About Us: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
! content on this page has not been organized. It's a work in progress. These items were removed from the original home page so its key message would not be lost in the presentation of too many details too early in the reader's journey. | |||
=== About Me === | === About Me === | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
This became a bipartisan issue when I realized the tendency for counties to stonewall it citizens is widespread and most complaints do not have partisan origins. I am seeking bipartisan support for this bill for the benefit of all Arizona citizens. Citizens only have a voice if the County gives thoughtful consideration to their concerns. | This became a bipartisan issue when I realized the tendency for counties to stonewall it citizens is widespread and most complaints do not have partisan origins. I am seeking bipartisan support for this bill for the benefit of all Arizona citizens. Citizens only have a voice if the County gives thoughtful consideration to their concerns. | ||
=== [[About Us]] === | |||
In November 2025, Neil Thibodaux joined my earlier efforts to determine how MC was going to prevent recurrence of these repetitive election-related anomalies. He had extensive experience with CAP, but in a different industry than my experience. Our belief in CAP united us in the pursuit of improvements. Neil also had experience with organizational effectiveness reviews, which was helpful when my emphasis shifted from addressing election-related anomalies to addressing an even bigger problem with MC governance gaps. He had been trained in using the Management Oversight and Risk Tree analysis process to find the organizational causes to significant events, with emphasis on preventing a recurrence of the same and similar events. | |||
We would like to bring other volunteers into this initiative. Please contact me ['''<big>Jamie needs a separate email account for CAPAZ]</big>''' if you think you can help. We need to people to perform research, review content, and maintain this website. After reading this website, you may see a need we haven't even thought about. Please consider joining our team. | |||
=== We need You === | === We need You === | ||
| Line 22: | Line 26: | ||
# [[Propose a Bill for Consideration by the Arizona Legislature]] | # [[Propose a Bill for Consideration by the Arizona Legislature]] | ||
=== Our Disclaimer === | |||
The contributors to this site believe it is the Arizona County processes that are broken, not the County employees. This website assesses County performance as a public stakeholder with a vested interest in county governance. | |||
Our assessment was impeded by a lack of transparency. Maricopa claims they are under no obligation to create documents unless specified as a requirement within the Arizona Revised Statutes according to a Maricopa County's legal team's Defense Brief in a court case with me, Jamie Weinhauer Martin, as the Plaintiff. I had claimed the county had not fulfilled my Public Records Request. | |||
This assessment relies on information collected during my interfaces with MC officials and employees. I have also had to rely on information in the public domain. This type of information was less than ideal for assessment purposes, but it was all that was available given that Maricopa County did not create the documents needed for a more accurate assessment. Therefore, this assessment has relied on the quantity of information, not the quality of information. | |||
None of the findings of this report are of sufficient detail to identify misconduct or fraud. In fact, we believe all of MC employees are doing their best to adhere to the expectations of an organization with deficient governance practices. | |||
We identified numerous examples of poor governance during our assessment. In fact, there were too many to fix at one time; it would be too disruptive to County services to attempt such a lofty goal. Instead, good governance would prioritize governance problems and implement improvements within the budgetary constraints. | |||
In our opinion, the fundament governance gap is a lack of responsiveness to citizen complaints about poor governance. We have been unable to identify a publicly accessible county process that 1) receives and tracks citizen complaints, 2) performs a compliance review to determine the significance of the problem, 3) assigns responsibility to an individual when a deficiency must be resolved, 4) investigates the issue, 5) creates corrective actions based on the cause of the problem, and 6) monitors the implementation and effectiveness of corrective actions. Process steps 1, 2 and 3 are the '''''Complaint Process''''' and steps 4, 5 and 6 are the '''''Corrective Action Process'''''. If implemented together, public trust in County increases by formally acknowledging their concerns and County performance improves with the implementation of each corrective action. | |||
=== CAP === | |||
P is not new to government, considering the following: | |||
* US Government Departments and Agencies routinely require some nongovernmental companies to implement CAP, which is then used by the government as an oversight tool | |||
* US Government requires government entities to implement CAP if receiving entity receives funds in accordance with [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFRc3bd6ae97de5a40/section-200.511 2 CFR 200.511 (c),] which is illustrated the [https://gao.az.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/CAP%20guidance.pdf Arizona Government Accounting Office's CAP]. | |||
* US Government Accountability Office's [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government] has requirements for federal executive branch agencies to establish a process that management must implement to properly assess and improve internal control, which includes CAP-like attributes in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/principle-17-evaluate-issues-and-remediate-deficiencies/ Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies.] | |||
Latest revision as of 08:01, 21 August 2026
! content on this page has not been organized. It's a work in progress. These items were removed from the original home page so its key message would not be lost in the presentation of too many details too early in the reader's journey.
About Me
This project was created by Jamie Weinhauer Martin, a retired Corrective Action Plan (CAP) professional with extensive experience investigating performance anomalies and driving systemic improvement in regulated industries. After observing recurring governance gaps in Maricopa County, Jamie applied the same disciplined CAP approach used in the private sector to public administration.>third person<
I began this journey with somewhat of a partisan perspective. I didn't seek to change election outcomes. I wanted to know what actions Maricopa County (MC) had taken to address the numerous election-related anomalies reported in 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025 elections. This is consistent with my CAP experience. My focus shifted towards the lack of an effective method to file complaints with Maricopa County. My scope grew to all Arizona counties when my peers in other Arizona counties echoed by concerns about the less than adequate responsiveness to citizen's concerns. >first person<
This became a bipartisan issue when I realized the tendency for counties to stonewall it citizens is widespread and most complaints do not have partisan origins. I am seeking bipartisan support for this bill for the benefit of all Arizona citizens. Citizens only have a voice if the County gives thoughtful consideration to their concerns.
In November 2025, Neil Thibodaux joined my earlier efforts to determine how MC was going to prevent recurrence of these repetitive election-related anomalies. He had extensive experience with CAP, but in a different industry than my experience. Our belief in CAP united us in the pursuit of improvements. Neil also had experience with organizational effectiveness reviews, which was helpful when my emphasis shifted from addressing election-related anomalies to addressing an even bigger problem with MC governance gaps. He had been trained in using the Management Oversight and Risk Tree analysis process to find the organizational causes to significant events, with emphasis on preventing a recurrence of the same and similar events.
We would like to bring other volunteers into this initiative. Please contact me [Jamie needs a separate email account for CAPAZ] if you think you can help. We need to people to perform research, review content, and maintain this website. After reading this website, you may see a need we haven't even thought about. Please consider joining our team.
We need You
add content
Methodology (move)
An outline of the steps taken and to be taken to obtain Legislative support to change the A.R.S. are as follows:
- Observations of Poor Governance
- Comparison of Observations to a Standard
- Identification of Deviations from the Standard
- Develop a Case for Action from the Deviations
- Propose a Bill for Consideration by the Arizona Legislature
Our Disclaimer
The contributors to this site believe it is the Arizona County processes that are broken, not the County employees. This website assesses County performance as a public stakeholder with a vested interest in county governance.
Our assessment was impeded by a lack of transparency. Maricopa claims they are under no obligation to create documents unless specified as a requirement within the Arizona Revised Statutes according to a Maricopa County's legal team's Defense Brief in a court case with me, Jamie Weinhauer Martin, as the Plaintiff. I had claimed the county had not fulfilled my Public Records Request.
This assessment relies on information collected during my interfaces with MC officials and employees. I have also had to rely on information in the public domain. This type of information was less than ideal for assessment purposes, but it was all that was available given that Maricopa County did not create the documents needed for a more accurate assessment. Therefore, this assessment has relied on the quantity of information, not the quality of information.
None of the findings of this report are of sufficient detail to identify misconduct or fraud. In fact, we believe all of MC employees are doing their best to adhere to the expectations of an organization with deficient governance practices.
We identified numerous examples of poor governance during our assessment. In fact, there were too many to fix at one time; it would be too disruptive to County services to attempt such a lofty goal. Instead, good governance would prioritize governance problems and implement improvements within the budgetary constraints.
In our opinion, the fundament governance gap is a lack of responsiveness to citizen complaints about poor governance. We have been unable to identify a publicly accessible county process that 1) receives and tracks citizen complaints, 2) performs a compliance review to determine the significance of the problem, 3) assigns responsibility to an individual when a deficiency must be resolved, 4) investigates the issue, 5) creates corrective actions based on the cause of the problem, and 6) monitors the implementation and effectiveness of corrective actions. Process steps 1, 2 and 3 are the Complaint Process and steps 4, 5 and 6 are the Corrective Action Process. If implemented together, public trust in County increases by formally acknowledging their concerns and County performance improves with the implementation of each corrective action.
CAP
P is not new to government, considering the following:
- US Government Departments and Agencies routinely require some nongovernmental companies to implement CAP, which is then used by the government as an oversight tool
- US Government requires government entities to implement CAP if receiving entity receives funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.511 (c), which is illustrated the Arizona Government Accounting Office's CAP.
- US Government Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government has requirements for federal executive branch agencies to establish a process that management must implement to properly assess and improve internal control, which includes CAP-like attributes in Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies.
