View source for June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman

It felt like the typical “brush off” when a representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide (AZOCA) responded to my request for help. Her letter started with “We cannot assist with this matter.” The AZOCA representative explained that my concern was outside of her jurisdiction; she addressed complaints against the State of Arizona and my complaint was with Maricopa County.

As I read on, I felt like I had an ally, but her hands were tied; a complaint against the county “operational matters” was simply out-of-bounds. She could touch the issue. However, she suggested some reasons why my issues were not resolved by the Maricopa County Ombudsman.

She first clarified an Arizona Ombudsman, under A.R.S. may not investigate elected officials or conduct political policy reviews. She then explained her office is a place for the public to turn to if they have an individual dispute with a state-level government over an administrative action taken against them. Their office helps ensure state government is acting in accordance with the law, prevent any bureaucrat or bureaucracy from acting contrary to the law and the greater good, and even out the playing field.

Her explanation was precisely what I sought from Maricopa County.

She then contrasted her department’s Ombudsmen operations to Maricopa’s Ombudsmen approach. She noted some Maricopa County employees have the term “ombudsman” in their job titles (e.g., transportation, health matters, animal care, environmental permitting). However, she did not believe they had been trained in accordance with the standards of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA) or our office. She asserted that Maricopa County does not follow the Model Act, which established by the USOA and endorsed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO) and other international ombudsman organizations.

The USOA Model act promotes legislation for an effective ombudsman program with the following explanation:

In its effort to promote and encourage the establishment of ombudsman offices, the USOA specifically promotes and encourages the establishment of offices that manifest the following characteristics:

·        a governmental office created by constitution, charter, legislation or ordinance

·        an office with the responsibility to receive and investigate complaints against governmental agencies

·        an office with freedom to investigate on its own motion

·        an office which may exercise full powers of investigation, to include access to all necessary information both testimonial and documentary

·        an office with the authority to criticize governmental agencies and officials within its jurisdiction and to recommend corrective action

·        an office with the power to issue public reports concerning its findings and recommendations

·        an office directed by an official of high stature who

** is guaranteed independence      through a defined term of office and/or through appointment by other than      the executive and/or through custom
** is restricted from activities      constituting a personal, professional, occupational or political conflict      of interest
** is free to employ and remove      assistants and to delegate administrative and investigative      responsibility to those assistants.

The representative from the AZOCA compared Maricopa’s Ombudsman job titles to Arizona State’s program with the following:

A search of Maricopa County’s official website and public governance documents shows no reference to a county‑created ombudsman office, no enabling ordinance, and no listing of such an office in the county’s organizational structure. The county’s organizational charts or correspondence occasionally list someone as occupying an ombudsman-named position, but we found only a few minimal references and no recent contact or written materials describing the county’s ombudsman function. In contrast, our office has formal legal authority stated under the Arizona Revised Statutes, each annual legislative budget bill, and in the Arizona Administrative Code. By law, our contact information is linked to every state agency on at least one website location for each state agency. By law, we must publish an annual report describing our annual activities.

In contrast, some county departments have customer‑service or complaint‑resolution staff styled as ombudsmen who do not have formal, independent investigative authority authorized by law. We have not found agenda items or public reports provided to the Board of Supervisors to demonstrate and summarize their “ombudsman” activities, but we also found nothing to indicate they must do so.

Despite occasional informal use of the term “ombudsman” by Maricopa County staff, I cannot find any record that Maricopa County ever created a legally authorized ombudsman office through a County ordinance, a Board of Supervisors resolution, or an Administrative directive. Thus, while county staff may call themselves “ombudsmen,” their role is largely described by a broad dictionary definition and remains undefined compared to the international understanding of what an ombudsman is and does, and what they do not do. For example, they are not independent, do not have formal investigative powers, are not bound by formal procedures, cannot compel cooperation beyond chain-of-command orders, do not issue findings through a formal, credible reporting process, and cannot provide formal, neutral dispute resolution or other criteria typically associated with ombudsmen aligned with the Model Act. This is the internationally recognized standard that began a couple of centuries ago, when Sweden became the first country to appoint an independent official, known as an ombudsman, to investigate complaints against government officials and agencies, with some common characteristics – legislative creation, independence, impartiality, a credible reporting process, and confidentiality.

My research identified on statute for filing complaints against any Arizona County, which is Title 11, Chapter 11 – County Regulations, Article 1 – General Provisions, paragraph A.R.S. § 11-1608, Complaints; procedures. None of the attributes contained in the USOA’s Model Act appear in A.R.S. § 11-1608 as shown in the following:

11-1608. Complaints; procedures

A. The board of supervisors shall establish a procedure for receiving complaints from an adversely affected person concerning ordinances, rules, regulations, substantive policy statements or county practices alleged to violate this article or section 11-251.18.

B. The board of supervisors may require the complaint to be made in writing and to include the following information:

1. The name and address of the adversely affected person making the complaint.

2. The ordinance, rule, regulation, substantive policy statement or county practice alleged to violate this article or section 11-251.18.

3. Any facts relevant to, and the legal basis for, the complaint.

C. Procedures adopted by the board of supervisors pursuant to this section shall include reasonable time frames to address complaints and shall provide a process for appeal.

I can say with almost absolute certainty, “Maricopa County is not voluntarily complying with Green Book Principles or the USOA’s Model Act.”

=== Jamie's Timeline ===
{{Jamies Timeline}}

=== Notable Governance Observations ===

* Principle     1 – Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (1.02)
** Maricopa      County use of Ombudsman in a Job Title
* Principle 2 – Exercise Oversight Responsibility
** Ombudsman      Job Titles without oversight responsibilities
* Principle     3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
** Lack      of an organizational structure to address citizen identified compliance      issues
* Principle     4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
** Ombudsman      job title without certification
* Principle     7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
** Not      valuing citizen identified risk
* Principle     15 - Communicate Externally
** Less      than adequate responses to citizen inquiries
* Principle     16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
** Disregarding      citizen complaints as a monitoring activity
* Principle     17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
** Lack      of an adequate evaluation leads to no corrective action

=== Potential Governance Gap(s) ===