Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide
3737 North 7th Street, Suite 209, Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Tel 602.277.7292 | 800.872.2879
Fax 602.277.7312
www.azoca.gov

ANNUAL
REPORT
JANUARY-DECEMBER, 2014
Submitted by Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide, Dennis Wells
June 15, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aiding Citizens ______________________________________________________________ 2
How We Help ___________________________________________________________________ 2
Customer Satisfaction _____________________________________________________________ 3
We Welcome Feedback____________________________________________________________ 4

Compelling Cases ___________________________________________________________ 7
General Complaints About State Agencies _____________________________________________ 7
Ombudsman Intervention in DCS Cases ______________________________________________ 13
Ombudsman Intervention in Public Access Cases ______________________________________ 21

Our Cases – Statistics of Note _________________________________________________ 25
Overall Case Statistics ____________________________________________________________ 25
Investigations __________________________________________________________________ 26
Contacts By Agency ______________________________________________________________ 27

About the Ombudsman and Staff ______________________________________________ 33
Exhibit ___________________________________________________________________ 36

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Aiding Citizens
OUR MISSION

HOW WE HELP

The mission of the Arizona
Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide is to
improve the effectiveness,
efficiency and responsiveness of
state government by receiving
public complaints, investigating
the administrative acts of state
agencies, and recommending a fair
and appropriate remedy.

The Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide office provides a
unique service because we offer objectivity to citizens
who complain when they think their state government
has treated them unfairly. The first thing our
experienced investigators do is listen to the person's
complaint. For some people this is the first time they feel
that anyone in government actually heard them. Then
we determine the nature of the dispute and respond in
the most appropriate way to resolve the issue.
We group responses into three categories:

OUR ROLE
The Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens'
Aide is an independent agency of
the Arizona Legislature that was
established to make government
more responsive to Arizona
citizens. It is the office that Arizona
citizens can turn to when they feel
they have been treated unfairly by
a state administrator, agency,
department, board or commission.
The services of the Ombudsman
are free and confidential.
The office is given its authority by
Arizona Revised Statute sections
41-1371 through 41-1383 and
operates under Arizona
Administrative Code title 2 chapter
16.

Coaching
Many residents are able to resolve their own concerns
when they are aware of the services available. We help
these residents by educating them on the options
available to them based on their specific complaint.
Coaching includes defining issues and rights, identifying
options, referring people to the appropriate employee or
department, redirecting citizens to services outside our
jurisdiction (non-profits, federal agencies, etc.),
explaining agency policies, researching information,
offering conflict management strategies, and developing
reasonable expectations.
Informal Assistance
Sometimes coaching is not enough and residents need
our office to communicate with government agencies
directly. Most complaints are the result of a
miscommunication or a simple mistake. In these
circumstances, we contact the appropriate agency on the
citizen’s behalf, facilitate communication between the
parties, or coordinate an action between agencies. Our
investigators are working on a continual basis to foster
relationships with agency personnel in every state agency
to enable efficient resolution of complaints prior to
escalation.

2

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Investigation
Complaints that are more serious do not always lend themselves to informal techniques and may
warrant investigations. In those cases, we work with the constituents and agency personnel to ensure
that the agency is complying with the law and offering optimal public service. Although we have no
authority to compel an agency to follow our recommendations, most administrators are eager to
resolve constituent problems and agency mistakes once we bring it to their attention. If the
allegations are unsupported, we explain our findings to complainants. If necessary, we write
investigative reports of our findings and recommendations, sent to the agencies investigated,
legislature, governor, and the complainants.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
It is important for us to receive feedback from the citizens we help so that we can evaluate our
performance, correct shortcomings and improve our service. One way we get feedback is through our
customer satisfaction survey we distribute at the close of cases. The survey measures how well we are
accomplishing six standards that we developed in our strategic plan.

These standards are:
• Treat everyone fairly.
• Treat everyone with courtesy and respect.
• Respond promptly to citizen inquiries.
• Provide as complete a response as possible.
• Provide useful solutions to citizens.
• Provide accurate responses to citizen complaints.

3

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
WE WELCOME FEEDBACK
The chart and comments on the following pages summarize the results of the survey for the calendar
year 2014. The chart summarizes the results of the survey for 2014.

2014 Survey Results
120%
100%

100%

100%

97%

91%

90%

88%

88%

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

9%
0%0%

0%0%

I was treated
fairly.

I was treated
courteously.

0%

9%
1%

3%
0%

9%
3%

9%
3%

Rate the overall My inquiry was My inquiry was The information The information
service you
responded to
responded to and/or referral and/or referral
received.
promptly.
completely.
was useful.
was accurate.
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE FROM CITIZENS WHO USED OUR SERVICES IN 2014:
“I did not know government could be so efficient . . . But this
was State not Federal!”
100% of our survey
“Thanks again for helping me so promptly! It is nice to know
that you all care & are willing to help the Arizona residents
when they have a problem.”

respondents said we
treated them courteously
and fairly.

“Jennifer was extremely helpful when I could not get through
to anyone at the unemployment office. Their phone system is a disaster. Jennifer got someone to call
me back within hours, even though she thought I might have to wait until Monday for a response.”
“Sarah steered me in the right direction, and was very polite!!!”

4

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
“With all the AZ Offices that I have called, Danee was the only person who seemed to care about my
situation. Hats off to Danee.”
“You guys seriously rock. Thank-You.”
“Joanne is amazing! She was courteous, respectful, and compassionate. She truly cares. She gave me
excellent resources, she was direct with me and I really appreciated her inputs.”
“I had the pleasure of connecting with Sarah regarding my DCS Placement Denial. Sarah was
absolutely amazing; she was very patient, understanding and a pleasure to speak with.”
“She made me feel as if my feelings and fears where real. I didn't get her name, but I would be proud
to be her friend. I will call her again; she was so kind to me.”
“Jennifer is a complete professional. I can't even imagine that better service exists.”
“Thank you for your advocacy!”
“So thankful to have seen the newspaper article and very thankful to know that Arizona has such
competent and caring representatives.”
“I wish to thank all involved. A BIG Thank You.”
“Jennifer was amazing & stayed on top of my issue that I was having with the MVD. Everything is in the
process of getting resolved and I couldn't have gotten this done without the help of your office!”
“I thank you for helping me & my 13-year-old son. You took so much worry away. Thanks.”
“After waiting 16 months for a license review by the AZ Nursing board . . . without the help of the
Ombudsman’s office, [I] would still be waiting and unable to seek employment as a CNA.”
“I would like to thank Jennifer for her prompt response to my inquiry. I was unable to receive any
response from the DES - Unemployment Office going through the usual channels. I had been trying
unsuccessfully for 4 weeks. Jennifer contacted a member of the Client Advocate Office on my behalf,
and I received a response from them directly.”
“Sarah did an excellent job in a courteous and professional manner. She resolved a problem we have
had with AZ DOT ongoing since 1990, in a matter of days. We have referred your services to the DUI
treatment counselor so she can assist 2 other families having similar issues with AZDOT!”
“Thank you again for your service to us and Arizona residents. I am so impressed.”
5

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
“Was able to gain closure to an open CPS (DCS) case stemming from 6 months prior. With staff
assistance, I was able to obtain the documentation needed.”
“It is difficult to live without any income for a month. The DES UI system discontinued all of their lines,
but one. There is not one person an unemployed person can speak with directly. The number
available to unemployed persons is 877-600-2722. You then follow broadcast prompts, enter your SSN
+ personal ID. Once you have completed that process, you are placed on hold and inevitably told
every time you call, "I am sorry. We are experiencing a high volume of calls. Please try you call again
later.” The line then goes dead. I experienced this for 4 weeks. Thank you, Jennifer, for your
assistance [resolving this].
“Aften went above and beyond, helping me find info i needed quickly and when so many other
approaches had failed.”
“Our case was a perfect example of how the Ombudsman Program helps individual citizens. Jennifer
came up with a suggestion that helped us get over a hurdle that had us scrambling for six weeks prior
to that resolution. The idea to use car insurance history to prove that a car was taken off the road
could help other AZ residents avoid having to pay a $500 fee for a vehicle that was never abandoned
(as was our situation). The ADOT Abandoned Vehicle unit could add this method of documentation to
the advice they give to people in the same situation.”
“Mr. Garone was very understanding, kind & pleasant.”
“I asked Citizens' Aide for help in contacting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. I was promptly
given name and e-mail of the person most qualified to solve my problem. I consider it a small miracle.”
“Jennifer was extremely helpful, encouraging and professional. She went out of her way to explore all
options and advise me regarding my claim and appeal. I was impressed with the advice and followup.”
“Nothing but the highest praise for your organization. You found out where I was to direct my Open
Records Request to the AZDOT in regard to UHAUL in two days after I repeatedly called AZDOT for two
weeks. Thanks Bunches.”
“If the AZBBHE had even 1% of the professionalism, customer service and caring that Joanne had, I
would not be in the middle of the horrific nightmare I am in today. So helpful and thank god there is a
government department like this. The only one I feel is helpful, punctual, there to serve. Such a
relief!!”

6

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
COMPELLING CASES
Our Three Focus Areas
The following case summaries are examples
taken from the 5,242 cases we handled in
2014.

Our office has three focus areas, and we cite examples
from each:

GENERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT STATE
AGENCIES

General complaints about state agencies;

2.

Department of Child Safety (DCS) cases and

3.

Public access cases.

Under the general case summaries, we also highlight
ways in which the resolutions reached added value to
our state government.

Did we resolve a case that no one else was
able to resolve internally?
1403104.

1.

DHS – Department of Health Services

A woman complained about the treatment she received at a local hospital. The woman was not
convinced the Department of Health Services (DHS) was investigating the problems she encountered.
She thought it important that DHS check the facility.
We reviewed the matter and brought the concern to DHS. DHS agreed to take a closer look. They
performed a review and found that certain deficiencies did exist at the facility. DHS interviewed staff,
examined records and reviewed policies.
DHS substantiated three of the four complaints filed by the complainant and had the hospital take
corrective action. The hospital complied and offered a plan of correction to avoid a citation. We
informed the complainant of the resolution.

Did our intervention lead to a change in an agency's procedure or practice/ correct a systemic
problem?
1403630.

Arizona Game and Fish Department

A business owner complained the Arizona Game and Fish Department had faulty procurement
procedures. She claimed this caused her company to lose a printing bid to a company that did not
provide the product described in the RFP. We reviewed the RFP, the list of product deviations and the
other evidence. We spoke to staff at Game and Fish and at Arizona Department of Administration
Procurement. Our investigation confirmed that the vendor producing the product did not correctly
follow product specifications. State procurement rules call for awarded bids go to the lowest
responsive responsible bidder that agrees to adhere to the bid specifications. The winning company
had the lowest bid, but they substituted less quality materials to complete the order.

7

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Game and Fish agreed the printing contractor did not abide by the deal. They tightened bidding and
delivery procedures. Game and Fish did not pay the company that produced the faulty product the
full contract price due to the deviations from the stated specifications.

Did our intervention reveal a field practice that was not in accordance with the agency's stated
policy/procedure, statutes or case law?
1403264.
DES – Benefits and Medical Eligibility
A woman contacted our office wanting assistance dealing with the Department of Economic SecurityBenefits. She said that she is assisting her mother in receiving benefits from DES. Due to her mother’s
illness, she cannot go into a DES office to be fingerprinted. When the woman talked to DES, they
informed her that they would send someone to her mother’s house to get her fingerprints. The
woman said DES did not send anyone out and this has caused her mother to have her nutritional
assistance canceled. The woman asked us to review the case and help her.
We contacted DES and reviewed the file. DES then agreed to send someone to the woman’s house to
have her fingerprinted. DES reported that when they process the fingerprints, they would process her
case.
We contacted the woman and she confirmed that DES came out to her mother’s house and took her
fingerprints. She later reported that her mother’s application has been approved.
1403712.

AHCCCS

An Arizona Health Cost Care Containment System (AHCCCS) recipient complained about receiving
conflicting information regarding his coverage. The recipient had renewed AHCCCS and was told his
application was completed. Because the recipient had a heart rate in the danger level, he was referred
to a heart specialist by his family physician. The heart specialist told him he had no coverage in force,
yet AHCCCS had told him his application was approved. He asked us for help clearing up the matter.
We contacted an AHCCCS Client Advocate. They said the application was completed and approved,
with an effective date on the first day of the following month. We explained the applicant's heart
condition. AHCCCS agreed this qualified the man for expedited coverage, which would be available
immediately. We followed up with the recipient and he confirmed that at our behest, AHCCCS
updated their records to enable him to get the heart care he needed.
1403764.

DES – Employment and Rehabilitation

A taxpayer said she received an authentic looking letter from the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (DES.) It asked for back payments to the State of Arizona for stimulus money paid for $25 per
week, while she received unemployment insurance (UI) benefits dating back to 2010. The taxpayer
confirmed that she had received UI benefits fitting that description, but could not believe she would
8

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
owe any payment for benefits received while fully unemployed. She also had further doubts about
the authenticity of the letter, since the DES letter required payment to be remitted to an out-of-stateaddress.
We contacted the DES UI Client Advocate to review the matter. The Client Advocate then admitted the
agency erred. The agency corrected their records so that their system now reflected only a fraction of
the previously billed amount covering only four payments, and not an entire year of payments.
Regarding the out-of-state address on the letter, the agency said it is correct. The address is the bank
headquarters utilized by DES to process payments.

1404363.

MVD – ADOT Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division

An attorney stated his client received a DUI and complied with the interlock device requirement. He
said that when she went to reinstate her driver license back from the MVD, she was denied. The
attorney stated his client was informed she was not able to get her licenses reinstated due to it being
suspended. The attorney claimed they had an administrative hearing and the judge stated that the
client did comply and her licenses should be reinstated. The attorney stated the MVD is refusing to
reinstate his client’s driver’s license.
We reviewed the information provided and contacted MVD. A Driver Services Supervisor for MVD
confirmed the problem and said she would correct the error. She then updated the client’s record to
void the indefinite suspension. This made the client’s driving privileges valid again. The supervisor
said she would be happy to explain the correction to the attorney. We contacted the attorney and told
him the client’s license was reinstated and her driving privileges were valid again. We also provided
the attorney's office with the contact information for the supervisor.

1404415.

DES – Benefits and Medical Eligibility and AHCCCS

A grandfather needed to have his grandchild seen by the pediatric doctor. The mother of the child was
a minor herself. The grandson needed a medical review in order to return to his day care facility. In
addition, the infant required prescription formula. Without the doctor appointment, the baby’s
formula benefit could not be renewed. The doctor's office told the grandfather his grandchild did not
have AHCCCS coverage. The DES –Benefits and Medical Eligibility division determines AHCCCS
eligibility, so the grandfather contacted them. However, DES told the grandfather to talk to AHCCCS.
AHCCCS then told him to work it out with DES. He asked for assistance because neither agency took
ownership of the problem.
We reviewed the situation, then contacted DES and asked for emergency review. DES admitted their
requirements for coverage had been met. We next contacted AHCCCS. AHCCCS informed us they had
introduced a new computer system and that it appeared the system had a simultaneous “open and
close” notation on the child’s account. AHCCCS said they would correct the problem on their end. The
9

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
following day, AHCCCS corrected the medical coverage notations in the computer system and moved
all household members into active status.
We contacted the grandfather who expressed his gratitude for the assistance provided.

Did our intervention result in better service to citizens?
1403784.

DES – Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD)

A woman complained that her son was not receiving the services he is legally entitled to receive from
the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). The complainant believed that the therapist DDD
hired preferred to work with patients below the age of 18. Her son is 30 years old, but still needs the
therapy he was receiving at a younger age.
We examined the complainant’s information and contacted the agency. Upon investigating the
allegations, we discovered that the complainant’s concern also revolved around her proximity to the
needed services. We made DDD aware of this factor. The agency went the extra mile to find an
appropriate therapist who would provide the therapy for the complainant’s son within a reasonable
distance from the complainant’s residence. The mother was happy an enthusiastic therapist closer to
her home was assigned to provide therapy to her son.

Did our intervention result in financial savings or correct a financial problem for a citizen?
1403740.
Arizona State Retirement System
A woman and her father contacted our office about problems they are having with the Arizona State
Retirement System (ASRS). The father informed us that we had his permission to talk to his daughter
regarding his ASRS issues. The woman informed us that she had filed an application for her father to
get his retirement started back in May 2014. After five months, she called and ASRS informed her that
a beneficiary form was missing from the application. She stated that the form was provided in the
original submission and ASRS had received it as of 08/20/2014. She claimed that ASRS reviewed and
approved the document as of 08/29/14. She said that she has called various times to inquire about
the status of the application and was told that it is being processed and that someone will call them
back, but nobody from ASRS calls or returns their calls.
We contacted ASRS and reviewed the file with them. They informed us that the delay is because the
father had two primary beneficiaries on his ASRS account prior to his retirement. One beneficiary was
99% and the other was 1%. ASRS said that when the man applied for his retirement, he did not
update any of his beneficiary information. ASRS said that the man elected a retirement annuity option
called the Joint and Survivor 50% option, which reduces his benefit for life, but allows 50% of his
benefit to continue to one primary beneficiary. However, because the man did not update his
beneficiary information to only note one primary beneficiary, ASRS could not process his retirement
10

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
request until they received clarification regarding the beneficiary because they must reduce the
member's pension based on his age and the age of his primary beneficiary. ASRS said that they sent
an e-mail to the man, on June 2, 2014, to the e-mail address he had provided. However, the man and
his daughter did not contact ASRS until August 15, 2014. On August 20, 2014, ASRS received the
clarification form about the man's sole primary beneficiary. ASRS processed the documentation, but
said the member's benefits would not start until the middle of October.
We told ASRS that the man was not happy about the delay and had the retiree send in a hardship
request explaining how his previous contacts with ASRS staff mislead him. ASRS listened to tapes of
the referenced calls and agreed that an employee did mislead the family in the period as to when
benefits would start. ASRS said they would use the phone call to ensure proper training. ASRS agreed
to submit a payment to the man's financial institution on September 18, 2014. The family was happy
ASRS corrected the problems and that ASRS agreed to send the payment quicker.
1404358.

MVD – ADOT Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division

A citizen car owner stated he was in a motor vehicle accident four years ago and he is now having
issues with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) about it. The citizen stated that after the accident, a
tow truck was called and his vehicle was towed. The vehicle was totaled by the accident. When the
car owner went to pick up his personal belongings from his car, the tow company asked him to sign
over his title, which he did.
The citizen said that three years ago the tow company contacted him because they lost the title he
signed. The tow company needed the title signed over to them, so they could dispose of the car, by
crushing it. The citizen stated the tow company obtained a title from the MVD and crushed the
vehicle. The citizen stated the MVD is now charging him for an abandoned vehicle fee, though his
vehicle was never abandoned.
We reviewed the information and contacted MVD. MVD informed us the citizen would need to
provide them with some form of documentation to support his claim. The MVD stated it is the
responsibility of the person who is selling the vehicle to inform MVD they have sold the car (or in this
case, signed over a vehicles title to another person or business).
We informed the citizen of this document request and suggested he obtain some information from his
insurance company or from the tow company to show his side of the story.
The citizen complied and obtained a letter from his insurance company stating his car had been
totaled in the accident. MVD accepted the letter, the fine was removed from his record and his license
was reset. The citizen thanked us for our help in resolving this problem.

11

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
1404175.

MVD – ADOT Transportation – Motor Vehicle Division

A citizen currently residing out-of-state received a letter from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division
(MVD) stating he had to show proof of Arizona insurance or they would cancel his registration. He was
not in Arizona, and had insurance in Nevada. The deadline was the next business day and he was not
sure what to do. He thought his insurance for Nevada should be enough. He had not been able to
remedy the problem directly with MVD.
We checked with the MVD agency and they provided us the citation stating the department cannot
accept out-of-state insurance. They said if he is not driving on Arizona roads, he could de-insure his
vehicle here, which will keep the registration up. Otherwise, he will have to transfer his policy to an
Arizona policy.
We relayed this information to the complainant. He said he was familiar with de-insuring and would
likely do this since he would not be on Arizona roads in the short term. He thanked us for getting with
MVD to determine a course of action.

1404438.

DES – Medical Benefits and Eligibility – AHCCCS

A citizen stated she felt like she was getting the run-around from the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System (AHCCCS), regarding whether they would pay a medical bill incurred on 3/14/13.
The citizen stated that the Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide Office had previously helped her with a bill
AHCCCS was responsible for, but she still had two larger bills the agency had not paid. The citizen
stated she has tried multiple times to communicate with the DES client Advocacy Office for AHCCCS
with no success. The citizen said the medical providers are threatening to take her to collection if the
bills are not paid in full.
Originally, the Office of Client Advocacy sent a letter on 6/5/14 to both of the providers asking them to
stop billing the citizen. The Office of Client Advocacy also suggested the citizen wait another month to
see if she received another past due notice from the provider. DES told the woman to contact them
again if she received such a notice. The citizen contacted AHCCCS upon receiving another past due
notice, but AHCCCS still had not resolved the issue.
We contacted AHCCCS and reviewed the situation with the agency. The Office of Client Advocacy then
contacted the unit responsible for the problem. The agency paid both outstanding bills in full and
verified there are no additional problems.
We informed the citizen that AHCCCS had fixed their error. We also informed the citizen she could
contact us back if she had any further questions or concerns.

12

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION IN DCS CASES
The Ombudsman Office looks into complaints people have against the Department of Child Safety
(DCS). Parents, grandparents, and other relatives of the child seek help from our office when they
believe DCS has treated them unfairly. Other sources of complaints include foster parents, adoptive
parents, community service providers and members of the state legislature.
The majority of the coaching and assistance inquiries we receive involve clarification of DCS
recommended services, explanation of the DCS and dependency processes, facilitation of
communication by the case worker and legal counsel, and explanations about visitation or placement
issues.
We contact DCS to gather agency administrators’
Our Department of Child Safety
perspectives on assistance and investigation complaints.
cases were almost 37% of our total
Typically, a phone call or e-mail message to DCS staff can
caseload.
resolve frequently received complaints such as caseworker
assignment problems, copies of case plans, failure to
receive notification of staff meetings, requests for Foster Care Review Board (FCRB), or court hearing
dates. Case managers, supervisors or upper DCS management offer clarity to events, laws or policies
and procedures. We facilitate clear communication between families, our office and the various
points of contact within the Department of Child Safety.
Additionally, some of the complaints we receive require an in-depth review of the case and direct
contact with the caseworker or agency representative. These are often complaints where residents
feel that the agency violated their rights or failed to provide adequate services. With these
complaints, our office may initiate full-file reviews, request documents and other supporting data or
meet with DCS staff. We review case correspondence, therapeutic reports and the DCS CHILDS
database as sources of information to help facilitate the resolution of disputes.
Many of the complaints that we address are fairly isolated or case specific. However, for some issues,
we identify patterns among multiple complaints that indicate systemic issues or deficiencies regarding
DCS actions. In these situations, resolving one particular complaint is not enough. Instead, we
identify the recurring issues and bring them to the attention of DCS management for systemic
resolution.

NEW FEATURES IN OUR CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND WEBSITE
In 2014, we expanded the capabilities of our case management system. We added a new DCS tab that
captured data relating to source of complaints, type of complaint and region where the complaint
13

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
originated. It also stored the DCS CHILDS number in a searchable field. We also added a DCS tab to
our website, see Exhibit 1.

OMBUDSMAN DCS CASE LOG 2014 KEY CATEGORIES
The following chart shows who and where some of our DCS calls come from as well as the type of
complaints.
DCS Complainant Information Chart – January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2014
DCS Complainant Source Relationship
Parent
1105
Kin
287
Service Provider
14
Other
45
DCYF Region
Central
282
Southwestern
219
Northern
52
Pima
76
Southeastern
26
Type of Complaint
Problems with Communication
558
Placement Problems
273
Unfair Removal
226
Inconsistent Visitation
157
Lack of Service
103
Inadequate Efforts Towards Case Goal
58
Other
117

14

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION IN DCS CASES
Below are some examples where our intervention helped resolve concerns with DCS.
Did we resolve a case that no one else was able to resolve internally?
1403650.
DCS – Department of Child Safety
A foster father was upset that after being placement for a Navajo child for an entire year, DCS
finally found a tribal placement and quickly decided to move the child out of his home after
only a week of transition visits. The foster father thought the agency acted too fast. In
addition, the foster father felt that DCS should still be looking at him as the adoptive
placement.
We spoke with the foster father about the Indian Child Welfare Act, which stipulates that DCS
must make all efforts to place a Native American child with a Native American placement. We
explained the removal process and the foster father said there was not a court order yet. We
checked to see if DCS requested that the judge change the placement before they removed the
child.
The agency explained that the quick transition was due to the child's young age. With very
young children, the agency said it often moves more quickly as long as there are no
extenuating circumstances inhibiting the child' ability to bond with the new placement.
However, the agency admitted that the request for change of physical custody had not been
formally requested yet, and had the worker file the appropriate paperwork. They put the
removal on hold until the judge decided on the request. They explained they would notify the
foster father about the upcoming hearing at which time he would be able to share his opinion
with the judge.
We let the foster father know that the agency was acting within the law and his only hope for
delay of transition or adoption was with the judge. He said he understood and would try to
make his best argument to the judge. He said he would call us to update us on the outcome
and thanked us for all the support and assistance. He later called us back to say the judge
decided the ICWA compliant placement would be allowed to adopt, but he had provided more
time for the transition in order for the child to become more familiar with her new home.

1404743.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A mother stated the father of her children lives in the same house as her and their children.
The father has other children with another mother who is currently involved in a DCS case.
The mother stated DCS opened a case against her, to force the father of her children to move
out of their home. The mother also stated DCS required a safety monitor in place for the
children to have visitation with their father. This case has been open for a couple of months;
15

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
the mother has no concerns about the father. She would like the father to move back into
their home and have the safety plan lifted. The mother said DCS was not appropriately
working the case or communicating with the family.
We reviewed the case information and asked DCS to do likewise. DCS stated they are not
opposed to the father returning to his home and being in the presence of his children. DCS
still wanted the father to attend parenting classes. DCS said the specialist would follow up with
both of the parents on the importance of the services being completed. DCS stated both
parents would be notified of this information.
We followed up with the mother who stated DCS called her and the father and informed them
he could move home. The mother thanked us for looking into the case. We informed the
mother that if she had any further concerns or questions she could contact us.

1405057.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A grandmother asked how she could get overnight visitation with her granddaughter. She and
her husband planned to travel to their winter home in Arizona and visit the granddaughter.
Department of Child Safety (DCS) placed the child with the father, but the grandparents
wanted to take the granddaughter to their home for an overnight or weekend visit. The DCS
case manager had told the grandmother she would be unable to get approval to have their
granddaughter at their home.
DCS has to approve all temporary visits when children are dependents of the state. We asked
DCS managers to examine the situation and explain why the grandparents were not getting
the courtesy of an evaluation regarding their fitness to have their grandchild visit overnight.
We asked DCS to explain what process the grandparents would need to complete in order to
be considered for overnight or weekend visitation. DCS agreed to examine the grandparents.
The grandmother informed us that the DCS case manager had contacted her a few days later.
The grandmother said DCS explained why they had originally denied the grandparents. The
grandmother was happy to report that the case manager had completed assessment checks
and had arranged for a walk through home inspection. DCS then approved the upcoming
holiday weekend visitation and the family anticipated future visitations. The grandmother was
happy we succeeded in getting DCS to evaluate them and thought it would be good for the
child’s well-being.

16

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Did we discover a cover-up of the truth or other ethical lapse?
1404738.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A mother complained about DCS providing inaccurate information to the courts. The mother
had an open family court matter in which the presiding judge in the case entered a minute
entry saying the judge relied on false information about positive drug tests from DCS to render
a decision that adversely affected the mother. The mother asked if something could be done
to correct the wrong.
We contacted DCS Crisis Management and asked them to look into the situation. They did so
and stated that the judge, outside of court, contacted their case manager, but the case
manager did not provide the information contained in the court minutes on which the judge
based the ruling. The case manager said she never claimed the mother had any bad drug
tests. Further, the case manager said she had a witness to the conversation who corroborated
that the judge was the one who erred.
Because it appeared the judge in the case was wrong on the facts and that she possibly relied
on ex parte information to make a ruling, we referred the matter to the presiding judge of the
Maricopa County Superior Court for further review. The judge referred the matter to the
Commission on Judicial Conduct.
We informed the mother about the Ombudsman notifying the presiding judge. She expressed
her gratitude for our efforts.

Have individual cases caused us to identify any trends?
1404781.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A mother stated she had a previous case with DCS, and it was closed as unsubstantiated. The
mother stated DCS contacted her again and informed her there was another report against
her and the agency would need to do another investigation into those concerns. The mother
stated the caseworker (CM) came to her home and interviewed her children and informed her
the case be closed as unsubstantiated.
The mother stated after a long period of time she was contacted by DCS and informed the
original caseworker who came to her home and interviewed her children was no longer
employed with DCS and the agency would need to repeat the investigation again. The mother
stated DCS should have better records because redoing the investigation was traumatizing and
an inefficient use of state resources. She said it was not her fault the caseworker failed to
adequately document the situation and was no longer employed at DCS.

17

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
DCS informed us they need to complete the investigation again because the previous worker
did not document anything. DCS stated the agency is required to have everything documented
prior to closing a case. DCS stated the Department does not have a policy regarding "reinvestigating" a case when a Child Safety Specialist does not appropriately document
information in the case file, prior to leaving his/her position. The agency said the Department,
“strives to complete investigations in a timely manner and not having to complete a
reinvestigation to a report." The department also stated, "By law, DCS must investigate all
reports to ensure child safety, which is why the parent was told the case must be
reinvestigated by a new Specialist. DCS also stated the family continues to have their rights
outlined in Chapter 2: Section 3 Interviews."
Because we have seen similar cases, we recommended that DCS management develop policies
to prevent these systemic problems. It is part of our larger compilation of issues we have
identified with DCS.

Have we identified patterns of statutory noncompliance that indicate a systemic issue?
1402624.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A grandfather stated that DCS decided to deny him as a placement. We asked whether DCS
sent him a denial letter or notified him of his appeal rights. He said that DCS did not do so. He
also mentioned that he was interested in visitation with his grandchild, but DCS told him it did
not have enough people to provide visitation for him.
We checked in to CHILDS and saw that DCS did have concerns about the grandfather's ability
to be placement, but none of them were safety concerns. We did not see any documentation
about a denial letter. We contacted DCS, and the agency confirmed that the previous case
team did not send him a denial letter.
DCS said it would meet with the grandfather and send him a denial letter. DCS also shared
further concerns that we did not find in the CHILDS system that ruled the grandfather out for
placement and unsupervised visitation.
We contacted the grandfather and notified him he would soon be getting a denial letter. He
stated he spoke with the new caseworker who set up a meeting with the grandfather to
discuss why he was not chosen as a placement. He asked if he could update us on the
outcome of the meeting. We told him he could. He thanked us for our assistance.
Although we closed this case, we have since identified additional cases in which DCS does not
provide formal denial letters to prospective placements as required by law. We have brought
18

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
this systemic issue to DCS management’s attention as a part of a larger compilation of issues
and troubling trends that we have identified with DCS.

1405242.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A mother contacted us regarding an open Department of Child Safety (DCS) case involving her
teenage daughter. The mother said that the DCS involvement began because her 17-year-old
daughter intentionally overdosed on her medication.
The mother said that the daughter had a history of overdosing on medication and cutting
herself to the point where she would have to go to the hospital. The mother said that,
because of the daughter's latest overdose, DCS began investigating in July of 2014. The
mother said the investigator eventually told her that the report against her would be
unsubstantiated.
The mother said she received an email from DCS in September of 2014 stating that the agency
was closing her case. However, the mother contacted us in October of 2014 and said DCS had
not closed her case.
We contacted DCS in late October of 2014 to find out about the status of her matter. It took
some prodding to get an answer. DCS told us the following in November of 2014, "The
allegations are unsubstantiated. The case will be closed as soon as notes are entered and a
clinical staffing with the supervisor has been completed."
About a week later, we followed up with DCS to see if they closed the case. DCS said that it
was still open, and there was no time frame on when the agency would close it.
We followed up with DCS again in December of 2014. The case had still not been closed. We
followed up again in mid-January of 2015. DCS explained that the case had been closed on
January 13, 2015, and a closing letter had been sent to the mother.
We contacted the mother. She said that her daughter had been murdered in December of
2014. The mother said that she had not yet received a closing letter from DCS. We contacted
DCS again, and DCS agreed to mail the mother another closing letter.
We have subsequently had several cases in which DCS failed to provide closing letters to
parents, including follow up by this same mother. A month after DCS staff represented it
would get the mother a closing letter; she still had not received the letter. We have brought
this systemic issue to DCS management’s attention as a part of a larger compilation of issues
we have identified with DCS. Management has said they will study the situation and then
work with us to correct the systemic problems.
19

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Did our intervention lead to a change in an agency's procedure or practice/ correct a
systemic problem?
1404458.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A mother contacted us regarding her confusion about an ongoing Department of Child Safety
(DCS) investigation.
The mother said that a DCS specialist interviewed her and her husband via telephone about
their niece who lives in Washington. There had been a report made against the husband to
DCS regarding the niece.
The mother said that she and her husband later received by mail a “Notice of Duty to Inform”
indicating that DCS had opened an investigation for "neglect."
She faxed the Notice to our office. It contained various outdated information, such as
references to "CPS" and the contact information for a defunct Mediation Program at the
Attorney General's office. Additionally, the Notice contained no contact information for DCS or
the employee who interviewed them and prepared the Notice. The Notice, however, did
include the phone number to our office.
Our office developed a list of findings about the outdated notice and made suggestions to DCS
as to how the Notice of Duty to Inform should be restructured to correct the problems. We
informed DCS. DCS said that they would address the problem. A few days later, DCS sent us a
revised Notice of Duty to Inform template that corrected the inaccurate and outdated
information. DCS distributed the new form to all employees and instructed them to discard
the old version of the form.

Did our intervention result in financial savings or correct a financial problem for a citizen?
1404979.

DCS – Department of Child Safety

A foster care provider asked for help with getting a payment for emergency clothing allowance
from the Department of Child Safety (DCS.)
We reviewed the information and then contacted DCS. DCS performed a review and concurred
that the child’s caretaker had not been given the clothing allowance she was entitled to
receive. DCS informed its payments department about the problem situation.
The foster care provider contacted our office to confirm she had received the clothing
allowance payment from DCS. She thanked the Ombudsman for our assistance with getting
the payment confirmation.

20

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION IN PUBLIC ACCESS CASES
Outreach and Education
Educational Materials
We released updated Ombudsman Booklets on Public Records Law and Open Meeting Law on
our website and in hard copy. To date, over 600 newly updated public access booklets have
been distributed to elected officials, public employees, advocacy groups and members of the
public. In addition, our office shares and helps to develop training materials for public bodies.
We updated our website with publications, training opportunities, and developments in the
open meeting and public records law: new case law, legislation, and Attorney General
Opinions.
In response to several complaints, we requested an Attorney General Opinion to clarify the
amount that agencies may charge to inspect records. The existing law in this area is limited
and we frequently received complaints from residents and the media about inconsistent
policies by various public agencies. We also found in our trainings that many public employees
had different interpretations of what was required by law. The Attorney General’s Office
responded with a detailed and informative opinion No. I13-12 Charging Copying Fees under
Arizona’s Public Records Law. The opinion has been widely praised by the public and the
media as providing clear, uniform guidance to public agencies.
Trainings
There is a large demand for training throughout the State. During the 2014, our public access
attorney, Kathryn Marquoit, provided live training sessions for the Governor’s Council on
Aging, the State Land Department, the City of Tempe, the Town of Quartzsite, and the Arizona
State Schools for the Deaf and Blind. In an effort to streamline training and reduce expenses,
our public access attorney has successfully worked with several counties to coordinate
centralized trainings; reaching out to the various local entities: county departments, towns,
cities, local boards, commissions, and committees, school districts, charter schools, fire
districts, and all special districts. Additionally, for the first time, we posted Public Records Law
and Open Meeting Law video trainings on our website to target individuals in more rural areas
and remote municipalities of the state. In 2014, over 100 residents viewed these training
videos.
In addition to trainings discussing the public access requirements generally, we developed and
presented customized trainings to address specific needs of public officials upon request. One
of these trainings included a detailed discussion of the Open Meeting Law requirements of
subcommittees with the Central Arizona Project.

21

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Inquiries and Investigations
In the 2014, our office received 667 calls regarding matters related to public access. Of those
calls, 480 were public record inquires and 187 were open meeting inquiries. Table 1 provides a
breakdown of the number of inquiries received from the public, the media, and government
agencies. Table 2 provides the number of inquiries received about state agencies, county
agencies, city or town agencies, school districts, and other local jurisdictions.
Table 1

Number of inquires

Public Inquiries

Media Inquiries

463

33

Government
Agency Inquiries
171

Table 2

Number of
inquires

State
Agencies

County
Agencies

251

116

City or
town
agencies
133

School
Districts

Other Local
Jurisdictions

83

84

Public Access Case Examples
Did we resolve a case that no one else was able to resolve internally?
1403909.
Mesa Police Department
A resident complained that the police report that she received from Mesa Police Department
was fully redacted. We reviewed the record and discussed it with the Mesa Records Clerk. The
record is a CAD report. The police were contacted by Magellan for an "agency assist" under
ARS 36-524. For this type of police action, the only record is in the CAD system and no police
report is generated. The material in the CAD system is MVD records and NCIS information. This
material is confidential by statute. We discussed the findings with the resident.
Did we provide an alternative avenue to a more expensive dispute resolution mechanism?
1403219.
Mescal J-6 Fire District
A resident complained that a fire district did not properly post their budget consistent with the
Open Meeting Law and ARS 48-805.2. We discussed the posting violation with the fire district
and they agreed to ratify the vote at the next regularly scheduled meeting. We referred them
to the County Attorney's office for the complaint related to ARS 48-805.2. The County failed to
ratify the vote. We conducted a full investigation and issued a report.

22

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
1403096.
Deer Valley Unified School District
The clerk of a school district met with us to discuss their response to a voluminous request.
The clerk told us that a parent requested all emails for all employees for two years. The district
estimated that this would include approximate 900,000 emails and extensive staff time to
produce the records. We discussed that there are several ways to respond to this type of
request. The first is that the public body should work with the requestor to narrow her
request. This generally includes providing search terms, limiting the time period and/or
limiting the number of employees involved. We encouraged the clerk to provide any
information that would assist the requestor in narrowing her request including organizational
charts for the relevant period and an explanation of the school's process for handling the
incident so the requestor has knowledge of who would have the relevant materials.
We also discussed that it is possible to deny the request as vague and burdensome. However,
we strongly discourage taking this approach due to the risk of liability involved.
The alternative is to begin processing the request for the 900,000 emails. An agency is required
to promptly furnish public records to the requestor. “Promptly” is not defined by statute. The
courts have held that defining promptness depends on what is reasonable under the
circumstances. The relevant factors to consider are the agency’s resources, the nature of the
request, the content of the records and the location of the records. The following is the
relevant case law in Arizona:
Public records law does not require that public records be furnished within a specific number
of days after receipt of the request; rather, in the context of statute providing that access to a
public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond to a request, the word
“prompt” means quick to act, or requires production of the requested records without delay.
Lake v. City of Phoenix (App. Div.1 2009) 220 Ariz. 472, 207 P.3d 725, review granted in part,
vacated in part 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004.
Under the public records statute, the public official from whom records have been requested
has the burden of establishing that its responses to the requests were prompt given the
circumstances surrounding each request. Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio (App. Div.1 2008)
217 Ariz. 533, 177 P.3d 275, review denied.
While processing the request, it is important to keep documentation regarding the staff time,
type of records, location of records, content of the records, number of public records requests
received per month and any other resources that contribute to the delay of production. It is
important to keep of a record of a good faith effort to disclose the records quickly in
compliance with the Public Records Law. The district may ask the requestor if they would like
to review the records as they become available or to wait until the request is complete.

23

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
We also discussed the use of redaction software. The clerk stated that the district has
redaction software but it does not catch all of the material that is
confidential. Therefore, all of the records must be reviewed after the
redaction software has performed the redactions. We discussed that
releasing records that are confidential by state law, federal law or a
In 98.32% of the
recognized privilege could carry statutory penalties. There is case law
time, we
which states that release of confidential material in good faith
responded within
compliance with the public records law grants qualified immunity to
2 days.
the public entity. It is unclear whether this extends to material that is
confidential by statute. The district should consult with their agency's
legal counsel to determine the best course for redactions. Peoria
Unified School District is currently engaged in public records litigation
in the lower courts. It may be helpful to review the lower court judge's ruling to determine
how the district's situation may be viewed.
Our intervention identified a problem with a statute, rule, or policy.
1403479.
DHS – Department of Health Services
A reporter requested assistance with a public records request for the Department of Health
Services (DHS) database information. The database originated from a federal agency that
contracted to employ state employees for part of their program. DHS has comingled the
federally contracted records with purely state agency records and was limited in what they
could produce pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law. We researched the cases that may
be applicable and were unable to find any material that would compel DHS to release the
records. The reporter contacted the publication's legal counsel. Since the reporter has engaged
their attorney, we are declining to continue with the case.
1403842.
DHS – Department of Health Services
A reporter requested assistance with a public records request for health facility complaints.
The Department of Health Services denied the request based on the language in ARS 36-404.
We discussed the statutory interpretation with their Assistant Attorney General. They
explained that many components of the complaint would lead the reader to determine the
identity of the complainant, which causes them to withhold the complaint in its entirety. They
also state that the difference in the wording in (A)(3) "source information" and (B) "source
name" indicate that the legislative intent is for broad interpretation.
1404184.
Unknown state agency
A resident requested clarification on whether an independent contractor could be discussed in
executive session. We discussed that the personnel provision does not apply to independent
contractors but the agency could get legal advice about the contractor's contract in executive
session.
24

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Did our intervention lead to a change in an agency's procedure or practice/ correct a
systemic problem?
1404319.
Scottsdale
A resident complained that the city of Scottsdale is not posting meetings between city
employees and the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy. The members of the McDowell Sonoran
Preserve Commission, a standing committee for the city, were attending these meetings. We
discussed the meeting and could not find a violation. However, we contacted the city and
asked them to consider posting a courtesy notice to avoid an appearance of impropriety.
Did our intervention result in better service to citizens?
1403124.
Mojave County
Staff at Mohave County requested clarification on how to respond to a public records request
for applications and resumes for the Sheriff position. We discussed the applicable case which
states that the names and resumes of persons in the final candidate pool for appointment to
presidency of a state university were subject to disclosure because the final candidates knew
they were being considered for the position, had expressed desire for it and the public had
legitimate interest in names of persons being seriously considered for an important position.
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. (1991) 167 Ariz. 254, 806 P.2d 348. Since
the Sheriff’s office is a high profile position within the community, we suggested release of
appropriately redacted final candidate applications and resumes.

Our Cases – Statistics of Note
OVERALL CASE STATISTICS
As explained on page 2 of this report, we respond to citizens’ complaints in three ways:
coaching, informal assistance or investigation. In summary, we had 5242 citizens contact us
with a problem for year 2014. In 98.32% of the time, we responded within 2 days. We
handled or solved 97.20% of the cases in 3 months. We made 291 recommendations to
agencies. Of those, 288 were accepted. Thus, the percentage of recommendations accepted
by agencies was 98.97 %. Below is a numeric summary of cases for 2014. The caseload
totaled 5,242 for this report.

25

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
INVESTIGATIONS
We managed our 226 investigations in 2014 as highlighted in the following tables.

Table 3 - Investigations – January 1-December 31, 2014
Declined*

13

Complaint withdrawn or resolved during investigation

4

Investigations completed

200

Ongoing

9

TOTAL INVESTIGATIONS

226

* A.R.S. § 41-1377(C) gives the Ombudsman-Citizens' Aide the statutory authority to decline to investigate a complaint.

Table 4 - Investigative Findings – January 1-December 31, 2014
SUPPORTED/PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
Requires further consideration by agency
Other action by agency required
Referred to the legislature for further action
Action was arbitrary or capricious
Action was abuse of discretion
Administrative act requires modification/cancellation
Action was not according to law
Reasons for administrative act required
Statute or Rule requires amendment
Insufficient or no grounds for administrative act
INDETERMINATE
NOT SUPPORTED
TOTAL COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS

26

56
24
16
0
0
0
4
12
0
1
2
28
116
200

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
CONTACTS BY AGENCY
Between January 1 and December 31, 2014, our office handled cases involving 221 agencies.
The following table shows the distribution of our contacts by agency. Cases involving Child
Protective Services comprised 36.7% of our total for 2014.

CONTACTS BY AGENCY
Agency
Accountancy Board
Administration, Department of
Administrative Hearings, Office of
Agriculture, Department of
AHCCCS
Apache County
Apache County Attorney's Office
Apache County Planning and Zoning Board
Apache Junction
Appraisal, Arizona Board of
Arizona Association of Counties
Arizona Behavioral Health Planning Council
Arizona City Sanitary District
Arizona Power Authority
Arizona State Hospital
Arizona State University Police Department
ASU -Arizona State University
Attorney General, Office of
Auditor General
Avondale
Avondale Elementary School District
AZ Peace Officer Standards & Training Board
Ball Charter Schools
Barbers, Arizona Board of
Behavioral Health Examiners, State Board of
Benson
Bisbee
Black Canyon Fire District
Buckeye
Buckskin Fire Department
Cartwright
Casa Grande
Central Arizona Project
Chandler
Chandler Police Department

Coaching
3
11
1
2
36
14
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
6
46
2
1
1
2
3
1
10
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
2
27

Assistance
2
6
1
0
58
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

Investigation
0
2
0
0
3
5
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
5
19
2
2
97
22
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
3
4
1
6
59
3
2
1
2
3
1
30
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
2
1
2

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Charter Schools, Arizona State Board of
Chinle Unified School District
Chino Valley
Chloride Water Improvement District
Clarkdale
Cochise County
Coconino County
Commission of Judicial Conduct
Community College, State Board of
Concho Fire District
Corporation Commission
Corrections, Department of
Cosmetology, Board of
Council of Developmental Disabilities
DCS - Department of Child Safety
DCS - Office of Licensing Certification
Regulation
DCS - Other
Deaf and Blind, Arizona School for the
Deer Valley Unified School District
Dental Examiners, Board of
Department of Economic Security
DES - Aging & Community Services
DES - Benefits and Medical Eligibility
DES - Child Support Service
DES - Developmental Disabilities
DES - Employment and Rehabilitation
DES - Other
DES- Adult Protective Services
Desert Marigold School
Developmental Disabilities Council
Dewey-Humboldt
Eagar
Education, Department of
El Mirage
Emergency & Military Affairs, Department of
Environmental Quality, Department of
Executive Clemency, Board of
Financial Institutions, Arizona Department
of
Fingerprinting, Board of
Fire Building and Life Safety, Department of
First Things First

1
0
2
4
2
16
1
5
1
3
13
30
0
1
1268

1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
1
549

0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
89

2
1
2
4
2
20
1
5
1
3
20
33
4
2
1906

15

3

1

19

8
1
9
17
6
225
78
31
9
30
16
10
14
1
4
1
8
1
1
5
0

2
0
2
3
2
7
309
78
7
80
12
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1

0
0
4
0
3
1
3
6
1
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

10
1
15
20
11
233
390
115
17
116
28
18
15
2
4
1
11
1
2
5
1

11

0

0

11

1
11
0

1
1
1

0
0
1

2
12
2

28

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Flagstaff
Funeral Directors & Embalmers, State Board
of
Game and Fish, Department of
Geological Survey, Arizona
Gila County
Gilbert
Gilbert Public Schools
Glendale
Golden Valley Fire District
Goodyear
Governor, Office of
Governor's Council on Blindness and Visual
Impairment
Graham County
Green Valley
GRRC
Harquahala Valley Fire District
Health Services, Department of
Health Services, Vital Records Office
Higley School District
Historical Society, Arizona
Homeopathic Board of
Housing, Department of
Indian Affairs, Arizona Commission of
Industrial Commission
Insurance, Department of
Jerome
Joint Legislative Budget Committee
Judicial Conduct, Commission on
Kyrene Unified School District
Land, Department of
Legislature
Library, Archive & Records Dept.
Liquor Licenses and Control, Department of
Littleton Elementary School District
Lottery
Marana
Maricopa
Maricopa County Attorney
Maricopa County Clerk
Maricopa County Community Colleges
Maricopa County Constables

1

0

0

1

9

1

0

10

7
0
1
1
2
4
13
1
14

3
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2

4
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0

14
1
1
1
2
6
18
1
16

1

0

0

1

1
0
1
4
45
6
1
0
2
10
1
31
23
1
1
11
1
2
27
3
5
1
3
1
8
1
1
4
1

0
1
0
0
10
1
0
1
0
2
0
12
4
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
4
59
7
1
1
2
12
1
44
28
1
1
11
1
5
29
3
7
1
5
1
8
1
1
5
2

29

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Maricopa County Elections
Maricopa County Medical Examiner
Maricopa County Sheriff
Maricopa County Superior Court
Massage Therapy, State Board of
Mayer Fire District
Mayer Water District
Medical Board, Arizona
Mesa
Mescal J-6 Fire District
Miami
Miami School District
Mine Inspector
Mohave Board of Supervisors
Mojave
Navajo
Nogales Unified School District
Nursing Care Institution Administrators &
Assisted Living Managers Examiners Board
Nursing, State Board of
Nutrioso Fire District
Ombudsman
Optometry, State Board of
Oro Valley
Other - Government
Other - Private
Other-federal
Paradise Valley
Parks, Department of
Patagonia
Payson
Peoria
Personnel Board
Pest Management, Office of
Pharmacy, Board
Phoenix
Phoenix Police Department
Physical Therapy Examiners, Board of
Physician Assistants, AZ Regulatory Board of
Pima
Pima County Clerk
Pima County Sheriff's office
Pinal

1
1
7
3
1
1
4
38
3
0
2
1
1
1
4
1
1

0
0
0
0
2
1
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0
1
6
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
8
3
3
2
5
58
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
1

2

0

0

2

15
2
97
1
1
291
374
56
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
3
5
1
1
1
3
0
4
3

21
0
5
1
0
6
12
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0

4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
2

40
2
102
2
1
300
386
59
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
5
6
2
2
3
5
1
4
5

30

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
Pinal County Attorney's Office
Pinal County Sheriff's Office
Podiatry Examiners, State Board of
Prescott
Prescott Valley
Private Post-Secondary Education, Board for
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System
Public Safety, Department of
Quartzite City Clerk
Quartzsite
Racing, Department of
Radiation Regulatory Agency
Real Estate, Department of
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System, Arizona State
Revenue, Department of
Rio Rico Fire District
Riverside School District
Roosevelt School District
School Facilities Board
Scottsdale
Scottsdale Police Department
Scottsdale Unified School District
Secretary of State, Office of
Sedona
Sheriff's Posse Road Improvement District
Sierra Vista
State Court
Sunburst Farms Irrigation District
Superior Court
Supreme Court
Surprise
Technical Registration, Board of
Tempe
Tombstone Unified School District
Transportation, Department of
Transportation-Motor Vehicle Division
Tucson
Tucson Police Department
Tucson Unified School District
University of Arizona
unknown
unknown charter school

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
5
1
6
4
3
9
9
3
14
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
5
2
1
2
1
10
9
2
3
1
3
1
4
17
3
3
1
2
16
11
31

0
0
5
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
6
17
2
19
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
9
27
1
0
0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
8
1
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
6
1
1
1
3
10
1
6
6
3
16
32
6
34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
3
1
3
1
10
9
2
3
8
3
1
15
52
5
3
1
3
16
12

OPTIMIZING OUR STATE GOVERNMENT
unknown city
Unknown Community College
unknown fire district
unknown school district
Unknown state agency
Upper San Pedro Partnership
Various
Various Charter Schools
Various Cities/Towns
Various school districts
Veterans Home
Veterans' Services, Department of
Veterinary Medical Examining Board
Water Resources, Department of
Weights and Measures, Department of
Yavapai County
Yuma City
Yuma County
Yuma Police Department
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTACTS

16
1
11
13
77
1
1
2
0
1
0
7
4
3
28
2
18
8
1
3571

32

1
0
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
3
1
6
0
1
0
2
1430

1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
4
2
0
241

18
1
12
17
83
1
1
2
1
2
1
10
8
4
37
2
23
10
3
5242

WHO WE ARE
About the Ombudsman and Staff
Dennis Wells - Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide.
Dennis became Ombudsman Citizens Aide on July 2, 2012 following confirmation by the
Legislature and Governor in early 2012. Dennis holds a Masters Degree in Public
Administration from Northern Arizona University and a Bachelor of Science in Geology. His
educational background also includes a fellowship at Harvard regarding studies in State and
Local Government. He has ombudsman training prescribed by the U.S. Ombudsman
Association (USOA) and is an investigator certified by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement &
Regulation (CLEAR). He has public and private sector experience. In the public sector, Dennis
was an elected supervisor and chairman of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors, State
Land Commissioner for Arizona, a member of the Arizona State Parks Board and served as City
Manager for Williams, Arizona. Dennis’ public service also includes serving on the Board of
Directors, Foundation for Flagstaff Medical Center and as a board member of the Arizona City
and County Managers Association. In the private sector, Dennis began his career working in
the family business, The Williams Grand Canyon News, which has been continuously published
by the Wells’ family for 100 years. Following graduation from Northern Arizona University,
Dennis worked for private firms in oil exploration and drilling in Texas, Louisiana and overseas
(Africa and the Middle East).

Joanne MacDonnell - Deputy Ombudsman.
Joanne joined the office as Deputy Ombudsman in 2005 after serving nearly eight years as the
Arizona Corporation Commission Director of Corporations. Prior to working in government,
Joanne worked in the private sector at FCC Investors, Inc. (dba: Valley Seed Company), serving
on the Board of Directors and as an accountant. She also worked in real estate as a licensed
Realtor associate and real estate appraiser. Joanne has Bachelor of Science degrees in
Business Administration and Real Estate from the University of Arizona, is an investigator
certified by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement & Regulation (CLEAR) and completed
mediation training through South Mountain Community College. She has additional training
including the Executive Course, Project & Investment Justification Training, various risk
management, procurement and ethics courses through Arizona Government University; the
Leadership Module through Rio Salado College and AZGU; and ombudsman training prescribed
by the U.S. Ombudsman Association (USOA). She is active in the U.S. Ombudsman Association,
serving as a Board Member and led the Children and Family Committee for two years. She is
also a member of the Association for Conflict Resolution, qualified in the “Practitioner”
category. She is a member of the DCS Citizen Review Panel Committee, the Arizona Court
Improvement Committee and the Court Parent Representation Committee. She is a judge for
the Central Arizona BBB Business Ethics Award.

33

WHO WE ARE
Sarah Bruce - Assistant Ombudsman.
Sarah officially joined the Ombudsman office in 2013, after serving as an intern and
contractual employee with the office. She previously interned with the Gila River Indian
Community Employment and Training Department, where she worked with pre-teens and
teens as a Workforce Investment Act Youth Counselor. Prior to that, she worked as a Quality
Assurance Supervisor for Western Wats, a national tele-survey company. Educationally, she
has received her Bachelor of Art degree in History from Arizona State University.
Since starting with the office, Sarah has completed ombudsman training prescribed by the
United States Ombudsman Association (USOA). The Council on Licensure, Enforcement and
Regulation (CLEAR) has certified her as an administrative investigator after she completed the
National Certified Investigator Basic Training. She also has clearance for investigatory purposes
into the Department of Child Safety Children’s Information Library & Data Source (CHILDS)
Program after completing training with the Child Welfare Training Institution and Department
of Economic Security. She is also a former associate member of the National Indian Child
Welfare Association.

Danee Garone – Investigator/Writer.
Danee joined the Ombudsman’s office in 2014. He completed United States Ombudsman
Association new ombudsman training in 2014. Prior to joining the Ombudsman’s office, Danee
completed a legal internship with the Arizona House of Representatives. Additionally, he
completed a legal externship with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
and interned for the United States Small Business Administration. He has a Juris Doctor degree
from the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at Arizona State University and is a licensed
attorney. Additionally, he graduated from Arizona State University summa cum laude with a
Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass
Communication and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.

Aimee Hamilton – Assistant Intake Ombudsman.
Aimee joined the Ombudsman office in 2014. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 2000
from Adams State College in Alamosa, Colorado. Before joining the Ombudsman office, Aimee
worked for 3 1/2 years in Vancouver, Washington as a case manager for homeless individuals
and families on transitional housing. Prior to that, she worked for the Jobs Program with
MAXIMUS in the Phoenix area assisting families who received state cash assistance. She also
has extensive experience in customer service in the non-profit, financial and mortgage
industries.

Kathryn Marquoit - Assistant Ombudsman for Public Access.
Kathryn is an attorney who joined the office in 2011 after managing the Phoenix branch of
Genex Services, Inc. At Genex, Kathryn worked primarily in a program that provided Social
34

WHO WE ARE
Security Disability legal representation to disabled clients nationally. Prior to her work litigating
before the Social Security Administration, Kathryn served as member of the legal staff for the
Governor's Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) during Governor Janet Napolitano's and
Governor Jan Brewer's administrations. She has bachelor's degree from Syracuse University, a
law degree from Villanova Law School and is licensed to practice law in Arizona.

Keith Meyer – Senior Investigator/Writer Ombudsman.
Keith joined the Office of the Ombudsman in 2014 and brings with him 20 years of public
experience in Arizona State and County governments. He served in director’s offices at the
Arizona Department of Corrections, Arizona State Department of Agriculture, the Arizona State
Land Department, and Arizona State University. In Maricopa County government, he worked
at the County Attorney’s Office coordinating restitution issues with citizen victims of crime.
Other public service includes volunteering on several homeowner association boards. He has
completed ombudsman training prescribed by the United States Ombudsman Association
(USOA). Keith earned a Master’s degree in Public Administration and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Agribusiness, with a minor in Sociology, from Arizona State University.

Jennifer Olonan - Assistant Ombudsman.
Jennifer began working for the Ombudsman office in 2014. She has completed ombudsman
training prescribed by the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA). She previously
worked in the medical field as a team lead and manager, where she obtained extensive clinical
experience. She has received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Health Science (Healthcare
Policy) from Arizona State University. She is currently pursuing a Master’s of Public
Administration with an Emphasis in Government and Policy, from Grand Canyon University.
She has completed training with the Child Welfare Training Institution and Department of
Economic Security to obtain clearance for the Children’s Information Library & Data Source
(CHILDS). Jennifer is proficient in American Sign Language.

Carmen Salas - Assistant Ombudsman.
Carmen joined the Ombudsman’s office in 2005. She previously worked at the Arizona
Corporation Commission for nine years as a management analyst and supervisor. She received
her Bachelor of Science degree in Business Management from the University of Phoenix. She
has completed additional training including ethics and various risk management courses
through Arizona Government University. She has completed the Leadership Module through
AZGU, is an investigator certified by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement & Regulation
(CLEAR), has ombudsman training prescribed by the U.S. Ombudsman Association (USOA) and
has completed mediation training. She has also completed training with the Child Welfare
Training Institution and Department of Economic Security to obtain clearance for the Children’s
Information Library & Data Source (CHILDS). Carmen is fluent in Spanish.

35

EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT 1

36

EXHIBIT

37

EXHIBIT

38