2.04

Control Environment

Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility

Attribute 2.04 - In selecting members for an oversight body, the entity or applicable body defines the entity knowledge, relevant expertise, number of members, and possible independence needed to fulfill the oversight responsibilities for the entity.

Navigational Buttons:

• Index of Attributes
• Previous Attribute - 2.03
• Next Attribute - 2.05

Jamie's Story

June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies

Maricopa County's Ombudsman are unable to effectively provide oversight. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Maricopa County Ombudsmen lack the independence to provide effective oversight.

Effective oversight cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch and the public when considering the following:

• Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.
• The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.
• The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."
• The Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.
• The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.
• The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA), do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which was also USOA and endorsed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO.)
• In Jamie's special complaint againts MC, the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?
• Citizens are allowed two-minutes to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.

Election Anomalies

No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.