Observations of Poor Governance

This page explains how examples of poor governance are acquired and lays the foundation for how these observations will be presented in as a case for action, supporting the introduction of a bill before the Arizona Legislature for improving governance within Arizona Counties.

Assessment of County Governance

This website is performing an external assessment of governance effectiveness within Arizona counties, focusing on Maricopa County, which is the most populated county within Arizona. As stated on the Home Page, words are being chosen for use on this website, so they accurately reflect the topic or situation. For as hard as we try to remain neutral, we may slip here and there. Let's begin the journey be understanding the concept behind this assessment, what it is and what it isn't.

Two words require immediate explanation, which are Assessment and Governance.

Assessment

Merriam-Webster definition of assessment is as follows:

Assessment - the action or an instance of making a judgment about something : the act of assessing something : appraisal.

Let's compare Assessment to other types of judgements. First, lets look at our judicial system and make a simplistic comparison of Criminal and Civil judgements.

• Criminal judgments require extraordinarily high levels of accuracy. The evidence presented must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt in the accuracy of the incriminating evidence therefore becomes legitimate defense strategy. In these cases, a government entity is the plaintiff.
• Judgements in civil trials are a little more forgiving. Guilt can be determined on a preponderance of evidence. In other words, the amount of and quality of evidence determines the outcome. Civil judgements seek resolution between two parties. The plaintiff may be a nongovernment entity.

These judicial examples were used so that you may understand how organizations may be judged differently, considering the type of judgement sought, rules of engagement and availability of evidence. Internal Audits and Oversight seeks to judge, appraise or assess the effectiveness of an organizational entity, which is the same objective as our external assessment. However, internal audits and oversight entities are generally given greater access to the data used to make judgements, since there is a common interest to make organizational improvements based on the results. Unfortunately, External Assessments do not typically have free access to internal documents and cannot make direct observations. Therefore, the quality of data is diminished.

• Internal Audits and Oversight - has greater access to the data and the results may be more favorably accepted given the shared goal of organizational improvements via the audit or oversight activity.
• External Assessment - has less access to the data and the assessment outcomes tend to be less welcomed because the outsider's perspective and outside priorities don't always align with the entity being assessed.

As used in this website, we are conducting an external assessment. Therefore, this assessment is conducted based on limited documentation, which consists of 1) records delivered in response to my Public Records Request (PRR) and 2) documented from MC employees and legal team, explaining why the requested records could not be delivered. Some data used in this assessment was acquired from conversations with MC employees. I understand how the County may disagree with the content of my conversations with Maricopa County employees. Interestingly enough, MC complaints about the use of their verbal comments would not be necessary if their was a formal complaint process, which is advocated for on this website.

Multiple observations are being used a means to compensate for limited access to the documents needed to make a more objective assessment. In isolation, a single observation of a potential problem can easily be disregarded. However, patterns of organizational behavior separated in time and issue can provide a more meaningful assessment.

In summary, this assessment is being performed independent of any government or non-government entity. This assessment is a citizen's effort to identify governance weaknesses. The observations may be disputed in a judiciary setting. However, the goal is to convince Arizona Legislatures that action is needed; we are not seeking legal remedies.

Governance

Merriam-Webster definitions of governance is as follows:

1. lawful control over the affairs of a political unit (as a nation)
2. the act or activity of looking after and making decisions about something

Both definitions apply to Maricopa County. However, for the purposes of this assessment, the second definition is more appropriate. The first definition aligns better with the output rules expected from government. For this assessment, governance is much broader term, which decision-making practices and organizational behaviors associated with the implementation of those decisions. Governance relates to the interaction of elected officials, employees (leaders and frontline), and external stakeholders. Outcomes of these interactions are constrained by business-like processes established to control work activities of MC employees. Thus, government is a term to describe the legal framework of MC and governance is a term to describe how services expected from MC are implemented or not implemented. For assessment purposes, not making a decision, is still a decision.

Governance is inherently qualitative, ranging from poor to good governance. Qualitative judgements of governance are frequently based on an entity's perspective. Favorable outcomes by MC could easily be perceived as good governance whereas same outcome could be perceived as poor governance by a different entity with different concerns.

This assessment sought to reduce outcome-based judgements of governance quality by comparing MC institutional processes, leadership decision-making and organizational behaviors to a single standard.

The selected standard for this assessment was prepared by the United States Government Accountability Offices (US GAO) per Section 3512 (c) and (d) of Title 31 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), The document used for this assessment is titled, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (May 2025). FMFIA requires federal executive branch entities to establish internal control in accordance with these standards. This standard is more commonly simply called "The Green Book" because of its distinctive green cover. These standards define the overall framework for establishing and maintaining an effective internal control system, which covers all aspects of an entity's objectives (operations, reporting, and compliance).

It is important to note that MC is not required to adhere to these federal standards. Within these standards, the US GAO notes that "the Green Book may also be adopted by federal entities outside the executive branch and by nonfederal entities, such as state, local, and quasi-governmental entities and nonprofit organizations, as a framework for an internal control system."

This assessment will use the Green Book as the governance standard, knowing MC is under no obligation to apply these standards. As noted above, a standard was sought to reduce outcome-based qualitative decisions about the quality of governance. The Green Book fulfilled that roll given there appears to be no similar standard applied to MC or independent audits or internal oversight to assure compliance to a standard. Where applicable, this assessment will note deviations from the Green Book standards, knowing MC doesn't need to fix the specific deviation; MC has no obligation to comply with the Green Book.

It is the collection of Green Book deviations in aggregate that are noteworthy. The collection and magnitude of these deviations from the Green Book standards become cause for concern. Together, these deviations in aggregate illustrate governance gaps,

Given MC's past performance, no action is expected from MC elected officials and leadership these governance gaps. Instead, the identified governance gaps will be presented to the Arizona Legislature as part of a case for action, justifying the need for their intervention. An update to the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) appears necessary, forcing Arizona Counties to adopt processes, practices and standards to improve their governance.

Observations

Objective data for this assessment was obtained from the following sources:

• Documentation provided to me by MC in response to my Public Records Request
• Documentation of my correspondence with MC employees
• Documentation of information submitted to the Arizona Superior Court by MC Defense Attorneys
• Documentation provided to me by my citizen peers summarizing their interfaces with Arizona County officials and employees
• Publicly accessible documentation from Arizona and Maricopa government websites

Subjective data for this assessment includes conversations with MC employees and my peers. Conversation content cannot be independently validated. I have no expectation for MC employees to address specific statements of concern as contained in this website. Hence, subjective data in within this website should be taken as another perspective to be considered when trying to explain potential governance gaps. This assessment has no authority. This governance assessment lacked full access to MC employees, process instructions and documented decisions to effectively assess organizational effectiveness. Therefore, all governance judgements stated on this website should be considered speculative, including identification of governance gaps, deviations from Green Book standards and other comments suggesting noncompliance.