Identification of Deviations from the Standard

THIS PAGE IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT!

Upon reading this page, the reader should understand how a deviation from the standard was identified. The reader should also understand the objective was to collect numerous examples of deviation as a means to show a pattern of poor governance. The authenticity of each deviation could be debated since MC provided scant information to assess. However, a pattern of governance gaps could be used to develop a case for action.

Governance Determination

As discussed in Comparison of Observations to a Standard, the initial comparison of MC decision-making and implementation practices sought to determine if an observation was a governance attribute that could be expected of a government entity. Some observations were based on business experience, which didn't always align with government governance. Some business practices didn't apply to government governance.

The prior assessment step simply compared an observation to a standard to determine governance applicability. This assessment step sought to determine if the governance activity was substandard.

Narrative Account of Observations

This assessment begins as a story; it's my story. I did not begin this journey with the intent of assessing governance. I simply wanted to know if and how the MC was addressing all of the election-related anomalies as reported in) the national news during the 2020, 2022, 2024. and 2025 elections.

From a big picture perspective, MC election results kept making national news for election-related anomalies. This is in sharp contrast to over 3,000 counties (including equivalent local government organizations with different names, such as parishes) that did not have any newsworthy election-related anomalies and they certainly were not repetitive, like MC. From this broad perspective, MC performance was obviously substandard. My CAP background and personal tenacity drove me towards trying to determine what corrective actions were being put in place to address these problems. Some initiative sought to address the election results; this was of no interest to me. I just wanted to see how MC was addressing these anomalies as a concerned citizen with the understanding that MC was providing a service to the public. MC was implementing the election process per their statutory obligations.

My personal objective changed after an unfavorable ruling in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. I had requested numerous documents through a Public Records Request. I filed a complaint with the Arizona Superior Court as the Plaintiff against MC, the Defendant, because I felt MCs response to my records requests was inadequate.

to address what appeared to me as an inadequate response to my request for records.

The story spans several years, and the observations are sometimes complex or nuanced. I chose to tell the story in chronological order for context. I want you to visualize how these governance observations were made. y

Deviation Determination

Note: Some interfaces with MC employees were pleasant and the outcomes were reasonable. While these positive experiences were satisfying to me, documenting them in this assessment wasn't appropriate. This assessment is trying to improve governance by bringing documenting issues were attention is needed.