May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato

This is not ready for proofreading.

You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; May 15, 2025: Let's Play Hot Potatoe

The next part of Jamie's Story is June 25, 2025 Runbeck Contract Delivered

---

This page will summarize how my P??????

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.

Let's Listen to Beau Johnson's Story

In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. She was getting the runaround from Maricopa county.

Click here to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472

Jamie's Public Records Request History

1. On April 15, 2025. Jamie submitted a single unified Public Records Request (PRR) to the Maricopa County Procurement Services Department, which reports to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS). The Procurement Services Department created PRR 25-719 to address Jamie's records request.
2. On May 15, 2026, Procurement transferred Jamies PRR to the Elections Department, which is still under the MCBOS. Apparently, the Procurement Department was unable to fulfill the remaining records on the PRR. Elections Department created PRR 25-139t. No records were supplied to Jamie by the Elections Department. Instead, the Elections Department reassigned the records request to the Information Governance Department.
3. Later in the afternoon on the same day, May 15, 2026, Elections Department transferred Jamie's original PRR to the Information Governance Department, which is still under the MCBOS. The Information Governance Department created PRR 25-1123 after receiving the unfulfilled records request from the Elections Department. Again, no records were supplied to the Jamie by the Information Governance Department. Instead, the
4. By June 1, 2025,the Procurement Department supplied Jamie with two contracts for Runbeck Election Services, Inc and two contracts for Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. The Procurement Department then transferred the plaintiffs request to the Elections Department to address requests that had not yet been fulfilled. These were the only two records from Jamie's original PRR that were delivered.
5. On June 11, 2025, the Information Governance Department reassigned the Jamie's records request to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office (MCRO). The MCRO is a separate Maricopa County government entity and does not report to the MCBOS. MCRO created PRR 25-64 after receiving the unfulfilled records request from the Information Governance Department. The MC Recorder’s Office did not provide the plaintiff any records.
6. On June 27, 2025, MCRO's PRR 25-64 was closed. The MCRO closed this PRR by explaining “All records have been released, and your request has been fulfilled.” Seemingly inconsistent with the first statement, the MCRO continues by stating “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”

Undelivered Documents

Maricopa County was unable to provide the following records, which I had requested:

• Amendments, addenda, renewals, exhibits, or revisions for 2018–2024
• Post-election contract administration records
• MVD election-related contracts
• USPS-related agreements
• Temporary staffing contracts for signature verification

Notable Observations

• There was rapid succession of handoffs from one department to another. It took the Maricopa County Information Governance Department just a few hours to transfer Jamie's PRR from their inbox to the Elections Department.
• Jamie's PRR was also transferred from the MCBOS to the MCRO, which are two separate Maricopa County entities, one overseen by the five-person Board of Supervisors and the other overseen by the Maricopa County Recorder, all are elected officials.
• No single person or department took responsibility for answering a citizen's request.
• If multiple employees from multiple Maricopa County Department cannot agree on who has responsibility for answering the citizen's request, then citizens can't be held responsible for directing their inquiries to the incorrect department, especially when multiple departments may be involved.
• An employee from the MCRO declared, “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment is perfect example of poor governance. In other words, we county employees don't have to do anything for you unless specifically required by law. This arrogant tone is also reflected in the Maricopa County's Defense Brief. Apparently, the organizational culture is citizens are a nuisance; do what you have to satisfy the law, but nothing beyond that.

Potential Governance Gaps:

• Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
  • Attribute(s): 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05
• Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
  • Attribute(s):
• 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
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
  • Attribute(s): 17.01, 17.02, 17.05