June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered

You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered

The next part of Jamie's Story is June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered

---

This page explains some irregularities and unanswered questions observed from a review of the contract between Maricopa County and Runbeck Election Services, Inc.

Jamie's Timeline

1. 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
2. 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
3. November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
4. December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
5. April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
6. May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
7. June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
8. June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
9. July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
10. November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
11. December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
12. January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
13. February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
14. March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
15. April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
16. April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
17. June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
18. June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies - Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens's Aid agency
19. June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies - MC response was consistent with Arizona Ombudsman's expectations
20. August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted & response was as expected.

Overview

Jamie received a 116-page Runbeck Election Services contract, followed later by a second 58-page version. The contracts were convoluted and there was no clear explanation of how the documents related to one another.

As Jamie reviewed these Runbeck contracts, she found multiple dates, strikethroughs, and she was later told they were amendments. However, these amendments were not self-explanatory. No documentation was provided to justify or show the person or people responsible for approving the amendments; just the strike throughs and actual changes were shown.

Actual MC Contracts with Runbeck Election Services, Inc.

Note: These contracts were split into smaller files by ACV because of file size limitations on the Wiki platform.

March 17, 2025 Contract Approval Date

This was the current Runbeck with MC as of when the PPR was submitted in April 2025.

1. 2025, Part 1 of 4
2. 2025, Part 2 of 4
3. 2025, Part 3 of 4
4. 2025, Part 4 of 4

September 30, 3021 Last Contract Approval Date

This contract between Runbeck and MC was first approved on June 9, 2011. The contract had been amended a few times and was in effect during the 2020 Presidential Election.

1. 2021, Part 1 of 4
2. 2021, Part 2 of 4
3. 2021, Part 3 of 4
4. 2021, Part 4 of 4

Summary of Issues Found

Questions Submitted for Contract Compliance Review - Questions 1-4 are the governing records. Questions 5-18 ask who evaluates, investigates, corrects, verifies, and closes a citizen reported complaint or concern.

Compliance Review

1. Please identify the complete sequence of Runbeck contracts and amendments governing the November 3, 2020 General Election, including the effective dates of each contract and amendment.

2. Which Disaster Recovery Plan was contractually in effect for the November 3, 2020 General Election?

3. Please identify the agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual (EPM), or other governing documents relating to:

o Motor Vehicle Division terms and conditions with Elections;

o United States Postal Service election mail processing;

o First-level signature verification for the November 3, 2020 General Election; and

o Any applicable Election Procedures Manual provisions governing these activities.

4. If any of the documents identified in Question 3 do not exist, were not maintained, or cannot be produced, please state that directly.

Corrective Action Plans

5. Who is responsible for performing the initial evaluation of a citizen-reported concern that may involve laws, regulations, contracts, policies, procedures, or internal controls?

6. Who determines whether such a concern is a routine administrative matter or a potential compliance issue requiring formal review?

7. Is there an identified process requiring that determination before a concern is routed to one or more County departments?

8. If such a process exists, please identify the policy, procedure, administrative directive, ordinance, or other governing authority establishing that process.

9. When a citizen reports concerns involving governing contracts, the Election Procedures Manual, discrepancies in contract documentation, Disaster Recovery documentation, the inability to locate agreements or memoranda of understanding, or other apparent gaps involving contracts, policies, procedures, regulations, or internal controls, who determines whether those issues warrant formal compliance review?

10. If requested contracts, amendments, agreements, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual, or other governing documents cannot be produced, who determines whether that itself constitutes a compliance issue requiring further investigation or corrective action?

11. If a concern is determined to warrant formal compliance review, who is responsible for assigning ownership of the matter?

12. Who is responsible for coordinating any cross-department investigation?

13. Who determines whether corrective action is required?

14. Who verifies that corrective actions have been effectively implemented?

15. Who is responsible for monitoring for recurrence?

16. Who is responsible for formally closing the matter?

17. How is the reporting citizen informed of the outcome of the review?

18. If Maricopa County has a documented process addressing the questions above, I request that the County identify that process. If no such documented process exists, I request that the County state that directly.

Two different disaster recovery plans

The contract package contains two versions of Exhibit C the Disaster Recovery Plan in effect during the Covid 19 pandemic election:

• One version has no effective date and is crossed out on every page.
• The other version is marked “Effective 1-1-16” and is not crossed out.

The two plans are not identical. They list different backup arrangements and facilities in AZ and Florida.

Amendment No. 1 says:

“Delete Exhibit C in its entirety and replace with Exhibit C effective 1-1-16.”

Why the amendment dated 6/4/2020 was signed by procurement and states all other terms and conditions remain unchanged?

The contracts provided do not clearly answer is whether the January 1, 2016 plan remained in effect and was actually used during the November 3, 2020 General Election. That is why I asked the County to identify the complete contract and amendment history and tell me which disaster recovery plan governed the 2020 election. The answer has never been given.

Additional Questions

Additional questions raised by reviewing the contracts. After submitting my complaint, a closer review of the contracts raised additional questions:

1. What testing was performed on the disaster recovery plan before the November 3, 2020 General Election? Please provide the test dates, results, identified problems, corrective actions, and County approval.
2. The plan states that production could resume within 6 to 72 hours. Who determined that this timeframe would meet election deadlines, and what testing supported that determination?
3. What testing showed that backup data could be restored without losing, duplicating, or incorrectly processing election records?
4. What written agreements confirmed that the backup facilities had sufficient equipment, staffing, security, supplies, and capacity to perform Maricopa County’s work?
5. What was the staffing-continuity plan if key Runbeck employees were unavailable during the pandemic?
6. Amendment No. 7 added the retrofit of 250 County-owned printers shortly before the 2020 election. When was that work completed, what acceptance testing was performed, who approved the equipment for use, and were any problems identified and corrected?
7. The contract allowed the County to inspect Runbeck’s services and require correction. Please provide the inspection records, identified deficiencies, corrective actions, verification, and final closure records applicable to the 2020 election.

Summary

Throughout Jamie's effort to obtain and understand these records, none of the written responses she received provided a clear amendment history explaining what each amendment changed. No one identified which amendment established the disaster recovery plan governing the 2020 election.

Jamie had to piece the history together herself from the 116-page contract package. That is why her formal complaint asks the County to identify the complete sequence of contracts and amendments, their effective dates, and the disaster recovery plan that was actually in effect for the November 3, 2020 General Election.

Notable Observations

• Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values applies given the sloppiness in which the Runbeck contract was updated.
• Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority may be applicable given the contract changes were not always signed.
• Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability may be applicable given the sloppiness of contract maintenance and absense of approval signatures
• Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks may apply given the risk of contract changes may not have been adequately evaluated prior to making the chagne.
• Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change definitely applies, given MC needed to change the Runbeck contract, but the justifiation wasn't provided.
• Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies applies, once again because of unjustified changes to the Runbeck contract.

Other Observations

• For a contact involving millions of dollars, the extensive use of strikeouts and amendments makes it difficult to reconstruct which contract attributes were in effect during certain timeframes.
• The original contract appears to have properly approved with wet signatures. However, the contract changes (i.e., strikeouts and amendments) were not consistently approved with a wet signature. Nor was the author of the change identified.
• No documentation was available to explain the evaluation that was performed to justify the contract changes. Some changes had a direct impact on the internal controls. An evaluation should have clearly identified the problem that necessitated a change to the contract and then addressed the risk originating from the change itself.

Potential Governance Gap(s):

• Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
  • Attribute(s): 1.01, 1.02, 1.06
• Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
  • Attribute(s): 3.01, 3.02, 3.08, 3.09, 3.10
• Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
  • Attribute(s): 5.01, 5.02
• Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
  • Attribute(s): 7.02, 7.04, 7.15,
• Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
  • Attribute(s): 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 9.05, 9.07
• Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
  • Attribute(s): 17.01, 17.02, 17.05