June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Revision history

Neil thibodaux at 18:33, 15 September 2026

2026-09-15T18:33:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 15 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: ~~Maricopa County's~~ Ombudsman]] </blockquote>		You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] </blockquote>
	----On June 1, 2026, Judge Warner's final decision on case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.		----On June 1, 2026, Judge Warner's final decision on case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.

Neil thibodaux at 05:34, 15 September 2026

2026-09-15T05:34:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 14 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''Not reading for proofreading.'''~~

	You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] </blockquote>		You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] </blockquote>
	----On June 1, 2026, Judge Warner's final decision on case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.		----On June 1, 2026, Judge Warner's final decision on case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.

Neil thibodaux: /* Components, Objectives, and Organizational Structure of Internal Control */

2026-09-15T05:31:15Z

Components, Objectives, and Organizational Structure of Internal Control

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 === Jamie's Timeline ===
 {{Template:Jamies_Timeline}}
 === Court Document: Final Decision ===
@@ Line 35: / Line 32: @@
 '''<big>"The <u>oversight body</u> and management reinforce the commitment to doing <u>what is right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, <u>and the public</u>."</big>'''
-The Judge concurred with Maricopa County's position that all records required by law had been delivered. Was the Judge's decision reaffirming the "minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations that Federal Government entities in the executive branch are told to avoid in the Green Book's Attribute 1.04.?
+The Judge concurred with Maricopa County's position that all records required by law had been delivered. Was the Judge's decision reaffirming the "minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations that Federal Government entities in the executive branch are told to avoid in the Green Book's Attribute 1.04?
 ==== Satisfying the minimum ====
@@ Line 77: / Line 74: @@
 === Components, Objectives, and Organizational Structure of Internal Control ===
 [[File:Green Book Cube.png|border]]
-=== Potential Governance Gaps ===
+This diagram represents the relationship of the following three basic classification of internal controls and subcategories.
-Maricopa County leadership and legal team gained a favorable ruling by the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County by claiming Arizona Revised Statutes do not require the documentation Jamie requested.
-Contrary to the Maricopa County's Philosophy of only documenting what is required by law, the Government Accountability Office acknowledges that Federal Laws and Regulations do not adequately specify documentation requirements. Hence, the Green Book defines in general terms the '''documentation requirements''' which is '''required for all departments and agencies''' under the executive branch of the Federal Government.
+=== Potential Governance Gap(s): ===
-By the Judge's ruling, citizens are effectively prevented from acquiring the necessary information to prove wrongdoing by a County in a judicial setting. The Judge's ruling substantiates a governance gap with respect to documentation requirements for the internal controls within Maricopa County.
+* Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values

Neil thibodaux: /* Satisfying the minimum */

2026-09-15T01:57:23Z

Satisfying the minimum

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 14 September 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	'''<big>"The <u>oversight body</u> and management reinforce the commitment to doing <u>what is right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, <u>and the public</u>."</big>'''		'''<big>"The <u>oversight body</u> and management reinforce the commitment to doing <u>what is right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, <u>and the public</u>."</big>'''

	The Judge concurred with Maricopa County's position that all records required by law had been delivered.		The Judge concurred with Maricopa County's position that all records required by law had been delivered. Was the Judge's decision reaffirming the "minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations that Federal Government entities in the executive branch are told to avoid in the Green Book's Attribute 1.04.?

	Was the Judge's decision reaffirming the "minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations that Federal Government entities in the executive branch are told to avoid in the Green Book's Attribute 1.04.?

	==== Satisfying the minimum ====		==== Satisfying the minimum ====
Line 45:		Line 43:

	===== Sought Explanation of Delivered Contacts =====		===== Sought Explanation of Delivered Contacts =====
	Maricopa County was not required by law to explain anything about the Runbeck and Dominion contracts that were delivered, even if irregularities were ~~obsered~~.		Maricopa County was not required by law to explain anything about the Runbeck and Dominion contracts that were delivered, even if irregularities were observed.

	===== Sought Written Agreements Between MC and Arizona Motor Vehicle Division =====		===== Sought Written Agreements Between MC and Arizona Motor Vehicle Division =====
Line 51:		Line 49:

	===== Sought Written Agreements between MC and the United States Postal Service (USPS) =====		===== Sought Written Agreements between MC and the United States Postal Service (USPS) =====
	Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the USPS. Good luck sorting out the responsibility for updating 56,226 fictitious addresses (See [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Drop Box Collection)]] in the Maricopa County voter registration database. Apparently, no written agreement is needed to allow the USPS to share MC ~~voter registration data with~~ Runbeck Election Services, Inc.		Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the USPS. Good luck sorting out the responsibility for updating 56,226 fictitious addresses (See [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Drop Box Collection)]] in the Maricopa County voter registration database. Apparently, no written agreement is needed to allow the USPS to share MC 56,226 ficticious addresses Runbeck Election Services, Inc (See [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Drop Box Collection)]]

	===== Sought Written Agreements between MC and the Supplier of Temporary Workers =====		===== Sought Written Agreements between MC and the Supplier of Temporary Workers =====
			Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the supplier of temporary workers during the 2020 General Election. Good luck proving the majority of Level 1 [[Signature Verification\|Signature Verifiers]] were never trained; MC didn't train them.
	~~==== Avoid~~ the ~~What is ====~~

	~~==== Ignore Citizen Concerns ====~~



	=== Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls ===		=== Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls ===
Line 81:		Line 74:

	'''OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "[documentation requirement]" following the narrative.''' The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in appendix I.		'''OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "[documentation requirement]" following the narrative.''' The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in appendix I.

			=== Components, Objectives, and Organizational Structure of Internal Control ===


			[[File:Green Book Cube.png\|border]]

	=== Potential Governance Gaps ===		=== Potential Governance Gaps ===

Neil thibodaux at 00:18, 15 September 2026

2026-09-15T00:18:34Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] </blockquote>
-----On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.
+----On June 1, 2026, Judge Warner's final decision on case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.
-Judge's decision revealed a major deficiency with respect to documentation requirement of internal controls, which stands independent of the 17 Principles contained within the Green Book. Documentation is the foundation of internal controls. With a favorable ruling given to Maricopa county, its citizens will be unlikely to acquire documentation prove wrongdoing by the county if the county is operating under the philosophy that they need only document what is specifically required by statute.
+ACV has focused on assessing county practices. This was a unique opportunity to capture independent thoughts, while realizing his judicial bias. In his final decision, the judge found Maricopa County to be legally correct. However, legal correctness is not the same as good governance. Governance gaps were identified from the Judge's final decision.
 === Jamie's Timeline ===
 {{Template:Jamies_Timeline}}
 === Court Document: Final Decision ===
@@ Line 19: / Line 22: @@
 === ''Catch-22'' for Governance ===
-catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions'''
+'''Definition:''' catch-22 (noun): ''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''
 The Judge's final decision acknowledged Jamie's pursuit of accountability and controls for Maricopa County.
@@ Line 25: / Line 28: @@
 The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that Maricopa County is under no legal obligation to maintain the records Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.
-There is a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during the wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.
+The Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen is the tie between documentation and accountability. On one hand, objective evidence (e.g., documentation) would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document internal controls objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. Citizens can't hold counties accountable if counties don't document what they do to serve its citizens.
 === Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls ===

Neil thibodaux at 21:51, 14 September 2026

2026-09-14T21:51:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 14 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''Not reading for proofreading.'''

	You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] </blockquote>		You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] </blockquote>
	----On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.		----On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.

Neil thibodaux at 16:59, 11 September 2026

2026-09-11T16:59:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 11 September 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	----On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.		----On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.

	~~No governance gaps were identified from this event since this was a~~ Judge's decision ~~and did not reflect any new aspects~~ of ~~MC governance~~.		Judge's decision revealed a major deficiency with respect to documentation requirement of internal controls, which stands independent of the 17 Principles contained within the Green Book. Documentation is the foundation of internal controls. With a favorable ruling given to Maricopa county, its citizens will be unlikely to acquire documentation prove wrongdoing by the county if the county is operating under the philosophy that they need only document what is specifically required by statute.

	=== Jamie's Timeline ===		=== Jamie's Timeline ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls */

2026-09-11T16:51:41Z

Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 === Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls ===
-Prior to the presentation of the 17 Principles and 196 Attributes, the GAO's Green Book presents [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/#documentation-requirements Section 2 - Establishing an Effective Internal Control System]
+Prior to the presentation of the 17 Principles and 196 Attributes, the GAO's Green Book begins with an Overview, which explains of how to use the Green Book. [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/#documentation-requirements Section 2 - Establishing an Effective Internal Control System, Documentation Requirements] is fundamental aspect of governance. This section presents the following Documentation Requirements:
 === Potential Governance Gaps ===
-No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.
+Maricopa County leadership and legal team gained a favorable ruling by the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County by claiming Arizona Revised Statutes do not require the documentation Jamie requested.

Neil thibodaux: /* Catch-22 for Governance */

2026-09-11T16:28:30Z

Catch-22 for Governance

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 11 September 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:

	There is a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during the wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.		There is a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during the wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.

			=== Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls ===
			Prior to the presentation of the 17 Principles and 196 Attributes, the GAO's Green Book presents [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/#documentation-requirements Section 2 - Establishing an Effective Internal Control System]

	=== Potential Governance Gaps ===		=== Potential Governance Gaps ===
	No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.		No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.

Neil thibodaux: /* Court Document: Final Decision */

2026-09-11T13:13:34Z

Court Document: Final Decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:13, 11 September 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	On June 1, 2026, the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County published the Judges [[Media:2026-06-01 Court Final Decision.pdf\|Final Decision]] in Jamie's case against Maricopa County.		On June 1, 2026, the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County published the Judges [[Media:2026-06-01 Court Final Decision.pdf\|Final Decision]] in Jamie's case against Maricopa County.

	The Judge stated, ~~"Based on~~ the ~~evidence~~, the Court ~~finds~~ that the ~~County’s~~ search ~~for responsive~~ records ~~was sufficient, and~~ that ~~it produced all~~ responsive ~~records~~ to ~~Plaintiff~~."		The Judge stated:
			"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about accountability and controls in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case. The Court also found that the declarations the County submitted with its briefs regarding the scope of its document search were conclusory, thus requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there are records in the County’s control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, but which were not produced."

			"Based on the evidence, the Court finds that the County’s search for responsive records was sufficient, and that it produced all responsive records to Plaintiff."
	Maricopa County prevailed in their position that all responsive records had been provided.		Maricopa County prevailed in their position that all responsive records had been provided.

			=== ''Catch-22'' for Governance ===
			catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions'''

			The Judge's final decision acknowledged Jamie's pursuit of accountability and controls for Maricopa County.

			The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that Maricopa County is under no legal obligation to maintain the records Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.

			There is a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during the wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.

	=== Potential Governance Gaps ===		=== Potential Governance Gaps ===
	No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.		No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.