1.03 - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman */

2026-09-15T17:51:00Z

June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, 15 September 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.		At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

	==== [[June 8, 2026: ~~Maricopa County's~~ Ombudsman]] ====		==== [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] ====
	Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored.		Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored.

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-15T13:26:30Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:26, 15 September 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:

	==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
	~~__FORCETOC__At~~ issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.		__FORCETOC__
			At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

			==== [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] ====
			Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===
Line 52:		Line 56:
	* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]		* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		==== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] ====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasizes the importance of management behaviors that encourage integrity and ethics, using the phase "Tone at the Top." In this case, an Assistant Director appears to be encouraging the use of Sharpie Markers on Election Day, knowing there are issues and concerns with Sharpies. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasizes the importance of management behaviors that encourage integrity and ethics, using the phase "Tone at the Top." In this case, an Assistant Director appears to be encouraging the use of Sharpie Markers on Election Day, knowing there are issues and concerns with Sharpies. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:

Neil thibodaux: /* May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato */

2026-09-15T02:54:00Z

May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 14 September 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====		==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
	Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.		Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

			==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====
			A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]], "Defendants have no duty to explain." Contrary to Green Book Attribute 1.02, Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom. However, they are aligned to an arrogant attitude, representing poor governance and disrespect towards its citizens.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
	~~__FORCETOC__The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Erroneous Request to Fabricate Records.~~		__FORCETOC__At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

	At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

	~~==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====~~
	A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]], "Defendants have no duty to explain." Contrary to Green Book Attribute 1.02, Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom. However, they are aligned to an arrogant attitude, representing poor governance and disrespect towards its citizens.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court */

2026-09-14T02:59:58Z

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 13 September 2026
Line 16:		Line 16:
	Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.		Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: ~~This is How~~ Maricopa County ~~Wants to be Represented in Court\|March 12, 20]][[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court\|26: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court~~]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
	__FORCETOC__The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Erroneous Request to Fabricate Records.		__FORCETOC__The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Erroneous Request to Fabricate Records.

	At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal.		At issue, is the Maricopa's County presentation of the concept that they could produce after the fact documentation but are under no statutory obligation to do so. It is presumed that Maricopa County management concurred with this belief, assuming they provided oversight to the legal team's claims made in the Defense brief. In my work experience, after the fact creation of documentation would have been considered unethical or illegal. Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

	~~<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>~~

	Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

	==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====		==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamie's Story */

2026-09-11T19:57:46Z

Jamie's Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 11 September 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.		Contrary to the Green Book, Maricopa County management appears to accept the position that documents can be produced after the fact based on the information contained within the Defense Brief. The Legal team claimed Maricopa County could create documentation after the fact but are not obligated to do so.

			==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====
			A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]], "Defendants have no duty to explain." Contrary to Green Book Attribute 1.02, Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom. However, they are aligned to an arrogant attitude, representing poor governance and disrespect towards its citizens.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-10T00:30:42Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 9 September 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.01, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasizes the importance of management behaviors that encourage integrity and ethics, using the phase "Tone at the Top." In this case, an Assistant Director appears to be encouraging the use of Sharpie Markers on Election Day, knowing there are issues and concerns with Sharpies. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:

	* Maricopa County Leader directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Maricopa County Leader directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-09T22:46:13Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 9 September 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics~~, included the tone at the top and tone at the middle~~. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.01, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:

	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership <u>~~directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day~~</u>~~ contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.		* Maricopa County Leader directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership~~ asked personnel to ~~<u>~~stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day~~</u>~~ in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The inspectors were informed of issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers. Yet, the email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day after issues and concerns with the use of Sharpie Pens had been identified. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ensuring secure elections apparently complied with the request to distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers. The Maricopa County Leader seeks to ensure everyone is passing out Sharpie Markers contrary to the ballot instructions. Everyone is alerted to issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers, but apparently no one questioned their extensive use on Election Day. This email message was delivered by the Elections Department Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training. In this case, numerous temporary workers are hired for a short period of time, for the single purpose of supporting an election. The Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training would have been more influential to newly hired temporary workers. It seems odd that a staff management position (i.e., Training) would be communicating a line management decision, or what should be a line management decision.
	* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day ~~in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are~~ issues with the use of Sharpie Pens ~~on ballots prior to October 22, 2020~~. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ~~directing compliance~~ with the ~~ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told~~ to ~~violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers~~ distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.		* An investigation into 2022 Mid-term election anomalies confirmed that Sharpie Markers bled through some ballots, which would be consistent with the reports of "issues and concerns" identified with the use of Sharpie Markers before October 22, 2020.
			* As Maricopa County tells the story, they were concerned about long lines at voting centers. Their story goes on to attribute ballot tabulator fouling as the cause of long lines; delays and long lines occurred when voting stopped to clean the tabulators. They attributed fouling of the ballot tabulator to the wet ink from ballpoint pens being transferred to the tabulator. Their solution was to distribute Sharpie Markers at the Voting Centers to the voters; Sharpie ink apparently dries faster than ballpoint pen ink. The problem with their story is that it sounds more like an excuse than a plan. If any part of their story had been documented, which showed a thoughtful investigation, then most of the public's suspicions of foul play even would have been resolved, even if the corrective action to use Sharpie Markers was wrong.

			*

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-06T21:57:28Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 6 September 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, ~~emphasis~~ the importance of integrity and ethics, included the tone at the top and tone at the middle. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics, included the tone at the top and tone at the middle. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:

	* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.		* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
	* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
	* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.		* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.

Neil thibodaux: /* Arizona Senate Allegations */

2026-09-06T21:40:41Z

Arizona Senate Allegations

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:40, 6 September 2026
Line 54:		Line 54:
	* Allegation #5, [[The Anomalies#Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)\|Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)]]		* Allegation #5, [[The Anomalies#Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)\|Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)]]
	* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]		* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]

			===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
			This Green Book Attribute, 1.03, emphasis the importance of integrity and ethics, included the tone at the top and tone at the middle. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:

			* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
			* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
			* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamie's Story */

2026-09-04T20:48:49Z

Jamie's Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 4 September 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	=== Jamie's Story ===		=== Jamie's Story ===

			==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
			Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court\|March 12, 20]][[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court\|26: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court\|March 12, 20]][[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court\|26: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court]] ====