June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies: Difference between revisions
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
==== Compare and Contrast AZOCA to Maricopa County's Ombudsman ==== | ==== Compare and Contrast AZOCA to Maricopa County's Ombudsman ==== | ||
The AZOCA Representative compared their Ombudsmen operations to Maricopa’s Ombudsmen approach. The Representative noted some Maricopa County employees have the term “ombudsman” in their job titles, specifically in departments for transportation, health matters, animal care, environmental permitting. However, the Maricopa County's Ombudsman do not receive the same degree of training as the Ombudsman for AZOCA. AZOCA Ombudsman have been trained in accordance with the standards of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA). The AZOCA Representative did not believe the Maricopa Ombudsman by USOA or any other internationally recognized Ombudsman organization. | The AZOCA Representative compared their Ombudsmen operations to Maricopa’s Ombudsmen approach. The Representative noted some Maricopa County employees have the term “ombudsman” in their job titles, specifically in departments for transportation, health matters, animal care, environmental permitting. However, the Maricopa County's Ombudsman do not receive the same degree of training as the Ombudsman for AZOCA. AZOCA Ombudsman have been trained in accordance with the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association] (USOA). The AZOCA Representative did not believe the Maricopa Ombudsman by USOA or any other internationally recognized Ombudsman organization. | ||
Additionally, Maricopa County does not follow the Model Act, which was established by the USOA and endorsed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO) and other international ombudsman organizations. The USOA Model act promotes legislation for an effective ombudsman program with the following explanation: | Additionally, Maricopa County does not follow the Model Act, which was established by the USOA and endorsed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO) and other international ombudsman organizations. The USOA Model act promotes legislation for an effective ombudsman program with the following explanation: | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 15 September 2026
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies
The next part of Jamie's Story is June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies
This page explains a surprising response from a representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizen Aide (AZOCA) agency. The AZOCA informed Jamie that her request for assistance could not be fulfill because Maricopa County issues are outside of the AZOCA's jurisdiction. The AZOCA representative forewarned Jamie that she would probably be disappointed with her interface with the Maricopa County Ombudsman with a detailed explanation for having low expecations.
Jamie's Timeline
- 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
- 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
- November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
- December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
- April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
- May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
- June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
- December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
- March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
- April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
- June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
- June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman - Ombudsman by Title without Ombudsman Independence
- August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted
- August ??, 2026: Maricopa County Responds to My Complaint - ???
Background
Jamie contacted to Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide (AZOCA) for help with her quest for answers to questions about accountability and internal control issues with Maricopa County.
Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Response
It felt like the typical “brush off” when a representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide (AZOCA) responded to my request for help. The Representative responded with an email that started with “We cannot assist with this matter.”
Explained the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agency
The AZOCA Representative explained that my concern was outside of her jurisdiction. AZOCA addresses complaints against the State of Arizona, and my complaint was with Maricopa County. As I read on, I felt like I had found an ally. The AZOCA's tone was completely different than anything I had experienced during my interfaces with Maricopa County. I felt like I was being heard, but unfortunately county complaints were simply out-of-bounds.
The AZOCA Representative had apparently been in this situation before; wanting to help but was constrained by Arizona Revised Statues (A.R.S.), which prevented their agency from accepting a Maricopa County issue. The Representative provided some reasons why my issues were not resolved by the Maricopa County Ombudsman.
First, the AZOCA Representative clarified is an Legislative Agency and under A.R.S. they cannot investigate elected officials or conduct political policy reviews. Their office is a place for the public to turn to if citizens have an individual dispute with a state-level government entity over an administrative action taken against them. Their office helps ensure state government is acting in accordance with the law, prevent any bureaucrat or bureaucracy from acting contrary to the law and the greater good, and evens out the playing field.
The AZOCA is what I from Maricopa County.
Compare and Contrast AZOCA to Maricopa County's Ombudsman
The AZOCA Representative compared their Ombudsmen operations to Maricopa’s Ombudsmen approach. The Representative noted some Maricopa County employees have the term “ombudsman” in their job titles, specifically in departments for transportation, health matters, animal care, environmental permitting. However, the Maricopa County's Ombudsman do not receive the same degree of training as the Ombudsman for AZOCA. AZOCA Ombudsman have been trained in accordance with the standards of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA). The AZOCA Representative did not believe the Maricopa Ombudsman by USOA or any other internationally recognized Ombudsman organization.
Additionally, Maricopa County does not follow the Model Act, which was established by the USOA and endorsed by the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO) and other international ombudsman organizations. The USOA Model act promotes legislation for an effective ombudsman program with the following explanation:
In its effort to promote and encourage the establishment of ombudsman offices, the USOA specifically promotes and encourages the establishment of offices that manifest the following characteristics:
- a governmental office created by constitution, charter, legislation or ordinance
- an office with the responsibility to receive and investigate complaints against governmental agencies
- an office with freedom to investigate on its own motion
- an office which may exercise full powers of investigation, to include access to all necessary information both testimonial and documentary
- an office with the authority to criticize governmental agencies and officials within its jurisdiction and to recommend corrective action
- an office with the power to issue public reports concerning its findings and recommendations
- an office directed by an official of high stature who
- is guaranteed independence through a defined term of office and/or through appointment by other than the executive and/or through custom
- is restricted from activities constituting a personal, professional, occupational or political conflict of interest
- is free to employ and remove assistants and to delegate administrative and investigative responsibility to those assistants.
The representative from the AZOCA compared Maricopa’s Ombudsman job titles to Arizona State’s program with the following:
A search of Maricopa County’s official website and public governance documents shows no reference to a county‑created ombudsman office, no enabling ordinance, and no listing of such an office in the county’s organizational structure. The county’s organizational charts or correspondence occasionally list someone as occupying an ombudsman-named position, but AZOCA found only a few minimal references and no recent contact or written materials describing the county’s ombudsman function. In contrast, our office has formal legal authority stated under the Arizona Revised Statutes, each annual legislative budget bill, and in the Arizona Administrative Code. By law, AZOCA contact information is linked to every state agency on at least one website location for each state agency. By law, AZOCA must publish an annual report describing our annual activities.
In contrast, some county departments have customer‑service or complaint‑resolution staff styled as ombudsmen who do not have formal, independent investigative authority authorized by law. We have not found agenda items or public reports provided to the County Board of Supervisors to demonstrate and summarize county “ombudsman” activities, but we also found nothing to indicate they must do so.
Despite occasional informal use of the term “ombudsman” by Maricopa County staff, AZOCA has not found any record that Maricopa County ever created a legally authorized ombudsman office through a County ordinance, a Board of Supervisors resolution, or an administrative directive. Thus, while county staff may call themselves “ombudsmen,” their role is largely described by a broad dictionary definition and remains undefined compared to the international understanding of what an ombudsman is and does, and what they do not do.
Consider the following shortcomings of the county ombudsman job titles:
- County Ombudsman are not independent,
- they do not have formal investigative powers,
- they are not bound by formal procedures,
- they cannot compel cooperation beyond chain-of-command orders,
- they do not issue findings through a formal, credible reporting process, and
- they cannot provide formal, neutral dispute resolution or other criteria typically associated with ombudsmen aligned with the Model Act.
The Model Act is the internationally recognized standard that began a couple of centuries ago, when Sweden became the first country to appoint an independent official, known as an ombudsman, to investigate complaints against government officials and agencies, with some common characteristics – legislative creation, independence, impartiality, a credible reporting process, and confidentiality.
A.R,S, Requirements for County Complaints
Consistent with the insights gained from the AZOCA representative, the A.R.S. for County Complaints is almost insignificant in comparison to the A.R,S. requirements for the AZOCA.
- Arizona counties must comply with A.R.S. Title 11 - Counties, paragraph 11-1608, which is the statute for filing complaints against any Arizona County.
- The State of Arizona must comply with A.R.S., Title 41 - State Government, Chapter 8 - Agencies of the Legislative Department, Article 5 - Office of Ombudsman-Citizens Aide, paragraphs 41-1371 through 41-1383
ARS 11-1608. Complaints; procedures
A. The board of supervisors shall establish a procedure for receiving complaints from an adversely affected person concerning ordinances, rules, regulations, substantive policy statements or county practices alleged to violate this article or section 11-251.18.
B. The board of supervisors may require the complaint to be made in writing and to include the following information:
1. The name and address of the adversely affected person making the complaint.
2. The ordinance, rule, regulation, substantive policy statement or county practice alleged to violate this article or section 11-251.18.
3. Any facts relevant to, and the legal basis for, the complaint.
C. Procedures adopted by the board of supervisors pursuant to this section shall include reasonable time frames to address complaints and shall provide a process for appeal.
I can say with almost absolute certainty, “Maricopa County is not voluntarily complying with Green Book Principles or the USOA’s Model Act.”
ARS Title 41
Article 5 Office of Ombudsman-Citizens Aide
- 41-1371 Definitions
- 41-1372 Exemptions
- 41-1373 Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee
- 41-1374 Qualifications
- 41-1375 Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation
- 41-1376 Powers and duties
- 41-1376.01 Additional powers and duties; definitions
- 41-1377 Scope of investigations
- 41-1378 Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification
- 41-1379 Procedures after an investigation
- 41-1380 Ombudsman-citizens aide protections
- 41-1381 Ombudsman-citizens aide political activity
- 41-1383 Violation; classification
Notable Governance Observations
- Principle 1 – Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (1.02)
- Maricopa County use of Ombudsman in a Job Title
- Principle 2 – Exercise Oversight Responsibility
- Ombudsman Job Titles without oversight responsibilities
- Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Lack of an organizational structure to address citizen identified compliance issues
- Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
- Ombudsman job title without certification
- Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
- Disregarding citizen complaints as a monitoring activity
- Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
- Lack of an adequate evaluation leads to no corrective action
Potential Governance Gap(s)
- Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
- Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
- Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
- Attribute(s): None
- Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
- Attribute(s): None
- Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
- Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
- Attribute(s): 17.02
