View source for 2001: The Journey Begins

After a year of pondering the 2020 election anomalies, I wanted to know where were the documented lessons learned or corrective action processes? This is what I came to expect from any healthy organization. Unfortunately, I heard of none and could find any documentation to suggest any effort was taken to learn from these anomalies and take corrective actions.

I began asking questions. I reached out to the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Maricopa County Recorder. The Secretary of State responded that they couldn’t provide legal advice and referred me to the Governor. The Governor never responded. Although I spoke with the Recorder, I still never received an answer explaining what process existed to objectively evaluate a citizen’s governance concern.

=== November 2024: Midterm Election ===
I have never interfaced with Katie Hobbs, but her actions left me pondering her influence over the November 2024 midterm elections. Katie Hobbs ran for and was elected governor in 2024. She ran for Arizona Governor while she was Arizona Secretary of State. This would appear to exclude Governor Hobbs as have any influence over Maricopa County governance. However, there is some overlap in the election process between her role as the Arizona Secretary of State and Maricopa County’s implementation of the elections process. According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s website:<blockquote>
  “The highest profile duty of the office is oversight and administration of secure and accurate elections. The Secretary of State serves as Chief Election Officer for the State. One of the goals of the office is to register more voters and encourage their active participation in elections. As part of elections administration, the office certifies: voting devices, election results, candidates and measures to the ballot, as well as the results of statewide elections."
</blockquote>While there may have been no statute or policy to prevent Katie Hobbs from managing the election process for her own election, the situation suggests an ethical question. You might be surprised to learn how this issue isn’t about Katie; it’s about how her behaviors may have influenced other government employees.

Potential Governance Gap(s):
*   [[Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values|Principle 1 – Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (1.02)]]
=== December 2024: Gaining Support ===
In December 2024, the Executive Guidance Committee for the Maricopa County Republican Committee approved a resolution I submitted for their review. The resolution, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Contracts Must Be Open and as Transparent, Subject to Public Oversight, Audits, and Corrective Action Plans, identified performance gaps in Maricopa County governance and called upon the Arizona State Legislature to establish laws mandating that all Public -Private Partnership contracts institute Contract Compliance Oversight and Corrective Action Plans.

=== April 15, 2025: Public Records Request ===
I was getting nowhere with my efforts to engage with elected officials so I decided to investigate using my experience, which was in the finance area, specifically with contracts. I submitted Public Records Request (PRR) to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) Procurement Department on April 15, 2025. In turn, Maricopa County assigned tracking number PRR 2025-719 and forwarded my request to the Procurement Department.

I sought copies of signed contracts maintained by Maricopa County relating to the Service Level Agreements (SLA) during the 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 election cycles, including:

* Amendments
* Revisions
* Renewals
* Addenda
* Exhibits
* Post-election contract administration records

I specifically requested the contracts or Memorandums of Understanding
(MOUs) from the following entities1.  Dominion Voting Systems contracts and related amendments

# Runbeck Election Services contracts and related amendments
# Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) election-related agreements maintained by the County
# County-maintained USPS-related election agreements
# Temporary staffing contracts used for first-level signature verification
# Written records reflecting post-election contract changes for the 2018–2024 cycles
# The request did not seek ballots, voter data, tabulation data, or confidential voter information. Again, my interest was in the resolution of anomalies, not the election outcome.

 >>>> Note for following delivered some Runbeck and Dominion contracts [use the legal name of the companies here, but put the short name in parenthesis, such as (a.k.a., Runbeck)]
 
 I received a 116-page Runbeck Election Services contract, followed later
 by a second 58-page version, with no explanation of what I was looking at or how the documents related to one another. I also received [Explain the scope] from Dominion Voting Systems. None of the other contracts or MOUs requested were delivered.
 
 As I reviewed these Runbeck contracts, I found multiple dates, strikethroughs, and what I later told were amendments. However, these amendments were not self-explanatory. No documentation was provided to justify or show the person or people responsible for approving the amendments; just the strike throughs and actual changes were shown.
Potential Governance Gap(s):

*   [[Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority|Principle 3 – Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority (3.09, 3.10, 3.11)]]

*   [[Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies|Principle 17 – Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies (17.05, 17.06)]]
=== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ===
On May 15, 2025, MCBOS Procurement Department reassigned my PRR my original request (PRR 2025-719) to Information Governance Department as PRR 2025-1123. This department then reassigned PRR 2025-1123 to the Elections Department as PRR 2025-139. The Elections Department then transferred PRR 2025-139 to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office as PRR 2025-64.

I tried to resolve my concerns with email and phone conversations from representatives in each of these departments. Unfortunately, no additional records were provided beyond what was delivered shortly after the initial records request of April 2025.

On June 11, 2025, the Elections Department stated it had no responsive
records. On June 27, 2025, the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office closed
its request by stating records had been released and asserting no
statutory obligation to respond. No single department was responsible
for my PRR. Instead, each department determined if there was anything
they could do to respond to my PRR, which resulted in no action from
three of the assigned departments.

Neil Thibodaux reached out to me in November of 2025 for the purpose of
gaining additional insights into the resolution that I had authored in
2024 and was resubmitting for 2026 approval. Neil had retired from the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and was familiar with their
Corrective Action Program, which was required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
Criterion XVI, Corrective Actions. He could see how a CAP program could
improve County performance. From that point forward, we have been
collaborating to bring attention to Maricopa County performance gaps
that could be resolved through CAP.

Maricopa County was unable to provide the following records, which I had
requested:

*   Amendments, addenda, renewals, exhibits, or revisions for 2018–2024

*   Post-election contract administration records

*   MVD election-related contracts

*   USPS-related agreements

*   Temporary staffing contracts for signature verification

I eventually sought judicial relief. On December 1, 2025, I filed
special complaint CV2025 – 063720, which was processed by the Superior
Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. This complaint was submitted
pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq. Five defendants were named in this
complaint, which included the following:

*   Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS)
**   MCBOS Procurement Department
**   MCBOS Information Governance Department
**   MCBOS Elections Department

*   Maricopa County Recorder’s Office (MCRO)

The defendants were named in accordance with the agencies the County
determined needed to address my PRR. My PRR was routed to all of these
agencies and they were unable to resolve my request for additional
records or provide a complete explanation of the documents provided.

I referenced applicable Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), which stated
the records Arizona counties were required to preserve for public
inspection in my plaintiff’s brief. Five defendants (government entities
or agencies) were named, which reflected the multiple handoffs of my
PRR. No one government entity took responsibility for resolving my
concern.

In January 2026, the Executive Guidance Committee for the Maricopa
County Republican Committee re-approved the same resolution that had
been submitted in December 2024, Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
Contracts Must Be Open and as Transparent, Subject to Public Oversight,
Audits, and Corrective Action Plans,

The judge ruled in favor of Maricopa County, the defendant. He ruled
that the County had delivered all the relevant records based on
affidavits and testimony provided by the Maricopa County Staff. The
issue of whether other documents and records should have been available
and provided in accordance with Arizona statutes was not addressed in
the ruling.
 [include the discussion with Jen, direction to file a complaint, frustration finding the complaint, Jen sent a link to file a complaint, research of complaints, end with why we selected James Taylor as the ideal representative to hear our proposal]

=== August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint ===
On August, 3, 2026, I submitted my complaint in accordance with the
guidance of [abc-Jen] and the special link that was sent to me, which
wasn’t accessible on the public webpage. The complaint summarizes my
objectives, which are cross-referenced to Part B, Governance Gaps.
Generally speaking, the complaint consisted of the following topics;

*   Complaint #1 requests the Contract Compliance Review that I was directed to submit through the Office of Procurement Services. It    seeks written determinations regarding unresolved contract compliance questions arising from my Public Records Request and    related correspondence.

*   Complaint #2 raises a separate governance question. Throughout this case study, my concerns involved multiple County functions,    including Procurement, Elections, the Recorder's Office, Information    Governance, County Management, and the Board of Supervisors. While I    was directed to the Procurement complaint process for    contract-related concerns, I have been unable to identify a publicly    documented process informing citizens where to submit a governance    complaint concerning the County's compliance review process itself    or other cross-department compliance concerns.

=== Notes: ===
i.  Cross-references to a Green Book attribute in Bold font denotes an attribute with Green Book documentation requirements.

ii. Cross-references to a Green Book attribute with underlined font denotes an attribute with specific public accountability.

=== For Contract Compliance Review ===
Note:

1.  Please identify the complete sequence of Runbeck contracts and amendments governing the November 3, 2020 General Election, including the effective dates of each contract and amendment: [Part B; 5.02, 5.05, 6.03, 7.04, 7.05, 7.06, 8.09, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 9.04, '''9.05''', 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, 9.09, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 10.04, 10.21, 10.22, 10.23, 15.01, 15.02, 15.04, <u>15.09</u>, 16.06, 16.07, 16.08, '''16.09''', 16.10, 17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, '''17.05''', and '''17.06'''] 
2.  Which Disaster Recovery Plan was contractually in effect for the November 3, 2020 General Election? [9.05]

3.  Please identify the agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual (EPM), or
other governing documents relating to:
*   Motor Vehicle Division terms and conditions with Elections; [see listed attributes in #1, above]

*   United States Postal Service election mail processing; [see listed attributes in #1, above]

*   First-level signature verification for the November 3, 2020 General Election; and;

*   Any applicable Election Procedures Manual provisions governing these activities.
4.  If any of the documents identified in Question 3 do not exist, were not maintained, or cannot be produced, please state that directly.

5.  Who is responsible for performing the initial evaluation of a citizen-reported concern that may involve laws, regulations,
contracts, policies, procedures, or internal controls?

6.  Who determines whether such a concern is a routine administrative matter or a potential compliance issue requiring formal review?

7.  Is there an identified process requiring that determination before a concern is routed to one or more County departments?

8.  If such a process exists, please identify the policy, procedure, administrative directive, ordinance, or other governing authority establishing that process.

9.  When a citizen reports concerns involving governing contracts, the Election Procedures Manual, discrepancies in contract documentation, Disaster Recovery documentation, the inability to locate agreements or memoranda of understanding, or other apparent gaps involving contracts, policies, procedures, regulations, or internal controls, who determines whether those issues warrant formal compliance review?

10. If requested contracts, amendments, agreements, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual, or other governing documents cannot be produced, who determines whether that itself constitutes a compliance issue requiring further investigation or corrective action?

11. If a concern is determined to warrant formal compliance review, who is responsible for assigning ownership of the matter?

12. Who is responsible for coordinating any cross-department investigation?

13. Who determines whether corrective action is required?

14. Who verifies that corrective actions have been effectively implemented?

15. Who is responsible for monitoring for recurrence?

16. Who is responsible for formally closing the matter?

17. How is the reporting citizen informed of the outcome of the review?

== Timeline ==

# [[Preface]] — Author's introduction
# [[2020: The Event]] — The November 2020 general election anomalies
# [[2001: The Journey Begins]] — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
# [[November 2024: Midterm Election]] — The Katie Hobbs situation
# [[December 2024: Gaining Support]] — Resolution submission
# [[April 15, 2025: Public Records Request]] — Public Records Request process
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] — Public Records Request runaround
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]] — Formal complaint submission

== Navigation ==

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%;"
! colspan="3" | Quick Navigation
|-
| style="width: 33%; text-align: center;" | [[Main Page|🏠 Main Page]]
| style="width: 33%; text-align: center;" | [[The Story|📖 The Story]]
| style="width: 33%; text-align: center;" | [[Governance Analysis|📊 Governance Analysis]]
|}

== Related Governance Principles ==

* [[Governance Analysis|📊 Governance Analysis]]
* [[What is a CAP?|❓ What is a CAP?]]
* [[About the Green Book|📗 About the Green Book]]
* [[Author Bio|✍️ About the Author]]