August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint: Difference between revisions
Added governance cross-links |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''This is not ready for proofreading.''' | |||
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint'''<blockquote>The this is the end of Jamie's examples, well at least for this point in time.</blockquote> | |||
---- | |||
This page presents a regrouping for Jamie after the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa ruled against her and her pursuit of Maricopa County. In fact, the idea of Arizona Citizen Voice began from a more direct approach. If the county can't provide the requested documents, then just explain what happened. I decided to file a formal complaint. The difficulty in filing Jamie's complaint made it clear that it would be difficult for any citizen to file a governance complaint. Maricopa County has functioning complaint process, but their complaint processes are topic specific and narrow in scope. The need for a single broad complaint process to handle a wide range of governance issues was need. | |||
=== Jamie's Timeline === | |||
{{Jamies Timeline}} | |||
== | === Complaint Questions === | ||
* [[ | ==== Contract Questions ==== | ||
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? | |||
==== Governance Questions ==== | |||
3. Please identify the agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual (EPM), or other governing documents relating to: | |||
* Motor Vehicle Division terms and conditions with Elections; [see listed attributes in #1, above] | |||
* United States Postal Service election mail processing; [see listed attributes in #1, above] | |||
* First-level signature verification for the November 3, 2020 General Election; and; | |||
* 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. | |||
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? | |||
=== Potential Governance Gaps === | |||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 15 September 2026
This is not ready for proofreading.
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint
The this is the end of Jamie's examples, well at least for this point in time.
This page presents a regrouping for Jamie after the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa ruled against her and her pursuit of Maricopa County. In fact, the idea of Arizona Citizen Voice began from a more direct approach. If the county can't provide the requested documents, then just explain what happened. I decided to file a formal complaint. The difficulty in filing Jamie's complaint made it clear that it would be difficult for any citizen to file a governance complaint. Maricopa County has functioning complaint process, but their complaint processes are topic specific and narrow in scope. The need for a single broad complaint process to handle a wide range of governance issues was need.
Jamie's Timeline
- 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
- 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
- November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
- December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
- April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
- May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
- June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
- December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
- March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
- April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
- June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
- June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies - Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens's Aid agency
- June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies - MC response was consistent with Arizona Ombudsman's expectations
- August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted & response was as expected.
Complaint Questions
Contract Questions
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?
Governance Questions
3. Please identify the agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual (EPM), or other governing documents relating to:
- Motor Vehicle Division terms and conditions with Elections; [see listed attributes in #1, above]
- United States Postal Service election mail processing; [see listed attributes in #1, above]
- First-level signature verification for the November 3, 2020 General Election; and;
- 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.
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?
