=== Topics from Defense Briefing ===

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 01:36:33 GMT

To Be Developed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 2 October 2026
Line 228:		Line 228:

	In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."		In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."

			* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 01:34:55 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 2 October 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.		The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.

	Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House\|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.		Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House\|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.

	Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low.		Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low.
Line 44:		Line 44:
	The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!		The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!

	OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see		OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements\|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below).

			Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths.

			Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained\|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.

	=== Heat Map Findings ===		=== Heat Map Findings ===

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 01:24:58 GMT

Runbeck Contract Changes not Approved or Explained

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 2 October 2026
Line 220:		Line 220:
	For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]		For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]

	=== Runbeck Contract Changes not Approved or Explained ===		=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===
			[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png\|border]]

			Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic.

			Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.

			In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===

File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 01:02:29 GMT

Neil thibodaux uploaded File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png

New page

Interesting Takeaways

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 00:53:49 GMT

Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 2 October 2026
Line 178:		Line 178:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>


	<br><br>		<br><br>

Line 217:		Line 219:

	For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]		For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]

			=== Runbeck Contract Changes not Approved or Explained ===

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 00:15:23 GMT

Green Book Documentation Requirements

Show changes

File:Documentation Requirements.png

Neil thibodaux — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 01:02:11 GMT

Neil thibodaux uploaded File:Documentation Requirements.png

New page

Heat Maps

Neil thibodaux — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 00:54:58 GMT

Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map

Show changes

MediaWiki:Sidebar

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:55:53 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:55, 28 September 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	** Main_Page#Our_Prayer\|Our Prayer		** Main_Page#Our_Prayer\|Our Prayer

	* ~~Proposal~~		* Proposed Bill
	**Proposed_Bill\|Proposed ~~Bills~~		**Proposed_Bill\|Proposed Bill
	**Create County Ombudsman\|--County Ombudsman		**Create County Ombudsman\|--County Ombudsman
	**Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements\|--County Records		**Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements\|--County Records

Proposed Bill

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:54:42 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 28 September 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation.		This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation.

	=== Proposed ~~Bills~~ ===		=== Proposed Bill ===
			The proposed bill would include changes to multiple Arizona Revised Statutes.

	==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====		==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====
Line 35:		Line 36:
	==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====

	* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions ~~/ Paragraph E?~~		* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions\|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions]]

	==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====

	* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties		* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1279.03. Powers and duties\|41-1279.03. Powers and duties]]

			=== The Proposed Bills Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===




	=== The Proposed ~~Bill Requires a New Governor in November 2026 ===~~
	~~Sadly, partisan politics stand in the way of a bipartisan citizen issue.~~

	The proposed bill is for the citizen and does not favor one political party over the other. However, the Governor of Arizona, Katie Hobbs, must be removed from her position as Governor to move this bill realistically forward. Why?

	* News articles have taken note of the large number of bills vetoed by Katie Hobbs. Depending on the news slant, the large number of vetos is not disputed; it's the justification for the veto that is disputed. The bill is unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with her past veto record.
	* As the Arizona Secretary of State during the 2020 election, Katie Hobbs spent more effort attacking the investigators and defending Maricopa County in her [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County]. The bill is even more unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with this bias.

	~~=== The Proposed Bill~~ Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===
	Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.		Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.

Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:47:23 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 28 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members.		This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members.

	~~== Contents ==~~

	* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures\|Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]
	* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.\|Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.]]
	* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures\|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]

	=== County Specific Selection Committee ===		=== County Specific Selection Committee ===

Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:46:59 GMT

Created page with "This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members. == Contents == * Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed..."

New page

This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members.

== Contents ==

* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.|Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.]]
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]

=== County Specific Selection Committee ===
A.R.S. 41-1373 Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee specifies how candidates for the State's Ombudsman are selected and approved, which involves the Arizona Legislature and Governor. The state selection process seeks to minimize political bias. However, the methodology is too complicated for County Ombudsman. Therefore, the selection committee was staffed with the following:

* Chairperson - Arizona Ombudsman or delegate.
* Five Members - One appointment by each Board of Supervisors from a pool of active Chamber of Commerce members in the County
* One Member - Arizona Auditor General or delegate.
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Democratic Party
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Republican Party

=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Ombudsman Role in Selection ===

* Title 41- State
** Chapter 8- Agencies of the Legislative Department
*** Article 5 - Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide

==== 41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions ====
Add Paragraph F.

F. In addition to the powers and duties prescribed in section 41-1376, the ombudsman-citizens aide, or delegate, shall chair Selection Committees for county ombudsman-citizens' aide positions.

=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Auditor General Role in Selection ===

* Title 41- State
** Chapter 7 - Legislature
*** Article 10.1 - Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Auditor General

==== 41-1279.03. Powers and duties ====
Add Paragraph F.

F. The auditor general shall appoint two staff members to serve as selection committee members for county ombudsman citizens' aide positions, which is a temporary and collateral duty.

Proposed Bill

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 13:27:59 GMT

Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 28 September 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures\|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]		* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures\|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]

	==== ~~Modify~~ State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====		==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====

	* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph B		* [[Add State Oversight by Ombudsman#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B\|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B]]

	==== ~~Modify~~ State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====

	* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph E?		* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph E?

	==== ~~Modify~~ the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====

	* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties		* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties

Add State Oversight by Ombudsman

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 04:53:00 GMT

Created page with "This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will implement statistical oversight of county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies, which will be reported annually in the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agency. == Contents == * Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures * Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A..."

New page

This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will implement statistical oversight of county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies, which will be reported annually in the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agency.

== Contents ==

* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.|Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.]]
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]

=== Proposed Changes to 41-1376.01, Paragraph B ===
41-1376.01, Paragraph B currently explains the required contents of the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agency's annual report. The contents are being revised to perform a statistical analysis of the annual performance of the county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies from the following counties:

# Apache County
# Cochise County
# Coconino County
# Gila County
# Graham County
# Greenlee County
# La Paz County
# Maricopa County
# Mohave County
# Navajo County
# Pima County
# Pinal County
# Santa Cruz County
# Yavapai County
# Yuma County

=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. ===

* Title 41- State
** Chapter 8- Agencies of the Legislative Department
*** Article 5 - Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide

=== 41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B ===
B. The annual report of the ombudsman-citizens aide shall include the following information about public access:

1. The number of inquiries that are received from the public, the media and government agencies.

2. The number of inquiries that are received about state agencies, county agencies, city or town agencies, school districts and other local jurisdictions.

3. The number of requests that are received concerning public records and public meetings.

4. The number of investigations that are conducted and the results of the investigations.

5. Statistical evaluation of each county's annual report of their county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide complaints and investigation to identify crosscutting issues potentially in need of Arizona Legislative intervention.

Proposed Bill

Neil thibodaux — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 04:36:01 GMT

Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 27 September 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====		==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====

			* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph B

	==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====

			* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph E?

	==== Modify the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====		==== Modify the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====
	41-1279.03. Powers and duties
			* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:55, 28 September 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	** Main_Page#Our_Prayer\|Our Prayer		** Main_Page#Our_Prayer\|Our Prayer

	* ~~Proposal~~		* Proposed Bill
	**Proposed_Bill\|Proposed ~~Bills~~		**Proposed_Bill\|Proposed Bill
	**Create County Ombudsman\|--County Ombudsman		**Create County Ombudsman\|--County Ombudsman
	**Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements\|--County Records		**Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements\|--County Records

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 3 October 2026
Line 223:		Line 223:
	[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png\|border]]		[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png\|border]]

	Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, ~~according to how it~~ was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic.		Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic.

	Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.		Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.
Line 247:		Line 247:
	* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)		* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)

	The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ~~rule~~. As noted above, the ~~count~~'s primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, ~~then~~ the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.		The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.
	Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable.		Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law.

	* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].		* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].

	=== Do They or Don't They? ===		=== Do They or Don't They? ===
	Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county ~~does not have any records~~ to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 ~~with~~ the following statement from Page 6, Line 4:		Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):
	Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.		Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.
	Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):		Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):
Line 259:		Line 259:
	The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.		The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.

	Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's ~~investgator~~ states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452.		Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452.

	Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.		Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.

	* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]		* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]