1.04 - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies */

2026-09-15T19:46:44Z

June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 15 September 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==== [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] ====		==== [[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. The "right thing" for Maricopa County to do would be to implement a fully developed Ombudsman program. Instead, they chose to create job positions with Ombudsman in the job title based on a dictionary definition of 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. The "right thing" for Maricopa County to do would be to implement a fully developed Ombudsman program. Instead, they chose to create job positions with Ombudsman in the job title based on a dictionary definition of Ombudsman.

			==== [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] ====
			The Maricopa County Ombudsman was not fulfilling the expected Ombudsman to listen to citizen issues and conduct an independent investigation accordingly. In this case, the Ombudsman read remail, referred the request to another department and informed Jamie of the action she had taken. Ethically, this isn't the expected response from an Ombudsman operating within the government sector. The right thing to do would have been to investigate the complaint as an independent. Instead, Jamie's issue was referred to another department just as described on the [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato\|May 15, 2025, Let's Play Hot Potato]] page.

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

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

2026-09-15T17:52:06Z

June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 15 September 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

	==== [[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.

	~~==== [[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. The "right thing" for Maricopa County to do would be to implement a fully developed Ombudsman program. Instead, they chose to create job positions with Ombudsman in the job title based on a dictionary definition of 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. The "right thing" for Maricopa County to do would be to implement a fully developed Ombudsman program. Instead, they chose to create job positions with Ombudsman in the job title based on a dictionary definition of Ombudsman.

Neil thibodaux: /* June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision */

2026-09-15T13:38:43Z

June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:38, 15 September 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:
	==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====		==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====
	The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

			==== [[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.

			==== [[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. The "right thing" for Maricopa County to do would be to implement a fully developed Ombudsman program. Instead, they chose to create job positions with Ombudsman in the job title based on a dictionary definition of Ombudsman.

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

Neil thibodaux: /* June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision */

2026-09-15T03:06:41Z

June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 14 September 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====		==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====
	The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, ~~Jamie's request for~~ MC to withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens~~, or lack thereof~~.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

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

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing */

2026-09-15T03:03:24Z

March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 14 September 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
	Maricopa County management avoided responsibility to doing the right-thing by claiming they were in full compliance with the law.		Maricopa County management avoided responsibility to doing the right-thing by claiming they were in full compliance with the law.

			==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====
			The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, Jamie's request for MC to withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens, or lack thereof.

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

Neil thibodaux: /* Election Anomalies */

2026-09-14T03:01:50Z

Election Anomalies

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 13 September 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	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." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV.		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." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV.

			==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
			Maricopa County management avoided responsibility to doing the right-thing by claiming they were in full compliance with the law.
	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamie's Story */

2026-09-11T20:15:44Z

Jamie's Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 11 September 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	==== [[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." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV.

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

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

2026-09-10T00:33:57Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 9 September 2026
Line 68:		Line 68:

	* 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.
	* 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 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.
	* 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.		* 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.		* 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 */

2026-09-09T22:47:22Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 9 September 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.04, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The email directed behavior that was far worse than doing the minimum. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.04, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The email directed behavior that was far worse than doing the minimum. 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 */

2026-09-06T21:56:57Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 6 September 2026
Line 65:		Line 65:

	===== [[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, 1.04, ~~emphasis~~ the importance of integrity and ethics. The email directed behavior that was far worse than doing the minimum. Contrary to this attribute, the following unethical practices were revealed by Maricopa County:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.04, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The email directed behavior that was far worse than doing the minimum. 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.