2.04: Difference between revisions
From Arizona Citizen Voice
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=== Jamie's Story === | === Jamie's Story === | ||
==== [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] ==== | |||
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 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 [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 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 [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 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 | |||
=== Election Anomalies === | === Election Anomalies === | ||
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute. | No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute. | ||
Revision as of 07:52, 15 September 2026
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
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 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
Election Anomalies
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.
