The Story

You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Goverance Examples; Jamie's Examples

• The next part of the story is 2021: My Journey Begins

---

This section provides personal examples of poor governance by Maricopa County. During many interactions with Maricopa County, I became concerned about how certain matters were handled. My professional experience in contract compliance and corrective action gave me a background in governance, accountability and internal controls. But I did not want to rely solely on my own experience and opinion. I chose an independent benchmark/standard to measure MC standards against.

I needed an objective benchmark against which to evaluate my concerns. Governance and internal-control principles apply in both the private and public sectors, but I wanted a framework specifically designed for government. I found a suitable standard in the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,which is commonly called the "Green Book."

Note: GAO describes the Green Book as the federal framework for an effective internal control system and expressly encourages nonfederal entities, including state and local governments, to use it as a framework.

In "Jamie's Timeline" (below), key events during my search for accountability are retold for the purpose of showing acts of poor governance by comparing my experience to the Green Book as a standard.

It is important to understand that Maricopa County is not obligated to comply with the Green Book's standards. The Green Book is required for Federal departments and agencies within the executive branch. However, the Green Book's standards may be applied to local governments based on the following statement:

"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."

I thought it fair to compare Maricopa methods of internal control (i.e., governance) to the ideal method, which is a Federal Standard. You may make your own comparisons. You may also have similar unpleasant experiences with Maricopa County or any other county in Arizona. Your frustration may very well be associated with poor governance; your county's management may not even know what good governance looks like.

Jamie's Timeline (below) is a collection of short stories. For navigation purposes, this is what you can expect with each short story.

• My interface with Maricopa County is described.
• Relevant Principles from the Green Book are identified with Notable Governance Observations.
• Relevant Attributes from the Green Book are identified by number and listed under Potential Governance Gaps.
• An explanation of the relationship between my story and a specific Green Book attribute can be found by clicking attribute number, such as 1.01.
• The explanation begins with the Attribute's description at the top of the page.
• At the bottom of the page, you will find examples from my interfaces with Maricopa County and examples taken from government documents addressing Election Anomalies.
• Jamie's Timeline may be used to navigate between the different short stories.

Ultimately, the examples from My Story and Election Anomalies are mapped to applicable Green Book principles and attributes summarized into a heat map which will help those reading to identify recurring patterns.

The intent of this method of assessment, is to identify recurring governance and internal control issues. It is not intended to prove malicious or criminal activity or to assign motive to individual employees.

The purpose is to examine documented practices against an independent benchmark and identify areas where stronger controls, accountability or corrective action may be warranted.

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.