View source for Identification of Deviations from the Standard

THIS PAGE IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT!

Upon reading this page, the reader should understand how a deviation from the standard was identified. The reader should also understand the objective was to collect numerous examples of deviation as a means to show a pattern of poor governance. The authenticity of each deviation could be debated since MC provided scant information to assess. However, a pattern of governance gaps could be used to develop a case for action.

=== Governance Determination ===
As discussed in [[Comparison of Observations to a Standard]], the initial comparison of MC decision-making and implementation practices sought to determine if an observation was a governance attribute that could be expected of a government entity. Some observations were based on business experience, which didn't always align with government governance. Some business practices didn't apply to government governance. 

The prior assessment step simply compared an observation to a standard to determine governance applicability. This assessment step sought to determine if the governance activity was substandard.

=== Narrative Account of Observations ===
This assessment begins as a story; it's [[The Story|my story.]] I did not begin this journey with the intent of assessing governance. I simply wanted to know if and how the MC was addressing all of the election-related anomalies as reported in) the national news during the 2020, 2022, 2024. and 2025 elections. 

From a big picture perspective, MC election results kept making national news for election-related anomalies. This is in sharp contrast to over 3,000 counties (including equivalent local government organizations with different names, such as parishes) that did not have any newsworthy election-related anomalies and they certainly were not repetitive, like MC. From this broad perspective, MC performance was obviously substandard. My CAP background and personal tenacity drove me towards trying to determine what corrective actions were being put in place to address these problems. Some initiative sought to address the election results; this was of no interest to me. I just wanted to see how MC was addressing these anomalies as a concerned citizen with the understanding that MC was providing a service to the public. MC was implementing the election process per their statutory obligations. 

My personal objective changed after an unfavorable ruling in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. I had requested numerous documents through a Public Records Request. I filed a complaint with the Arizona Superior Court as the Plaintiff against MC, the Defendant, because I felt MCs response to my records requests was inadequate.

I was stunned and left in ''personal'' disbelief when the MC only delivered fraction of the documentation I requested. I do not question the Judge's ruling. The Judge determined MC isn't withholding records; the records simply do not exist. MC legal team made a strong legal argument in their Defense briefing. The MC legal team explained there were no statutory requirements to create the documents I requested; therefore, none were created. Interestingly, their strong legal defense revealed governance weaknesses. The legal team painted a picture of MC doing as little as possible, to ensure compliance with Arizona government statutes while disregarding governance. 

My story spans several years. During this time span, my interest changed from election anomalies to governance gaps. Some of my observations are complex or nuanced. I found it difficult to tell my story <u>and</u> explain the governance gaps in a single document. There was simply too much information for a reader to absorb in a concise version.  

I chose to tell my story in chronological order for context without bogging down the narrative to explain how the observations relate to a deviation from the US GAO's Green Book, which we are using as the governance standard for this assessment. My long story was broken into a collection of short stories, which are presented within this website.   

At the end of each short story, the reader may be shown a hyperlink to a Green Book Principle and a specific Attribute of that Principle. A brief summary of the narrative will be provided for orientation, which will be followed by an explanation for why the observation illustrated a deviation from good governance.   

=== Green Book Organization ===
The [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Overview section] of the Green Book provides a reasonable explanation of the purpose and organization of the GAO's standards, which are presented as 17 different principles and multiple supporting attributes within each principle. The Overview section explains the Green Book. Meanwhile, the Green Book principles and attributes describe the standards, which become requirements for Federal Departments and Agencies under the authority of the Executive Branch of Government. 

There is overlap between some of the Green Book attributes, which results in some redundancy of findings within this assessment. This assessment may also sometimes generate two different deviations for related, but different attributes, from the same circumstances. This occurs from inadequate information. For example, this assessment may not be able to determine if the internal controls were improperly design or those controls were incorrectly implemented in the absence of clarifying documentation from MC.

=== Deviation Determination ===
<blockquote>'''Note:''' Some interfaces with MC employees were pleasant and the outcomes were reasonable. While these positive experiences were satisfying to me, documenting them in this assessment wasn't appropriate. This assessment is trying to improve governance by bringing documenting issues where attention is needed. </blockquote>All governance deviations are characterized as potential deviations. There is insufficient documentation proclaim with any certainty that the assessment's governance deviations are valid. However, the recurrence of deviations suggests governance problems worthy of attention. 

You may find these potential governance gaps by reading [[The Story|my short stories,]] which then point to the relevant deviations from Green Book attributes. Alternatively, identify the governance gaps by reviewing the Green Book attributes first and then find the applicable short story from which the deviation was identified. Review the [[Index of Attributes]] if you would like to cut to the chase.

=== Possible Scope Expansion ===
We may expand the scope of this assessment to include the governance-related experiences of other citizens. The scope my grow to other Arizona Counties if these other experiences occur in different counties.