Process Specification

This page explains the ACV's proposal in plain language, defines the process counties would be required to establish, and identifies the minimum requirements that may need to appear in statute. It is not intended to present final bill language. Its purpose is to support legislative review of which requirements should be codified in Arizona law and which operating details should remain within county policy and procedure.

Arizona Revised Statutes should require the outcome. County procedures should explain the method.

This page explains the type of information expected in implementing procedures so the proposed bill can be appropriately worded.

Background

Why this work began. After the 2020 election, the initial question was straightforward: Where were the documented Lessons Learned and Corrective Actions following an election conducted under unprecedented pandemic conditions?

Professional experience in contract compliance and corrective action provided a clear expectation of what to look for. Government contracts typically define responsibilities, remedies, oversight provisions, and what should happen when problems occur. In reviewing county election contracts, provisions were identified addressing matters such as termination for convenience, inspection, Corrective Action, and Lessons Learned. Those provisions showed that the concepts were already recognized within the contract framework.

What was not apparent was a documented trail showing what problems had been identified, what had been learned from them, what corrective actions had been taken, and whether those corrective actions had been verified.

That became the first identified problem. If a significant event occurs and the governing contract contemplates Lessons Learned and Corrective Action, there should be a way to determine whether those processes occurred, what actions resulted, and whether the corrective actions were effective.

As the review expanded through public records requests, contract analysis, and efforts to bring documented concerns to county government, a broader governance gap became clear: the county complaint framework did not provide a required end-to-end path for a citizen to submit a significant compliance concern and have it formally received, reviewed, determined, corrected when warranted, verified, monitored when appropriate, and closed.

The larger issue was no longer one election or one contract. The issue was the absence of a required end-to-end compliance review and corrective action process for significant citizen-reported concerns involving county government.

This proposal is not based on an assumption that the citizen is right or that government is wrong. It is based on the need for a fair, documented process that determines the answer and brings the matter to resolution.