121119 SPECIAL - PRELIMINARY REPORT.PDF

Preliminary Report on the Independent Investigation
Pertaining to Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen
Report of Findings and Statement of Charges
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B)
December 5, 2019
MITCHELL STEIN
CAREY (-IAPMAN
AI 1();NFYS AT I AW
Lee Stein
Anne M. Chapman
MITCHELL I STEIN I CAREY I CHAPMAN, PC
One Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450
Phoenix, AZ 85004
leegmscclaw.com
602-358-0290
1

Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Investigation 6
1. Investigators 6
2. Course of Investigation 9
3. Mr. Petersen's Lack of Cooperation with the Investigation 10
Background 11
1. Mr. Petersen's Appointment and Election to the Office of County Assessor and
Previous Employment at the Assessor's Office 11
2. Duties of the County Assessor 13
3. Organization and Functioning of the County Assessor's Office 15
4. Mr. Petersen's Law Practice and Adoption Business 16
5. The Criminal Charges Against Mr. Petersen 17
6. Mr. Petersen's Arrest and Period of Incarceration 19
7. Maricopa County Internal Audit High-Level Assessment 20
8. Board of Supervisors Proceedings and Correspondence Related to Suspension 22
Statement of Charges 25
Factual Findings 26
1. Operation of the Assessor's Office under Mr. Petersen and His Work in the
Office 26
2. Period of Mr. Petersen's Incarceration 28
3. Conducting Personal Law Practice with County Resources 30
A. General Conclusions 30
2

B. Select Maricopa County Policies 31
C. County Computer and Phone Use by Mr. Petersen 35
D. Mr. Petersen's Presence in the Office 39
4. Criminal Allegations 39
Legal Standards and Application 40
1. Standard for Suspension under A.R.S. § 11-664 40
A. Grounds for Suspension of the Assessor under A.R.S. § 11-664:
Defalcation and Neglect of Duty 40
B. Procedure for Suspending the Assessor under A.R.S. § 11-664 44
C. Judicial Review of Suspension 45
D. Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 11-664 46
2. Potential Factual Bases for Finding Neglect of Duty 46
A. Mr. Petersen's Violations of County Policies on Use of Technology
Resources 47
B. Mr. Petersen's Failure to Cooperate with This Investigation 49
C. Mr. Petersen's Twenty-Day Incarceration 50
3. Other Considerations 50
A. Criminal Statutes 50
B. Other Statutes 51
4. Removal from Office 52
Conclusion 54
3

Introduction
On October 9, 2019, law enforcement officials announced criminal charges against
Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen.' Mr. Petersen was indicted on federal charges
in Arkansas and on state charges in Arizona and Utah, all based on allegations connected
with his adoption-related law practice. 2 Mr. Petersen was also arrested and taken into
custody on October 8. 3
On October 23, 2019, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously
voted in an open meeting to schedule a meeting on October 28 for the purpose of
considering whether to suspend Mr. Petersen pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664 for neglect of
duty.4 The Board met on October 28 and unanimously voted to suspend Mr. Petersen
without pay for 120 days for neglect of duty based on his "failure to meaningfully
oversee the operations of his office for an extended period and repeated misuse of County
See Arizona Attorney General, Press Briefing: Maricopa County Assessor Paul D.
Petersen Indicted in Adoption Fraud Scheme (Oct. 9, 2019), available at
https://www.azag.gov/press-release/press-briefing-maricopa-county-assessor-paul-d-petersen-
indicted-adoption-fraud (Exh. 52).
2 United States of America v. Paul Petersen, Superseding Indictment, No.
S:19CR50079001, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Division (Oct. 4, 2019) (Exh. 8); State of Utah v. Paul D. Petersen, Information, No.
191910049, Third District Court Salt Lake Department, Salt Lake County, State of Utah (Oct. 2,
2019) (Exh. 9); State of Arizona v. Paul D. Petersen and Lynwood Jennet, Indictment, No. 85
SGJ 77, Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for Maiicopa County (Oct. 7, 2019) (Exh.
10).
3 Robert Anglen and Jessica Boehm, Paul Petersen Released from Federal Custody;
Headed to Court in Arizona, Utah, Arizona Republic (Oct. 29, 2019), available at
https://www. azcentral. com/story/new s/loc al/phoenix/2019/10/29/paul-petersen-appear-arkansas-
court-adoption-scam-charges/2496708001/ (Exh. 45).
4 Maiicopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Minutes, Oct. 23,
2019 (Exh. 12), at 4.

resources to conduct his private law practice." 5 Under A.R.S. § 11-664(A), because the
Board's vote was unanimous, Mr. Petersen's suspension was effective immediately. 6
Mr. Petersen was released from law enforcement custody on October 29. 7 Through
counsel, Mr. Petersen requested a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(C), 8 which the
Board of Supervisors scheduled for December 11, 2019. 9
On November 13, 2019, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B), the Board of Supervisors
requested that the County Attorney conduct an investigation regarding its bases for
suspending Mr. Petersen. 1° On November 15, 2019, County Attorney Allister Adel
retained Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman, PC, to conduct the investigation." County
Attorney Adel requested that Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman provide the "report of
findings, including a statement of charges," required by A.R.S. § 11-664(B) by December
5, 2019. 1'
5 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Summary, Oct. 28,
2019 (Exh. 13), at 2.
6 A.R.S. § 11-664(A) ("If the action of the board is a unanimous vote of the entire board,
the suspension shall be immediate."). For convenience, a copy of A.R.S. § 11-664 is included
with the exhibits as Exhibit 1.
7 Robert Anglen and Jessica Boehm, Paul Petersen Released from Federal Custody;
Headed to Court in Arizona, Utah, Arizona Republic (Oct. 29, 2019), available at
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/10/29/paul-petersen-appear-arkansas-
court-adoption-scam-charges/2496708001/ (Exh. 45).
8 Letter, Langhofer to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors re: Suspension of Maricopa
County Assessor Paul Petersen, Nov. 7, 2019 (Exh. 22).
9 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Summary, Nov. 13,
2019 (Exh. 15), at 4.
Id.
11 Letter, Adel to Stein re: Retention to conduct investigation pertaining to Assessor Paul
Petersen pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B), Nov. 15, 2019 (Exh. 3).
12 Id.
5

Given the short time available to conduct the investigation and prepare this report
of findings, this report is necessarily preliminary.
Investigation
1. Investigators
County Attorney Adel retained Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman to "conduct an
investigation as it relates to Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen pursuant to A.R.S.
§ 11-664(B)" and to submit our "findings to the County Attorney's Office, along with a
written notice and report of findings, including a statement of charges."' The County
Attorney also retained the law firm of Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, to assist with
document review and forensic analysis.' Cosmich Simmons & Brown worked under the
direction of Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman. In addition, the County Attorney retained
attorney Grant Woods to provide oversight to the overall investigation and provide
regular updates to County Attorney Ade1. 15 Mr. Woods maintained regular contact with
Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman throughout the course of the investigation and
participated in select interviews.
Lee Stein and Anne Chapman had primary responsibility for the investigation.
Lee Stein received his B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1983 and a J.D.,
magna cum laude, from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of
Law in 1988, where he was editor-in-chief of the Arizona State Law Journal and Order of
the Coif. Following graduation, Mr. Stein served as a law clerk to Arizona Supreme
Court Justice James Moeller. Mr. Stein was an Assistant United States Attorney in the
13 Id.
14 Press Release: County Attorney Outlines Investigation Process, Nov. 19, 2019 (Exh. 4).
15 Id.
6

District of Arizona from 1995 to 1998 and a Special Assistant Attorney General in the
Arizona Attorney General's office from 1999 to 2000. Before founding the law firm of
Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman, PC, Mr. Stein was a partner at Perkins Coie, LLP, where
he co-chaired the firm's national Investigations and White Collar Defense practice group.
Mr. Stein has extensive experience in internal and governmental investigations.
Anne Chapman received her B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of
Oregon in 1995, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her J.D., cum
laude, from Duke University School of Law in 1999. Ms. Chapman served as a law clerk
to the Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington. From 2002 until 2007, Ms. Chapman was an Assistant Federal Public
Defender in the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Chapman practiced at the law firm of
Osborn Maledon, PA, in Phoenix, Arizona from 2007 to 2016, where she was a partner in
the Investigations and Criminal Defense Group. Ms. Chapman joined Mitchell Stein
Carey Chapman in 2016. Ms. Chapman has been recognized by Chambers USA, Phoenix
Best Lawyers, The Best Lawyers in America, and Southwest Super Lawyers.
County Attorney Adel retained Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, to assist
Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman with document review and forensic analysis of data. 16
Matt Clarke had primary responsibility for this engagement at Cosmich Simmons &
Brown.
Over the past twenty-three years, Matt Clarke has managed a wide variety of
litigations as well as multiple internal and external investigations, including matters
related to RICO, employer discrimination, employee misconduct, criminal misconduct,
kickbacks, and financial crimes. He has tried more than twenty-five criminal and civil
16 Id.
7

jury trials to verdict, as well as numerous bench trials and arbitrations in state and federal
courts. Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Clarke was a Deputy County Attorney with
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office where, in addition to his responsibilities in the
general trial group, Mr. Clarke was a member of the joint MCAO/FBI fraud task force
and was responsible for conducting investigations into a variety of activities involving
financial crimes. For the past twelve years, Mr. Clarke's practice has been dedicated to
leading a managed review practice group where his team of more than 100 attorneys
provides managed review and related litigation and LPO support for all types of
investigations and litigations worldwide.
County Attorney Adel retained Grant Woods to provide oversight to the overall
investigation and provide regular updates to the County Attorney.' Mr. Woods graduated
from Occidental College in 1976, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He
graduated from Arizona State University College of Law in 1979. Mr. Woods served as
Arizona's Attorney General from 1991 to 1999. Mr. Woods has argued before the United
States Supreme Court. He also was one of the principal architects of the states' lawsuits
against the tobacco companies and a key negotiator in the resulting largest civil
settlement in history. Since returning to private practice in 1999, Mr. Woods has tried
many multi-million-dollar and high-profile cases, served as a special prosecutor several
times, including in cases involving public corruption, and maintained a government
relations practice.
17 Id.
8

2. Course of Investigation
Our investigation was conducted independently of the County Attorney's Office. 18
We collected and reviewed relevant documents as part of the investigation. Staff at
the County Attorney's Office and other County staff assisted us with obtaining these
records. During the investigation, data was collected from Mr. Petersen's County hard
drive and network systems. 19 The .pst files and email data extracted from Mr. Petersen's
workstation, data from the network user shares, and various user-created files found on
the workstation were searched and reviewed for the time period January 1, 2015, to date
of collection. 2° Mr. Petersen's intemet history was also evaluated as part of the
investigation. His internet history was available from November 19, 2018, through
October 2, 2019. 21
Mr. Petersen's phone records were also reviewed, but only limited data was
available.' Records from his office phone were available from January 22, 2013, to
October 2019. 23 Records were also available for Mr. Petersen's County-issued cell phone
from September 2013 to January 2014 and from May 20, 2015, to October 27, 2015. 24
Mr. Petersen's access to the County garage and badging records from internal
office areas in 2019 were also reviewed.'
18 Id.; Letter, Adel to Stein re: Retention to conduct investigation pertaining to Assessor
Paul Petersen pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B), Nov. 15, 2019 (Exh. 3).
19 See Petersen Data Analysis Report to Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman by Cosmich
Simmons, & Brown, PLLC (Exh. 5), at 1-2.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 2.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
9

We interviewed every current member of the Assessor's Office senior
management team, the executive assistant to the Assessor and his top deputies, as well as
Robert Pizomo, a senior manager who recently left the Assessor's Office. We also
interviewed Maricopa County Auditor Michael McGee and Maricopa County Human
Resources Director Jan Plank. We also spoke with Frank Boucek, Assistant Director,
Property Tax, of the Arizona Department of Revenue. Maricopa County staff assisted us
with scheduling interviews of cunent County employees.
3. Mr. Petersen's Lack of Cooperation with the Investigation
Mr. Petersen did not meaningfully cooperate with our investigation. 26 On
November 19, 2019, we requested an interview with Mr. Petersen through his counsel.'
On November 25, having not yet received a response from Mr. Petersen to our November
19 request, we invited Mr. Petersen through his counsel to provide us with written
materials that might be helpful to our investigation.' In the same November 25 letter, we
also requested that Mr. Petersen return to Maricopa County the County-owned laptop
issued to him for work on County matters so that we could review it as part of our
investigation. 29
26 Recognizing that Mr. Petersen is an elected official and not a County employee, we note
that it is an expectation that County employees will cooperate with all County investigations, and
failure to do so could result in discipline, including termination. See Maricopa County Policy,
Code of Conduct, No. HR2416, adopted Apr. 11, 2018 (Exh. 35), at 2 § V.A.3 ("Employees may
not withhold relevant information or willfully mislead an administrative investigation.").
27 Letter, Stein to Langhofer re: Maricopa County Attorney's Office Investigation, Nov. 19,
2019 (Exh. 27).
28 Letter, Stein to Langhofer re: Maricopa County Attorney's Office Investigation, Nov. 25,
2019 (Exh. 28).
29 Id.
10

Mr. Petersen's counsel responded to our November 25 letter by email on
November 26 (at 4:38 pm on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving), notifying us that he
"expect[s] to have the laptop ready for you shortly." 3° In the same email, Mr. Petersen's
counsel stated that Mr. Petersen would agree to an interview only after the County agreed
to make available documents for inspection and numerous witnesses (many of whom are
elected officials) for interviews described in his November 11 letter to the County.' By
placing these wide-ranging conditions on Mr. Petersen's interview, he effectively refused
our request. He also never submitted any information to us in writing. As a result, Mr.
Petersen has provided no explanation as to why he maintained hundreds of documents
relating to his private law practice and adoption business on the County network.
The County-issued laptop reportedly was obtained by the Arizona Attorney
General's Office pursuant to a search warrant on December 3, 2019. On December 4, we
sent a letter to the Attorney General's Office requesting a digital image of the laptop so
that we can review it as part of our investigation, and the Attorney General's Office
agreed to make a copy available to us promptly. We have not yet reviewed its contents.
Background
1. Mr. Petersen's Appointment and Election to the Office of County
Assessor and Previous Employment at the Assessor's Office
Paul Petersen began working for the County Assessor's Office in 2006, serving as
the Assessor's representative at the Arizona Legislature and as the Public Information
Officer and advising the Assessor regarding legal, administrative, and political issues
30 Email, Langhofer to Stein re: Paul Petersen, Nov. 26, 2019 (Exh. 29).
31 Id.
11

regarding the property tax system in Arizona. 32 Keith Russell was the County Assessor
from 2004 to 2013. 33
On June 5, 2013, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors appointed Mr.
Russell to be a Justice of the Peace in East Mesa Justice Court, filling the vacancy left
when Justice of the Peace Mark Chiles resigned. 34 Chief Deputy Assessor Tim
Boncoskey35 served as the acting Maricopa County Assessor until the Board appointed
Mr. Petersen to the position in August 2013. 36
Mr. Petersen ran for the office in a special election in 2014 to complete the
remainder of Mr. Russell's term, which ran through 2016. 37 Mr. Petersen won the special
32 Maricopa County Assessor's Office's website, Your County Assessor,
https ://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/about-us/bio.php (Exh. 48).
33 Id.
34 Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Maria Polletta, Maricopa County Assessor Named New Justice
of Peace, Arizona Republic (June 7, 2013), available at
http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130605assessor-chosen-maricopa-county-
justice-peace.html (Exh. 41).
35 Mr. Boncoskey has continued to serve as the Chief Deputy Assessor under Mr. Petersen
through the present time.
36 Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Maria Polletta, Maricopa County Assessor Named New Justice
of Peace, Arizona Republic (June 7, 2013), available at
http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130605assessor-chosen-maricopa-county-
justice-peace.html (Exh. 41); John Hunnicutt, Petersen Named Maricopa County Assessor,
Arizona Daily Independent (Aug. 20, 2013), available at
https://arizonadailvindependent.com/2013/08/20/petersen-named-maricopa-county-assessor/
(Exh. 42).
37 Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Maria Polletta, Maricopa County Assessor Named New Justice
of Peace, Arizona Republic (June 7, 2013), available at
http://archive.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130605assessor-chosen-maricopa-county-
justice-peace.html (Exh. 41).
12

election on November 4, 2014, 38 and was re-elected in the general election on November
8, 2016.39
2. Duties of the County Assessor
"County assessors are elected officials responsible for identifying, mapping, and
assessing all property in their counties for property tax and other purposes. They are also
responsible for determining the ownership of property for tax and other purposes. These
duties. . . derive from the Constitution and statutes."'" Specifically, the Arizona
Constitution designates an assessor as among the county officers to be elected every four
years and requires that "[t]he duties, powers, and qualifications of such officers shall be
as prescribed by law."'
A county assessor and the deputies of his office are required to take a special oath
that defines the principal mission of the office: to "truly and fairly determine the
valuation, without favor or partiality, of all the taxable property in said county at its full
cash value."' The primary duties of a county assessor are to (1) identify real property in
the county subject to taxation, (2) determine the owners of properties, (3) determine the
full cash value of properties, (4) list properties with their valuations for use on the tax
38 Summary Report of Final Official Results of Nov. 4, 2014 Election for Maricopa County,
available at https://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionarchives/2014/11-04-
2014%20Final%20Summary%20Report.pdf (Exh. 53) at 6.
39 Summary Report of Final Official Results of Nov. 8, 2016 Election for Maricopa County,
available at https://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionarchives/2016/11-08-
2016%20Final%20Summary%20Report.pdf (Exh. 54), at 6.
40 Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 115-013 (R15-017) (Dec. 21, 2015), available at
https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i15-013-r15-017.
41 Ariz. Const. art. XII, §§ 3, 4; see also A.R.S. § 11-401(A)(6) (assessor is officer of the
county); A.R.S. § 11-541 ("The county assessor shall have the powers and perform the duties
prescribed by law.").
42 A.R.S. § 11-542.
13

roll, and (5) report to the Arizona Department of Education the valuations of properties
subject to the government property lease excise tax. 43
Arizona's tax code, A.R.S. Title 42, contains numerous provisions that govern
how assessors' offices should meet their obligations, particularly Chapter 15 of Title 42,
Assessment Process. Additional statutory duties of county assessors are specified outside
Title 42. 44 County assessors are also required to meet several annual deadlines set by
statute. 45
The Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR") exercises general supervision
over county assessors.' ADOR is responsible for establishing guidelines for conducting
appraisals that county assessors are required to use. 47 ADOR publishes an Assessment
Procedures Manual, as well as other more specific manuals and guidelines applicable to
property assessment."
43 A.R.S. § 42-13051.
44 See, e.g., A.R.S. § 11-802(1) (assessor serves as advisor to county zoning commission and
boards of adjustment); A.R.S. § 15-442(C) (assessor, along with county superintendent of
schools, determines whether school district boundaries are in conflict with each other); A.R.S.
§ 48-262(A)(1) (assessor provides detailed list of taxable properties within proposed boundaries
of special taxing district).
45 See, e.g., A.R.S. § 42-13003(A) (November 15 deadline to report on property not
appraised in previous three years); A.R.S. § 42-13051(A) (December 15 deadline to identify all
real property subject to taxation); A.R.S. § 42-15053(A) (February 1 deadline to mail notice to
owners of taxable personal property); A.R.S. § 42-15101(A) (March 1 deadline to mail notice of
full cash value to property owners); A.R.S. § 42-15153(A) (December 20 deadline to complete
assessment roll).
46 A.R.S. § 42-13002(A)(1).
47 A.R.S. § 42-11054(A)(1).
48 See Arizona Department of Revenue, Property Tax, https://azdor.gov/businesses-
arizona/property-tax.
14

3. Organization and Functioning of the County Assessor's Office
Professional staff run the day-to-day operations of the Assessor's Office. Tim
Boncoskey is the Chief Deputy Assessor, a role he has held since 2006, and is
functionally the chief of operations in the Office. Mr. Boncoskey is the only employee
who reported directly to Mr. Petersen. Seven people report to Mr. Boncoskey, including
Assistant Chief Deputy Assessor, Lesley Kratz, who has worked under five Assessors,
including Mr. Petersen. Each person on the Assessor's Office core leadership team
reports directly to either Mr. Boncoskey or Ms. Kratz. 49 Dawn Humphrey is the
Executive Assistant to the Assessor, Mr. Boncoskey, and Ms. Kratz.
The mission of the Assessor's Office is "No efficiently and effectively administer
all laws and regulations for Maricopa County property owners so that all ad valorem
property is fairly and equitably valued." 50 The Office operates in five divisions: the
Administrative Division, the Valuation Relief Program Division, the Information
Technology Division, the Property Ownership & Mapping Division, and the Appraisal
Division. 51 In addition, the Assessor's Office is in the midst of a large information
technology project, known as the MARS project, or Maricopa Assessment Replacement
System.
49 See Maricopa County Assessor's Office website, Assessor's Leadership Staff,
https://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/about-us/leadership-staff.php (Exh. 49).
50 Maricopa County Assessor's Office website, Our Office,
https://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/about-us/about-us.php (Exh. 50).
51 Id.
15

4. Mr. Petersen's Law Practice and Adoption Business
Mr. Petersen has been licensed to practice law in Arizona since 2002. 52 He is also
licensed to practice law in Utah and Arkansas." As a lawyer, Mr. Petersen focuses his
practice on adoptions. 54 Having lived in the Marshall Islands for two years while serving
on a church mission, Mr. Petersen's practice has consisted largely of "assisting
Marshallese birth families with their adoption plans." 55 Mr. Petersen has maintained a
law office in Mesa, Arizona. 56
Several news articles predating this investigation have reported on issues relating
to Mr. Petersen's adoption business. 57 One long-form article published by the Honolulu
Civil Beat in 2018 referred to the adoptions involving Marshallese women arranged by
Mr. Petersen as "black market adoptions" and called Mr. Petersen "one of the most active
adoption lawyers handling babies from the Marshall Islands."' The article insinuates that
52 State Bar of Arizona, Find a Lawyer, Paul D. Petersen,
https://azbar.legalserviceslink.com/attorneys-view/PaulDPetersen (Exh. 51).
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 See, e.g., Steven Hsieh, Report: County Assessor Paul Petersen Runs "Black Market"
Adoption Agency, Phoenix New Times (Nov. 30, 2018), available at
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/report-assessor-in-arizona-runs-a-black-market-
adoption-agency-11054069 (Exh. 44); John Hill & Emily Dugdale, Marshallese Adoptions Fuel
A Lucrative Practice For Some Lawyers, Honolulu Civil Beat (Nov. 2018), available at
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/11/marsha11ese-adoptions-fuel-a-1ucrative-practice-for-some-
lawyers/ (Exh. 43); see also Jared S. v. Rees, Case. No. 1 CA-JV 06-0158 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb.
22, 2007) (addressing adoption by couple represented by Mr. Petersen), available at
http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/1%2OCA-JV%2006-0158.pdf (Exh. 55).
58 John Hill & Emily Dugdale, Marshallese Adoptions Fuel A Lucrative Practice For Some
Lawyers, Honolulu Civil Beat (Nov. 2018), available at
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/11/marshallese-adoptions-fuel-a-lucrative-practice-for-some-
lawyers/ (Exh. 43).
16

Mr. Petersen's practices were illegal, but his lawyer is quoted in the article asserting that
Mr. Petersen has complied with applicable laws.'
Mr. Petersen continued his law practice while he was an employee in the County
Assessor's Office and also after his appointment and later election to the office of
Assessor. 6° No law expressly allows the County Assessor or employees within that Office
to engage in the private practice of law, but no law prohibits it either.' Maricopa County
has a policy allowing employees to engage in outside employment if it does not interfere
with their County employment, pose a conflict of interest with their County duties, or
create an appearance of impropriety. 62
5. The Criminal Charges Against Mr. Petersen
On October 2, 2019, the Utah Attorney General's Office charged Mr. Petersen
with eleven felony criminal charges under Utah state law. 63 The information charging Mr.
Petersen states that law enforcement received a tip that there may be an illegal adoption
scheme involving Marshallese women in Salt Lake City. Hospital staff observed several
Marshallese women giving birth and giving their babies up for adoption who all reported
the same address and were all accompanied by a woman who reported living at the same
59 Id.
60 We requested copies of any secondary employment forms completed by Mr. Petersen, but
none were located or provided to us as of the date of this report.
61 Cf A.R.S. § 11-403 (prohibiting sheriff, constable, some county attorneys, and deputies
from the private practice of law).
62 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, revised Sept. 19, 2018
(Exh. 36). People we interviewed expressed a common belief that many County employees have
secondary employment, whether permanent or temporary, year-round or seasonal.
63 State of Utah v. Paul D. Petersen, Information, No. 191910049, Third District Court Salt
Lake Department, Salt Lake County, State of Utah (Oct. 4, 2019) (Exh. 9).
17

address. In addition, in all of the women's paperwork, Mr. Petersen was identified as the
facilitator of the adoptions.
A superseding indictment against Mr. Petersen and a co-defendant was filed on
October 4, 2019, in the Western District of Arkansas charging nineteen federal criminal
charges. 64 The indictment alleges that Mr. Petersen brought women from the Marshall
Islands to the United States in violation of a federal compact with the Republic of the
Marshall Islands that prohibits Marshallese citizens from entering the United States if
their travel is for the purpose of adoption. The indictment alleges that between April 21,
2014, and March 2, 2015, Mr. Petersen paid pregnant Marshallese women to travel to the
United States and place their babies up for adoption, in violation of the compact. The
indictment also alleges that Mr. Petersen and his associate purchased airline tickets for
the women, concealed the reason for their travel from U.S. officials, and falsified
information in official adoption documents.
On October 7, 2019, the Arizona Attorney General's Office secured an indictment
against Mr. Petersen and a co-defendant, charging them with thirty-two state crimes.'
The Arizona indictment focuses on the Marshallese women's use of Arizona's Medicaid
system, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, and alleges that between
November 30, 2015, and May 30, 2019, Mr. Petersen engaged in a scheme to defraud the
public healthcare system by submitting false information to illegally obtain benefits for
the Marshallese women.
64 United States of America v. Paul Petersen, Superseding Indictment, No.
S:19CR50079001, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Division (Oct. 4, 2019) (Exh. 8).
65 State of Arizona v. Paul D. Petersen and Lynwood Jennet, Indictment, No. 85 SGJ 77,
Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County (Oct. 7, 2019) (Exh. 10).
18

6. Mr. Petersen's Arrest and Period of Incarceration
Mr. Petersen was arrested on October 8 and taken to a Maricopa County jail. 66
After his initial appearance on the Arizona charges, he was transferred to federal custody
after posting bond in Arizona. 67 On October 29, Mr. Petersen appeared in federal court in
Arkansas and was released from federal custody after posting a bond in that case.'
Following his release in Arkansas, Mr. Petersen appeared in court in Utah, where he had
also posted bond. 69 As of the date of this report, Mr. Petersen remains out of custody.
Thus, Mr. Petersen was detained for approximately twenty days, from October 8 until
October 29.
On November 4, 2019, the Arizona Attorney General's Office executed a search
warrant at Mr. Petersen's County office and seized documents." On November 19, 2019,
the Arizona Attorney General's Office seized for forfeiture several properties owned by
Mr. Petersen in Arizona, Utah, and Arkansas, and froze eleven of his personal and
business bank accounts. 71
66 Robert Anglen and Jessica Boehm, Paul Petersen Released from Federal Custody;
Headed to Court in Arizona, Utah, Arizona Republic (Oct. 29, 2019), available at
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/10/29/paul-petersen-appear-arkansas-
court-adoption-scam-charges/2496708001/ (Exh. 46).
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 See id.; Jessica Miller, Paul Petersen, Accused of Human Smuggling, Makes First Court
Appearance in Utah, Salt Lake Tribune (Nov. 15, 2019), available at
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/11/15/official-accused-human/ (Exh. 45).
70 Search Warrant, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, No. SW 2019-013729 (Nov. 4,
2019) (Exh. 11).
71 See Robert Anglen, Paul Petersen's Property, Bank Accounts Frozen in $1.5 Million
Seizure Warrant, Arizona Republic (Nov. 27. 2019), available at
https://www. azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2019/11/27/paul-peters en-
receives-1-5-million-asset-seizure-property-bank-accounts-vehicles/4310519002/ (Exh. 47).
19

7. Maricopa County Internal Audit High-Level Assessment
After the criminal charges against Mr. Petersen were made public, the Board of
Supervisors requested that the Maricopa County Internal Audit Department review the
County Assessor's Office. Internal Audit "completed a high-level assessment of the
Assessor's Office and its use of county resources" and reported its findings on October
28, 2019.72
The assessment concluded that the hard drive on Mr. Petersen's County desktop
computer and Mr. Petersen's personal user folder on the County's network contained a
substantial number of documents unrelated to County business and specifically related to
his private law practice and adoption business. 73 Specifically, out of 550 documents dated
between August 19, 2013, and October 17, 2019, ninety-five percent were related to Mr.
Petersen's law practice.' This calculation does not include documents associated with
emails, and the assessment did not include shared network drives available to Mr.
Petersen.'
The assessment also noted that the County laptop issued to Mr. Petersen in
November 2007 was not in the County's possession. 76 Adoption-related documents were
also observed in Mr. Petersen's office files. 77
72 Letter and High-Level Assessment of Assessor's Office, McGee to Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors, Oct. 28, 2019 (Exh. 7), at 1. Michael McGee, Maricopa County Auditor,
was interviewed regarding the assessment during our investigation.
73 Id. at 2.
74 Id.
75 Id.
76 Id. Mr. Petersen was issued a County Surface Laptop in Fall 2017. The high-level
assessment conducted by the County Internal Audit Department notes a 2007 laptop. Our
investigation has focused on obtaining the laptop issued to Mr. Petersen in 2017. It is possible
that the County issued him another laptop previously in 2007.
77 Id.
20

The assessment's review of Mr. Petersen's intemet browsing history showed that
he was accessing adoption-related websites from the County computer, as well as other
websites possibly unrelated to County business. 78 Seventeen of 383 unique daily visits to
websites from February 20, 2019, through October 2019 related to adoption. 79
The assessment identified a small percentage of emails in Mr. Petersen's County
email account related to adoption and other legal services." Specifically, of 34,000
preserved emails reviewed, 181 emails were not related to County business, with thirty
related to adoptions and 120 related to other legal services.'
There were also a small number of international and out-of-state phone calls made
from Mr. Petersen's desk phone. 82
The assessment did not note any issues concerning Mr. Petersen's travel and
travel-related reimbursements. 83 Nor did the assessment discover any issues with
property valuations that indicated preferential treatment for Mr. Petersen or his
associates.'
Finally, as for its review of the operations and control environment of the
Assessor's Office, the assessment observed: "The organization's structure, policies, and
practices are well established which helps promote the integrity and continuity of
operations. However, management reports that the past few weeks have been challenging
78 Id.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 3.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Id.
21

for the employees of the Assessor's Office, and they are receiving criticism from
customers in their daily interactions with the public.'
8. Board of Supervisors Proceedings and Correspondence Related to
Suspension86
On October 23, 2019, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted to
convene in executive session to receive legal advice and consider whether to take action
related to Mr. Petersen in his capacity as Maricopa County Assessor." The Board
reconvened in open session and unanimously voted to schedule a public meeting to
consider placing Mr. Petersen on unpaid suspension for neglect of duty pursuant to
A.R.S. § 11-664. 88 The Board reasoned that because Mr. Petersen was in custody, he
could not be physically present in the Assessor's Office. 89 Moreover, the Board
determined that "the multitude of documents not related to his public duties, but to his
private law practice on [his] Maricopa County computer demonstrates additional neglect
of duty." 9°
85 Id. at 4.
86 In addition to the proceedings discussed below, the Board of Supervisors met several
additional times in executive session to discuss matters related to Mr. Petersen but did not take
any action following those sessions. See Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special
Executive Meeting Documents (Oct. 14, Oct. 18, Oct. 21, Oct. 28, Nov. 4, Nov. 18, and Nov. 22,
2019) (Exh. 16).
87 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Minutes, Oct. 23,
2019 (Exh. 12), at 3.
88 Id. at 4.
89 Id.
90 Id.
22

That same day, the Board notified Mr. Petersen that it had set a public meeting for
October 28, 2019, to consider his suspension as County Assessor due to neglect of duty. 91
The notice alleged:
Due to your detention, you are not physically present in the Office, with
severely restricted telephonic communication and access to email.
Furthermore, the multitude of documents not related to your public duties,
but to your private law practice on your Maricopa County computer,
demonstrates additional neglect of duty.'
In addition, on October 24, Board Chair Bill Gates sent a separate letter to Mr.
Petersen posing two questions that Chair Gates intended to address at the October 28
meeting:
(1) Since you were arrested and detained on October 8, 2019, how are you
fulfilling your duties as the elected Assessor?
(2) Please explain how and why over a thousand documents relating to your
private legal practice are stored on your county desktop, and/or the
county's servers, or physically stored in your county office? 93
Chair Gates "request[ed] that [Mr. Petersen] personally respond to this inquiry." 94
At the October 28, 2019 meeting, the Board unanimously voted to place Mr.
Petersen on unpaid suspension for 120 days pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664. 95 The Board
found that "Mr. Petersen's failure to meaningfully oversee the operations of his office for
an extended period and repeated misuse of County resources to conduct his private law
91 Letter, McCaroll to Petersen with statutory notice of Oct. 28, 2019 meeting, Oct. 23,
2019 (Exh. 17)
92 Id.
93 Letter, Gates to Petersen posing two questions, Oct. 24, 2019 (Exh. 19).
94 Id.
95 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Summary, Oct. 28,
2019 (Exh. 13), at 2.
23

practice constitutes neglect of duty." 96 On October 30, the Board appointed Bill Wiley as
the Acting Administrator of the County Assessor's Office."
On November 7, 2019, counsel for Mr. Petersen requested a hearing pursuant to
A.R.S. § 11-664(C) on the Board's suspension of Mr. Petersen. 98 Mr. Petersen's counsel
argued that Mr. Petersen had not neglected his duties in office and that A.R.S. § 11-664
might be unconstitutional, among other things. 99 On November 11, Mr. Petersen's
counsel wrote again to the Board, this time via County Attorney Adel, to request that the
Board secure the attendance of thirteen witnesses for the hearing on Mr. Petersen's
suspension, including all the elected officers of Maricopa County. loo Mr. Petersen's
counsel also requested that the Board and County Attorney produce documents in
advance of the hearing, including documents and communications concerning Mr.
Petersen's suspension, documents evidencing the dates and times other elected officers of
the County entered and exited County buildings, images of technology resources issued
to other County elected officers, and policies related to the County Assessor and
personnel in his office. 10'
96 Id.
97 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Summary, Oct. 30,
2019 (Exh. 14), at 4.
98 Letter, Langhofer to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors re: Suspension of Maricopa
County Assessor Paul Petersen, Nov. 7, 2019 (Exh. 22).
99 Id.
100 Letter, Langhofer to Adel re: Suspension of Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen —
Request for Documents and Testimony, Nov. 11, 2019 (Exh. 24).
101 Id. Counsel for Mr. Petersen and the County Attorney's Office exchanged other
correspondence, as well. See Letter, Langhofer to Liddy re: Legal Ethics, Nov. 6, 2019 (Exh.
21); Letter, Liddy to Langhofer re: Response to your letter of November 6, 2019, Nov. 8, 2019
(Exh. 23); Letter, Langhofer to Adel re: Conflicts of Interest, Nov. 11, 2019 (Exh. 25).
24

On November 13, 2019, after meeting in executive session, the Board
unanimously voted to schedule a hearing on the issue of Mr. Petersen's suspension for
December 11, 2019. 1 °2 The Board also unanimously voted to request that the Maricopa
County Attorney conduct an investigation pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B) regarding Mr.
Petersen's neglect of duty. 103 County Attorney Adel retained Mitchell Stein Carey
Chapman to conduct this investigation. m4
Statement of Charges
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, at special meetings on October 23
and 28, 2019, determined pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664 as follows: 105
1. Neglect of Duty: Mr. Petersen failed to meaningfully oversee the operations of
his Office for an extended period. Due to Mr. Petersen's detention, he is not
physically present in the Office, with severely restricted telephonic
communication and access to email.
2. Neglect of Duty: Mr. Petersen repeatedly misused County resources to conduct
his private law practice. The multitude of documents not related to his public
duties, but to his private law practice on Mr. Petersen's Maricopa County
computer, demonstrates neglect of duty.
102 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Summary, Nov. 13,
2019 (Exh. 15), at 4.
103 Id.
104 Letter, Adel to Stein re: Retention to conduct investigation pertaining to Assessor Paul
Petersen pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-664(B), Nov. 15, 2019 (Exh. 3).
105 See Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and Minutes, Oct.
23, 2019 (Exh. 12), at 4; Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting Agenda and
Summary, Oct. 28, 2019 (Exh. 13), at 2.
25

Factual Findings
1. Operation of the Assessor's Office under Mr. Petersen and His Work
in the Office
The County Assessor's Office, under Mr. Petersen's leadership, has reportedly not
missed any statutory deadlines or otherwise failed to meet its obligations. In January
2018, the Maricopa County Internal Audit Department produced an audit report of the
Assessor's Office for Tax Year 2016 with near-perfect audit results. 1°6 The report
concluded that: (1) "Real property assessment valuations were computed in accordance
with statute." (2) "Legal classifications and associated assessment ratios were accurate."
(3) "New construction was accurately reflected in property assessment valuations."'
Our investigation did not uncover any evidence that the Office has not complied with its
statutory duties.
During our investigation, we spoke with every member of the Assessor's Office
core leadership team, as well as the executive assistant to Mr. Petersen, Chief Deputy
Boncoskey, and Assistant Chief Deputy Kratz. Our impression was that this senior staff
is competent, dedicated to the mission of the Maricopa County Assessor's Office, and
confident in each other and their staff's ability to effectively and efficiently administer
their duties. Many of them are long-time public servants, and several have worked in the
Assessor's Office for more than a decade. Several expressed pride in the work of the
Assessor's Office. Mr. Petersen relied on his senior staff to manage the day-to-day
operations of the Office.
106 Assessor's Office, Internal Audit Report Authorized by the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors, Jan. 2018 (Exh. 6).
107 Id. at 1.
26

As the Assessor, Mr. Petersen was active and engaged in some aspects of the
Office's work, particularly on strategic planning and initiatives, budgeting, meeting
statutory obligations, legislative issues, litigation, and public-facing events and
communications. For instance, Mr. Petersen monitored the progress of the MARS project
and participated in high-level decisions for that project. Mr. Petersen also gave attention
to issues involving solar leases, medical marijuana dispensaries, legislative proposals that
might shift the tax burden, and urban agriculture and grazing. People we interviewed
generally had positive impressions of Mr. Petersen's leadership of the Office: although
relatively hands-off in style, he understands the work of the Office, sets a clear vision and
direction for the Office, and delegates day-to-day operations to staff, particularly Mr.
Boncoskey.
Mr. Petersen personally attended most of the Office's monthly management
meetings, which Mr. Boncoskey runs, as well as periodic employee-appreciation events
and meetings to greet new hires to the Office. Mr. Petersen was concerned with
maintaining office morale and would advocate to the Board of Supervisors for staff
raises.
Mr. Petersen generally was present in the Assessor's Office one to two days per
week, and more during the legislative session or during the periods approaching statutory
deadlines. Those we interviewed who had worked with other elected officials believed
that Mr. Petersen's time in the office was consistent with that of other elected officials.
He reportedly had an open-door policy, was friendly to employees, and was reachable
when needed, even when he was out of the office. No person we interviewed expressed
concern that Mr. Petersen was unavailable when his input or assistance was needed. All
27

believed that Mr. Petersen was fulfilling his duties as County Assessor, and several
expressed loyalty to Mr. Petersen.
2. Period of Mr. Petersen's Incarceration
Mr. Petersen was incarcerated for about twenty days and was unreachable during
that time. Other than an initial shock to the staff after his arrest, and an accompanying hit
to office morale, notwithstanding Mr. Petersen's unavailability, the operations of the
Assessor's Office were not materially affected by Mr. Petersen's twenty-day absence.''
Mr. Boncoskey was out of the country when he learned about Mr. Petersen's arrest; he
made plans to return immediately. The Office's leadership team assured staff that the
day-to-day operations of the Office should not be affected by Mr. Petersen's absence and
that they should continue doing their good work for the Maricopa County taxpayers.
Because of his arrest, Mr. Petersen did miss an important meeting about the
MARS project, the largest current project in the Office. The meeting was scheduled
specifically to obtain Mr. Petersen's approval to delay the project's implementation date
for six months. While Mr. Petersen was in custody, he reportedly spoke with Mr.
Boncoskey for about thirty minutes on October 22, with about half the time being
devoted to Office business, including the delayed implementation of the MARS project,
which Mr. Petersen approved, and other projects and activities of the Assessor's
Office. 1°9 Mr. Boncoskey and Mr. Petersen spoke again on October 24 when Mr. Petersen
108 See A.R.S. § 38-462 (allowing the deputies of an elected officer to perform the duties
assigned to the office by law).
109 See Letter, Langhofer to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors re: Suspension of
Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen, Nov. 7, 2019 (Exh. 22).
28

notified Mr. Boncoskey that he was being transferred to Arkansas and that he expected to
be released on October 29. 1'
Mr. Petersen's arrest and the public reports about it affected the staff at the
Assessor's Office. People in the Office were surprised by the news, and the stress level in
the Office went up, while morale went down, because of the uncertainty injected by Mr.
Petersen's arrest. There was also some distraction from core duties while staff was
compiling information to assist with the Audit Department's high-level assessment. Some
staff were also on the receiving end of angry and critical communications from members
of the public. By the time of our interviews, people reported that day-to-day operations of
the Office had not suffered any material impact.' Some remained concerned, however,
that Mr. Petersen's legal troubles could affect the public's confidence in the Assessor's
Office. Others expressed uncertainty about how the Office would operate going forward,
raising questions, for instance, about Mr. Wiley's role, the duration of his appointment,
whether Mr. Petersen would return, and how these things would affect the work of the
Office and the work environment.
Ho We were not able to obtain or review a recording of the jail calls between Mr. Petersen
and Mr. Boncoskey to verify the occurrence and content of these calls.
1 ii See Letter and High-Level Assessment of Assessor's Office, McGee to Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors, Oct. 28, 2019 (Exh. 7), at 4 ("The organization's structure, policies, and
practices are well established which helps promote the integrity and continuity of operations.
However, management reports that the past few weeks have been challenging for the employees
of the Assessor's Office, and they are receiving criticism from customers in their daily
interactions with the public.").
29

3. Conducting Personal Law Practice with County Resources
A. General Conclusions
Staff at the Assessor's Office were aware that Mr. Petersen was a practicing
lawyer who worked on adoptions. Some were aware that much of his work related to the
Marshall Islands. Some people we interviewed noted that Mr. Petersen's biography on
the County's website included information about his law practice, and some stated that
Mr. Petersen's law practice was common knowledge at the Office. People also noted that
Mr. Petersen spoke openly about his law practice at a general level. Some interviewees
stated that Mr. Petersen would make clear that his law practice was entirely separate from
his work for the County.
After the Honolulu Civil Beat published an article in November 2018 that was
critical of Mr. Petersen and his adoption practice focusing on the Marshall Islands, Mr.
Petersen addressed his management team about the article, reassuring staff that his
conduct was legal and that the article should not affect the work of the Office. No one we
interviewed expressed concern that Mr. Petersen's law practice was distracting Mr.
Petersen from his County duties, no one reported that they witnessed Mr. Petersen
working on law-related matters while he was at the office, and no one had been asked by
Mr. Petersen, or had heard of others being asked, to assist him with his private practice
while on County time.
The October 28, 2019 high-level assessment by the County Internal Audit
Department observed that a significant number of documents on Mr. Petersen's County
desktop and in his personal drive in the County network appeared to be related to his
private adoption business. 112 Likewise, Mr. Petersen's intemet browsing history and
112 Id. at 2.
30

phone records also suggested that he was working on his private law practice while he
was in his County office.
The results of our independent forensic analysis confirmed the Audit Department's
observations.
B. Select Maricopa County Policies
County employees are subject to discipline up to and including termination for
violations of County policies. Elected officials, however, may not be disciplined as
County employees for violating policies. 113
1. Policies on the Use of Technology
As of July 24, 2019, Maricopa County had in place a Policy on Use of County
Technology Resources.' 14 This policy replaced nine other predecessor policies that
collectively covered the same subject matter. 115 The predecessor policies are discussed
below to the extent they are relevant or materially different in a relevant way.
The stated purpose of the current policy is to "[e]stablish privileges,
responsibilities, and restrictions in the use of County Technology Resources (CTR) and
devices that access CTR; maximize the value of these resources to securely enable
business goals and improve efficiency in delivering the mission of Maricopa County. " 5116
The policy applies to employees of County elected offices unless the elected official has
113 See Hounshell v. White, 220 Ariz. 1,5 It 18, 202 P.3d 466, 470 (App. 2008) ("Hounshell
/") (elected official "is the sole appointing authority with respect to his or her deputies and other
classified employees" and only the appointing authority may "dismiss, suspend, or reduce in
rank").
114 Maricopa County Policy, Use of County Technology Resources, No. A2611, adopted
July 24, 2019 (Exh. 33).
115 Id. at 16.
116 Id. at 1, § I.
31

implemented a similar specific policy. 117 No separate County Assessor policies with
respect to use of CTRs have been implemented.
Under the policy, an "Authorized User" is "[a]n individual approved by the
Appointing Authority [elected official or department head] to use CTRs." 118 A CTR is
"[a]ny computing account; device (e.g., mobile device, smartphone, tablet, computer,
communications equipment, video conference, facsimile, or telephone); peripheral;
software; local, wireless and wide area networks (i.e., LAN, Wi-Fi and WAN); ESI;
website; cloud-based or internally-hosted system; or related consumable (e.g., disk space,
processor time, network bandwidth) owned by, contracted with, or controlled by the
County." 119
The policy outlines acceptable uses of County CTRs: "All CTRs are to be used to
carry out the responsibilities of County employment, County awarded contracts, or
approved IGAs. Incidental, infrequent personal use is permissible so long as it does not
interfere with the responsibilities and duties of employment." 120 While such personal use
117 Id. § II.
118 Id. §
119 Id. at 2, § III.G. A predecessor policy applied to telephones and faxes. Maricopa County
Policy, Telephony (desk phones, fax lines, cell phones, calling cards, and radios), No. A1202,
revised Jan. 1, 2010 (Exh. 30).
120 Maricopa County Policy, Use of County Technology Resources, No. A2611, adopted
July 24, 2019 (Exh. 33), at 4, § IV.A.1. Under a predecessor policy governing email use,
employees were likewise permitted to "make limited, incidental personal use of e-mail" under
certain circumstances. Maricopa County Policy, Electronic Mail, No. A1608, revised Aug. 2001
(Exh. 31), at 2, § C.7. Unacceptable use of email under the old policy included "[dunning, or
participating in, a private or non-County related activity." Id. at 3, § C.8. A predecessor policy
governing use of technology resources allowed "[1]imited use of County Computing Resources
for personal needs. . . as long as such use is consistent with established County and department
policy, and does not inhibit either governmental or administrative use." Maricopa County Policy,
Acceptable Use of County Technology Resources, No. A1609, revised March 2003 (Exh. 32), at
2, § C. It also prohibited use of County resources for personal gain. Id.
32

may be permissible under the policy, it also warns that the County will "monitor, record,
control and adjudicate all CTR usage at any time, without prior notice or warning to
Authorized Users" and that "[a]nyone using CTRs has no expectation of privacy in the
use of these resources or any content therein." 121
The policy provides examples of improper uses of CTRs. Specifically, "CTRs
must not be used for illegal, insecure, inappropriate, obscene, political or personal gain
purposes, or activities otherwise prohibited by County policy." 122 Thus, CTRs may not be
used in "violation of the intended use of the CTR" 123 or for "excessive personal use that
interferes with employment duties." 124 One specific example of an improper use is "Uses
CTRs to conduct commercial or private business transactions other than County business
(e.g. using facsimile machines or telephones to further an employee's commercial/private
business endeavors)." 125
When users log into the County's computers, they agree to an Acceptable Use
Statement: "By logging into and/or using County Technology Resources, I acknowledge
that I have read, understand, agree, and will comply with the current County policy,
121 Maricopa County Policy, Use of County Technology Resources, No. A2611, adopted
July 24, 2019 (Exh. 33), at 4, § IV.A.8.
122 Id. § IV.B.1.
123 Id. at 5, § IV.B.1.c.
124 Id. § IV.B.1.e.
125 Id. § IV.B.4.f. A predecessor policy governing use of technology resources likewise
prohibited "I[u]s[ing] County Computing Resources to conduct commercial or private business
transactions, or support[ing] a commercial/private business other than County business (e.g.
using fax machines or telephones to further an employee's commercial/private business
endeavors)." Maricopa County Policy, Acceptable Use of County Technology Resources, No.
A1609, revised March 2003 (Exh. 32), at 3, § C.
33

A2611 — Use of County Technology Resources. My usage may be monitored for
compliance and I accept all consequences associated with any misuse on my part. „126
2. Policies on Secondary Employment
Maricopa County's current policy on secondary employment was adopted on
September 19, 2018. 127 That policy replaced a previous version initially adopted on
November 14, 2012. 128
The current policy's stated purpose is "No provide a mechanism for employees to
request to participate in outside employment when doing so does not interfere with their
County employment, create a conflict of interest, or create an appearance of
impropriety. " 129 The policy "applies to all Maricopa County appointed departments as
well as. . . employees of County elected offices unless the elected official has
implemented a similar policy specific to his or her office." 13° Under the policy,
126 Acceptable Use Statement (Exh. 34); see also Maricopa County Policy, Use of County
Technology Resources, No. A2611, adopted July 24, 2019 (Exh. 33), at 16, § VIA .
127 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, revised Sept. 19, 2018
(Exh. 36).
128 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, adopted Nov. 14, 2012
(Exh. 37).
129 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, revised Sept. 19, 2018
(Exh. 36), at 1, § I. The predecessor policy's stated purpose was similar: "To provide direction to
County Employees regarding activities outside their County employment that may create a
conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety relating to their County employment.” Maricopa
County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, adopted Nov. 14, 2012 (Exh. 37), at 1,
I.
130 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, revised Sept. 19, 2018
(Exh. 36), at 1, § III.
34

"Employee" means "A person paid a wage, salary, or stipend in accordance with official
County payroll entries." 131 Outside employment includes self-employment. 132
The policy prohibits outside employment that "[i]mpairs the performance of
County duties including, but not limited to employment: . . . That uses County work time,
facilities, personnel, equipment, technology, supplies, badges, or uniforms." 133 The policy
requires that employees notify their departments about and obtain approval for outside
employment, 134 and the County has adopted a form to be used for these purposes. 135
C. County Computer and Phone Use by Mr. Petersen
As noted above, as part of our investigation, we collected and analyzed data from
Mr. Petersen's County hard drive, network systems, and other technology resources. 136
Generally, our review concluded:
Petersen utilized County facilities, County telephone equipment and voice
plans, County computers and related equipment, County IT infrastructure
and intemet access, and County scanning equipment to send and receive
adoption-related contracts, perform research related to his law firm and
adoption business, manage payment details for his adoption and law firm
131 Id. §
132 Id. § IV.D.
133 Id. § V.A.4.a. The predecessor policy contained explicit prohibitions against using
County resources for secondary employment and working on secondary employment during
County work hours. Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, adopted
Nov. 14, 2012 (Exh. 37), at 2, § IV.B ("Use of County property, equipment, supplies, paid
personnel or services in support of Outside Employment is prohibited."); Id. § IV.0
("Performing Outside Employment during the Employee's County working hours is prohibited
unless the Employee is in a previously approved time-off status in accordance with the County's
Leave Policy.").
134 Maricopa County Policy, Secondary Employment, No. HR2422, revised Sept. 19, 2018
(Exh. 36), at 2, § V.B.1.
135 Secondary Employment Form (Exh. 38).
136 See Petersen Data Analysis Report to Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman by Cosmich
Simmons, & Brown, PLLC (Exh. 5), at 1 -2.
35

businesses, solicit business, and send, receive, and store contracts,
pleadings, medical records, photos, and related personal health information
on County IT systems. 137
More specifically, of the 61,532 documents reviewed, 856 related to Mr.
Petersen's law firm or adoption business. 138 Documents created or downloaded from the
internet or a USB drive to Mr. Petersen's County computer include, among other
documents:
• adoption services agreements (82)
• ultrasound images (75)
• pleadings — affidavits (66)
• pleadings — petitions for adoption (52)
• law office — bank records (23)
• pleadings — bankruptcy (19)
• medical records (14)
• court orders/reports — adoption (14)
• partial sections of adoption brochures for adoptive families (50). 139
In addition to these documents, there were 376 purely personal documents on Mr.
Petersen's hard drive and network systems apparently unrelated to his law practice. 14°
Other documents were scanned using the County office scanner and saved to Mr.
Petersen's County email and sent from Mr. Petersen's County email to Mr. Petersen's
law-firm-related email accounts. Examples of those include:
• adoption file — multiple documents (34)
• law office — bank records (21)
• pleadings — bankruptcy (16)
• pleadings — petition for adoption (15)
• pleadings — affidavits (15)
137 Id. at 2.
138 Id. at 2-3.
139 Id. at 3.
140 Id.
36

• birth certificates (13)
• adoption services agreements (6). 141
Mr. Petersen's County computer included documents related to his law practice
and wire transfers associated with individuals identified in the Arizona indictment, 142 as
well as wire transfers to individuals identified as involved in Mr. Petersen's allegedly
unlawful activities in Utah. 143
Mr. Petersen also used his County computer to send and receive emails to and
from his law-firm-related email accounts pdplaw@yahoo.com or pdplaw@gmail.com for
law-firm-related business purposes as well.'
Mr. Petersen used the County network in support of his private law practice, in
addition to other personal, non-County use. Examples of internet browser history from
Mr. Petersen's computer, likely in support of his private law practice, include visits to the
following websites (among others):
• www.utahadoptionspecialists.com
• sharedbeginnings org
• Medicaid.utah.gov
• lawpay.com
• www.privateadoptionlaw.com (his own website)
• Rolfefamilylaw.com
• arizonaschildren.org
• docusign.net
141 Id. at 3-4.
142 Id. at 4-5; see State of Arizona v. Paul D. Petersen and Lynwood Jennet, Indictment, No.
85 SGJ 77, Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County, Oct. 7, 2019
(Exh. 10).
143 Petersen Data Analysis Report to Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman by Cosmich Simmons,
& Brown, PLLC (Exh. 5), at 4-5; see State of Utah v. Paul D. Petersen, Information, No.
191910049, Third District Court Salt Lake Department, Salt Lake County, State of Utah. Oct. 2,
2019 (Exh. 9).
144 Petersen Data Analysis Report to Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman by Cosmich Simmons,
& Brown, PLLC (Exh. 5), at 5.
37

• verisign.com
• www.ncsLorg/research/immigration/immigrant-eligibility-for-health-care-
programs-in-the-united-states.aspx
• multiple banking activities for non-County related banking. I45
Mr. Petersen also accessed files in dropbox.com on multiple occasions, but he
does not have any cloud storage syncing applications installed on his County computer
nor any County Assessor-related reason to access dropbox. He also does not have remote
VPN access to the County networks.' Thus, Mr. Petersen was doing work related to his
private law practice while in his County office using a County computer.
Mr. Petersen's use of the County phone system included calls in furtherance of his
private law practice. These calls include (among others):
• Mother Goose Adoption Agency
• Premier Adoption Agency
• hotels in Arkansas
• adoption law firms in Oklahoma
• adoption law firms Tempe
• Appalachian Power
• services in Arkansas
• Ozarks Electrical Cooperative in Arkansas
• LawPay
• Springdale Water Utilities (Springdale, Arkansas)
• Arkansas Supreme Court
• OBGYN offices in Arkansas and Mesa. 147
Whether Mr. Petersen used his County-issued laptop in furtherance of his private
law practice is an open question because at the time this report was written we had not
yet received a digital image of the laptop.
145 Id. at 5-6.
146 Id. at 6.
147 Id. at 6-7.
38

D. Mr. Petersen 's Presence in the Office
Our review of Mr. Petersen's access to the County garage and badging records
from internal office areas in 2019 indicates that Mr. Petersen was in the office
approximately fifty-five days of the 192 working days between January 1 and October 2,
2019, typically remaining between four and five hours per visit. Mr. Petersen does,
however, have County Assessor responsibilities outside the Assessor's Office, including
public functions, legislative duties, and work at satellite County Assessor offices. Our
investigation did not attempt to quantify Mr. Petersen's days or hours of County work
while not in the office.
4. Criminal Allegations
Given our time constraints and the scope of our engagement, we have not
undertaken to investigate the serious criminal allegations against Mr. Petersen or whether
his alleged conduct was unlawful. We expect that the three criminal cases against him
will proceed and that there will be some resolution to those allegations in due course. We
do note, however, that Mr. Petersen has been aware for more than ten years of serious
questions about the legality of the adoptions he facilitated involving Marshallese women
and babies, and notwithstanding those questions, he continued to use County resources in
connection with his practice.'"
148 See Jared S. v. Rees, Case. No. 1 CA-JV 06-0158 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2007) (Exh.
55), at 4 n.3 (commenting that there is "strong support" for the view that this practice was
unlawful), available at http ://poundpuplegacy.org/files/ 1 %2OCA-JV%2 006-0 1 5 8.pdf.
39

Legal Standards and Application
The Arizona Constitution specifies that the County Assessor is an elected officer
whose term lasts four years. m9 The County Assessor's duties are "as prescribed by
law," 15° meaning that the Assessor's duties are set in statutes by the Arizona
Legislature. 151
1. Standard for Suspension under A.R.S. § 11 -664
A. Grounds for Suspension of the Assessor under A.R.S. § 11-664: Defalcation
and Neglect of Duty
The board of supervisors may suspend the assessor for "defalcation or neglect of
duty." 152 Arizona statutes do not define "defalcation" or "neglect of duty," but other
authorities, including case law from Arizona courts, help to define those terms. The
cases, however, are few in number and highly fact-specific, so the meaning of those
terms have never been fully developed. Below we discuss the case law in Arizona that
has addressed these and similar terms, and also some examples from other jurisdictions.
Defalcation has not been well-defined in legal authorities outside the context of
bankruptcy, but it generally means "[t]he fraudulent misappropriation of money held in
trust; financial wrongdoing involving a breach of trust; embezzlement." 153 The Griffin
case discussed below, which involved the predecessor to § 11-664, involved financial
wrongdoing (the treasurer's failure to deposit tax checks), but the Court did not specify
149 Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 3; see also A.R.S. § 11-401(A)(6) (assessor is officer of the
county).
150 Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 4; see also A.R.S. § 11-541.
151 Weidler v. Ariz. Power Co., 39 Ariz. 390, 394, 7 P.2d 241, 242 (1932).
152 A.R.S. § 11-664(A).
153 Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
40

whether the conduct at issue was defalcation or neglect of duty. 154 In any event, the Board
of Supervisors did not base Mr. Petersen's suspension on grounds that he committed
defalcation. 155
"Neglect of duty is the substantial failure to perforin a duty. . . . It 'impl[ies]
wrongdoing, some act of omission or commission in office the law required to be done
which was not done or if done was done in an unlawful manner." 156 "Neglect of duty and
nonfeasance mean the same thing." 157
No Arizona appellate decision has addressed the suspension of a county officer
under A.R.S. § 11-664, but a 1944 decision of the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed a
county officer's suspension under a predecessor to § 11-664, which also allowed the
board of supervisors to suspend the county treasurer or assessor for "defalcation or
neglect of duty." 158
Griffin involved the Pinal County Board of Supervisors' suspension of the county
treasurer. 159 The conduct justifying the board's suspension was that the treasurer held and
failed to deposit for more than two months three tax checks, even though she credited the
taxpayer's account. 160 In addition, upon her re-election to office, the treasurer did not file
her oath of office, post the required bond, or offer to do either until after the board had
154 Griffin v. Denton, 61 Ariz. 454, 150 P.2d 96 (1944).
155 Our investigation did not uncover any evidence the Mr. Petersen misappropriated public
money.
156 Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'i1 v. Brewer, 229 Ariz. 347, 356 It 40, 275 P.3d 1267,
1276 (2012) (citing and quoting Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 539-40, 115 P.2d 775, 783
(1941)).
157 Holmes, 57 Ariz. at 40, 115 P.2d at 783.
158 Griffin, 61 Ariz. at 457, 150 P.2d at 97 (applying § 17-331, A.C.A. 1939).
159 Id. at 454-55, 150 P.2d at 96-97.
160 Id. at 454-55, 150 P.2d at 96.
41

already suspended her. 161 She failed to do all these things as required. 162 The Arizona
Supreme Court, affirming the superior court and board of supervisors, concluded that the
suspension was not improper. 163
Aside from Griffin, very few court cases in Arizona and elsewhere clearly define
what might constitute "neglect of duty" for public officials. 164 Moreover, the cases that do
address this and similar standards largely do not involve factual circumstances similar to
those at issue here.
One case bearing discussion is Holmes v. Osborn, 165 a 1941 case that involved the
governor's removal of two members of the industrial commission under a statute
allowing removal for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or
nonfeasance in office." 166 The governor alleged that the commissioners continued to
engage in a business or occupation while serving on the commission, in their cases,
farming and ranching.I 67 The Court concluded that removal for neglect of duty or
nonfeasance in office would be appropriate "if the commissioner occupies himself in a
business or occupation other than his official duties to the extent of neglecting such
duties,. . . but not otherwise." 168 There, neither of the commissioners "neglected to attend
his office regularly during office hours or to perform the duties thereof' because of his
161 Id. at 455, 150 P.2d at 97.
162 Griffin, 61 Ariz. at 455, 150 P.2d at 97.
163 Id. at 458, 150 P.2d at 98. The Court in Griffin did not articulate whether the conduct at
issue was defalcation or neglect of duty. Arguably, it could be either.
164 There are a number of cases that discuss neglect of duty in the context of public
employees, but these are not helpful for purposes of this analysis.
165 57 Ariz. 522, 115 P.2d 775 (1941).
166 Id. at 535, 115 P.2d at 781.
167 Id. at 544-46, 115 P.2d at 785-86.
168 Id. at 543, 115 P.2d at 785 (emphasis added).
42

outside business. 169 The other stated grounds for removal amounted essentially to
disagreements with the commissioners' decisions and their running of the agency. 17° The
Court concluded that there was no valid basis for removal under the statute."'
More recently, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the governor's removal of the
chair of the independent redistricting commission under a statute that allowed removal
for "substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the
duties of office." 172 The governor alleged that the chair had committed substantial neglect
of duty and gross misconduct in office because she failed to conduct the commission's
business in open meetings and failed to adjust the grid map as required by the Arizona
Constitution.' 73 The Court concluded that the removal was improper because the alleged
misconduct were not grounds for removal under the statute.' With respect to the
allegation about open meetings, the governor had not alleged a violation of law governing
open meetings." 5 With respect to the allegation about the maps, the maps were still in
draft, so the governor's issue was premature; the proper recourse would be by judicial
169 Id. at 547, 115 P.2d at 786.
170 Id. at 551-53, 115 P.2d at 788-89.
171 Id. at 558, 115 P.2d at 790.
172 Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'n v. Brewer, 229 Ariz. 347, 275 P.3d 1267 (2012). The
statute at issue in Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission had a standard of substantial
neglect of duty, whereas the statute at issue here only requires neglect of duty for a suspension.
Although neither standard is well-defined, it appears as though a standard of "substantial"
neglect of duty is more rigorous than merely neglect of duty.
173 Id. at 349-50 IT 8, 275 P.3d at 1269-70.
174 Id. at 358 1148, 275 P.3d at 1278.
175 Id. at 357 it 45, 275 P.3d at 1277.
43

review after the maps were drawn, not through removal of the chair before completion of
the maps. 176
Looking to other jurisdictions, the cases regarding public officials' neglect of duty
are largely not helpful because of the factual dissimilarities to this matter,' with one
possible exception related to public records. 178
B. Procedure for Suspending the Assessor under A.R.S. § 11 -664
"The board of supervisors may suspend the county assessor. . . for defalcation or
neglect of duty." 179 The board is required to give notice to the assessor "including reasons
for the suspension at least five calendar days before the meeting at which the matter is to
176 Id. it 46. Other than the Griffin, Holmes, and Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission, our research did not uncover any other Arizona cases that interpret the meaning of
"neglect of duty" in the context of public officials.
177 See, e.g., State ex rel. Strange v. Clark, 216 So. 3d 426, 428-29 (Ala. 2016) (sheriff
committed willful neglect of duty by failing to properly supervise and giving special privileges to
certain inmates that allowed them, for instance, to leave the jail without supervision, bring
contraband into the jail, and have access to firearms); Johnson v. Macon Cly. Bd., 433 N.E.2d
707, 708 (Ill. Ct. App. 1982) (highway superintendent's single instance of intoxication while
performing duties not neglect of duty or malfeasance in office); State v. Price, 280 P.3d 943, 952
1 29 (Okla. 2012) (sheriff's releasing a person on personal recognizance, which is a judicial
function, constituted "wilfull neglect of duty"); Bowles v. State, 215 P. 934, 936 (Okla. 1923)
("habitual and willful neglect of duty" and "willful maladministration" for mayor to fail to file
statutorily required monthly reports for several months).
178 State ex rel. Cater v. City of N. Olmsted, 631 N.E.2d 1048 (Ohio 1994). In Cater, the
Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the suspension of an official was proper because he
committed nonfeasance — "the omission of an act which a person ought to do" — by not
complying with his duty under the public records law to release records to other officials. Id. at
321.
179 A.R.S. § 11-664(A).
44

be considered." 18° If the board votes unanimously to suspend the assessor, the suspension
is effective immediately. 181
The assessor has the right to a hearing and can exercise that right by filing a
written request with the board within ten days of the board's suspension.' 82 At the
hearing, the assessor may be represented by counsel and may have counsel, witnesses,
and members of the public testify on his or her behalf.' The board may sustain or
reverse the suspension at the conclusion of the hearing. 184
A suspension by the board cannot exceed 120 days unless removal of the assessor
is sought within the time period of the suspension. 185 By implication, if removal is sought
within that time period, the assessor remains suspended from office pending the outcome
of the removal proceedings.' 86 If removal is not sought during the suspension, the
suspended assessor must be reinstated to office.' 87 Removal of an elected official from
office is governed by A.R.S. §§ 38-341 through -345 and is discussed further below.
C. Judicial Review of Suspension
Suspension under § 11-664 is subject to judicial review by way of special
action)" That review is discretionary, however, and also limited. Courts do not "review
180 Id.
181 Id.
182 A.R.S. § 11-664(C).
183 Id.
184 Id.
185 A.R.S. § 11-664(E).
186 See id.
187 Id.
188 See Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'n, 229 Ariz. at, 350 II 11, 275 P.3d at 1270 (special
action rules "combine the old common law writs into a single form of action"); Griffin, 61 Ariz.
at 455, 150 P.2d at 97 (reviewing suspension of county treasurer under predecessor to § 11-664
on writ of certiorari); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a).
45

the judgment [of the board of supervisors] as to its intrinsic correctness, either on the law
or on the facts of the case."' Rather, courts are "limited to a determination of whether
the board of supervisors has regularly pursued its authority" and thus cannot "weigh the
evidence to determine whether the board of supervisors was authorized to enter the order
of suspension." 19°
D. Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 11 -664
In his November 7, 2019 letter to the Board of Supervisors, counsel for Mr.
Petersen questions the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 11-664, arguing that the Legislature
may not provide for the Board to suspend the elected occupant of a coequal and
constitutionally created office. 191 We do not address that argument here, other than to
note that it does not appear to have been raised or addressed in the only Arizona case that
interprets § 11-664 or a statutory predecessor. 192
2. Potential Factual Bases for Finding Neglect of Duty
Our research did not identify any case that has presented the issue of whether
certain conduct amounted to neglect of duty under A.R.S. § 11-664. One recent case that
considered similar language involved different facts and a different statute. 193 As noted
above, in that case, the Arizona Supreme Court characterized neglect of duty as "the
189 Griffin, 61 Ariz. at 456, 150 P.2d at 97.
190 Id. at 455-56, 150 P.2d at 97; see also Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'n, 229 Ariz. at
356,1139 n.6, 275 P.3d at 1276 n.6 (Court would not asses or weigh the facts because "[a]s a
general rule, the weight and sufficiency of evidence will not be reviewed on certiorari unless it is
necessary to determine jurisdictional facts") (citations omitted).
191 Letter, Langhofer to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors re: Suspension of Maricopa
County Assessor Paul Petersen, Nov. 7, 2019 (Exh. 22), at 2-3.
192 See Griffin, 61 Ariz. at 457, 150 P.2d at 97.
193 See Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'n, 229 Ariz. at 349-50 ¶ 8, 275 P.3d at 1269-70.
46

substantial failure to perform a duty. . . . It 'impl[ies] wrongdoing, some act of omission
or commission in office the law required to be done which was not done or if done was
done in an unlawful manner." 194
With this background, it falls to the Board, then, to determine whether the conduct
identified in our investigation constitutes neglect of duty under § 11-664. 195
A. Mr. Petersen's Violations of County Policies on Use of Technology
Resources
Elected officials cannot be disciplined for violating County policies in the same
way that employees can be disciplined.' Discipline aside, however, no one we spoke
with expressed the view that elected officials are free to disregard County policies, and
we do not believe that to be the case. After all, County policies, including those
implicated here, are adopted for sound reasons. The policies governing the use of
technology resources have several important goals, including maintaining secure systems
for conducting County business and ensuring the maintenance of public records as
required by law.
The people we interviewed as part of our investigation, which consisted largely of
the senior management team of the Assessor's Office, were universally surprised to learn
about the volume of documents on Mr. Petersen's computer related to his private law
practice. The leadership team is aware of the County's policies on use of technology
194 Id. at 356 ¶ 40, 275 P.3d at 1276 (citing and quoting Holmes, 57 Ariz. at 539-40, 115
P.2d at 783).
195 See A.R.S. § 38-443 (nonfeasance in office is a criminal misdemeanor requiring proof
that a "public officer. . . knowingly omits to perform any duty the performance of which is
required of him by law"). Only one Arizona case has interpreted this provision, and that case
suggests that this crime requires omission to perform a duty required by statute. Harper v. State,
241 Ariz. 402, 405 in 16-17, 388 P.3d 552, 555 (App. 2016).
196 See Hounshell I, 220 Ariz. at 5 it 18, 202 P.3d at 470.
47

resources and recognized that, while occasionally using a computer for personal reasons
might be permissible, using County computers for a private business is not allowed.
Thus, the people we interviewed generally expressed disapproval of Mr. Petersen's using
County resources for the purpose of his private law practice.
In addition, there are obvious reasons why using County technology for non-
County purposes could not only hinder County business, but also put at risk potentially
confidential matters unrelated to County business. For instance, if the County were
responding to a public records request, it would be forced to review and cull personal
documents from a set of public records before producing them as a response. 197 And the
policy on technology use could not be more clear — users do not have an expectation of
privacy in connection with their use of County resources, and the County can and does
monitor technology use. 198 Here, because Mr. Petersen maintained his private law
practice documents on the County network, potentially confidential and privileged
communications could be subject to review by persons unrelated to the representation,
placing the privileged and confidential nature of such communications at risk. 199
Moreover, Mr. Petersen did acknowledge the County's policies on the use of
technology resources and agreed to comply with those policies at least twice, first upon
197 See Griffis v. Pinal Cty., 215 Ariz. 1, 5 ¶ 14, 156 P.3d 418, 422 (2007) (rejecting
"argument that all e-mails generated or maintained on a government-owned computer system are
automatically public records. Some e-mails will relate solely to personal matters and will not,
therefore, reflect the requisite substantial nexus with government activities.").
198 Maricopa County Policy, Use of County Technology Resources, No. A2611, adopted
July 24, 2019 (Exh. 33), at 16, § VI.1.
199 See Ariz. R. Prof I Conduct 1.6(e) ("A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent
the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to
the representation of a client.").
48

becoming an employee in 2006, and then again upon becoming the Assessor in 2013. 20°
He also agreed to the Acceptable Use Statement each time he logged onto the County's
systems.
Mr. Petersen's extensive use of County technology resources during office hours,
while physically present in the County Assessor's Office, for his private law practice is
explicitly forbidden by the applicable policies.
B. Mr. Petersen 's Failure to Cooperate with This Investigation
The Maricopa County Code of Conduct, adopted on April 11, 2018, states that
"Employees may not withhold relevant information or willfully mislead an administrative
investigation.' ,201 An "Employee" under this policy is "[a] person paid a wage, salary or
stipend from public monies in accordance with official entries on County payroll,' ,202
which unquestionably includes Mr. Petersen. As noted above, Mr. Petersen did not
promptly respond to our request for an interview, did not provide any written materials to
us, and did not return his County-issued laptop until after the Attorney General's Office
obtained a search warrant, leaving us unable to review its contents as part of this
investigation. Thus, Mr. Petersen did not cooperate with this investigation, which was
commenced by the County Attorney's Office specifically in response to Mr. Petersen's
request for a hearing on his suspension from office.
200 Human Resources Department Employee Acknowledgement Form, Paul D. Petersen,
Jan. 24, 2006 (Exh. 39); Human Resources Department Employee Acknowledgement Form,
Paul D. Petersen, Aug. 19, 2013 (Exh. 40).
201 Maricopa County Policy, Code of Conduct, No. HR2416, adopted Apr. 11, 2018 (Exh.
35), at 2, § V.A.3. The previous and original version of this policy was adopted on July 27, 2017.
We did not review the 2017 version or any other predecessor policies to the Code of Conduct as
part of our investigation.
202 Id. § IV.D.
49

C. Mr. Petersen 's Twenty-Day Incarceration
During his twenty-day period of incarceration, Mr. Petersen was absent from the
office and largely unavailable and unreachable. His absence was unexpected and not
planned for — Chief Deputy Assessor Boncoskey was out of the country when Mr.
Petersen was arrested and had to return early from his travels. Because of his arrest and
incarceration, Mr. Petersen missed a significant meeting about the MARS project, which
had been scheduled to seek his approval to delay the project's implementation date.
During his incarceration, Mr. Petersen reportedly devoted approximately fifteen minutes
to County work when he spoke on the phone with Mr. Boncoskey on October 22.
Although, aside from the MARS meeting, there was no issue that arose during Mr.
Petersen's incarceration that required his attention, he nevertheless would have been
unable to respond in the event that there was a need for him to do so. He was unable to
perform his duties for the period in which he was incarcerated.'
3. Other Considerations
A. Criminal Statutes
Some of Mr. Petersen's conduct with respect to his use of County resources may
constitute crimes. For instance, Mr. Petersen's use of the County's computer and
networks for purposes other than those authorized for County work may constitute theft
under A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(2).' Likewise, Mr. Petersen's failure to return his County-
203 But see A.R.S. § 11-405 (county officer is not permitted to be absent from the state for
more than thirty days without the consent of the board of supervisors).
204 A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(2) ("A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person
knowingly: . . . Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another
entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term
or use[.]"). See A.R.S. § 13-1801(A)(14) ("services" includes "computer or communication
50

issued laptop when requested to do so may constitute theft under A.R.S. § 13-
1802(A)(1). 205 Mr. Petersen's failure to return the laptop also may constitute withholding
of public records under A.R.S. § 38-363 206 or stealing, destroying, altering or secreting
public records under A.R.S. § 38-421. 207 Other possible charges might be criminal
damage208 or tampering with a public record. 209
B. Other Statutes
A.R.S. § 11-253 allows the county board of supervisors to require any county
officer, including the assessor, "to make reports under oath on any matter connected with
services"); A.R.S. § 13-1802(G) (taking property or services is a crime regardless of the
property's value).
205 A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1) ("A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person
knowingly: . . . Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such
property[.]").
206 A.R.S. § 38-363 ("A public officer. . . who, after expiration of the time for which he has
been appointed or elected, or after he has resigned or been legally removed from office,
knowingly and unlawfully withholds or detains from his successor, or other person entitled
thereto, the records, papers, documents or other writings pertaining or belonging to his office, or
who knowingly mutilates, destroys or takes away any thereof, or who knowingly and unlawfully
withholds or detains from his successor, or other person entitled thereto, any money or property
in his custody as such officer, is guilty of a class 4 felony.").
207 A.R.S. § 38-421(A) ("An officer having custody of any record. . . filed or deposited in
any public office, or placed in his hands for any purpose, who steals, or knowingly and without
lawful authority destroys, mutilates, defaces, alters, falsifies, removes or secretes the whole or
any part thereof, or who permits any other person so to do, is guilty of a class 4 felony.").
208 A.R.S. 13-1602(A)(1), (2) ("A person commits criminal damage by: 1. Recklessly
defacing or damaging property of another person. [or] 2. Recklessly tampering with property of
another person so as substantially to impair its function or value.").
209 A.R.S. § 13-2407(A)(4), (5) ("A person commits tampering with a public record if, with
the intent to defraud or deceive, such person knowingly: . . . 4. Destroys, mutilates, conceals,
removes or otherwise impairs the availability of any public record; or 5. Refuses to deliver a
public record in such person's possession upon proper request of a public servant entitled to
receive such record for examination or other purposes.").
51

the duties of his office."'° "An officer who neglects or refuses to make the report. . .
may be removed from office by the board and the office declared vacant. The board may
then fill the vacancy." 211 Failure to make such a report "authorizes the county board of
supervisors, at its discretion, to remove the offending officer." 212
Board Chair Gates's October 24 letter to Mr. Petersen may be viewed as a request
for a report under § 11-253. Viewed in that way, Mr. Petersen's failure to make a report
on those issues could be a ground for removal.
4. Removal from Office
Removal of a county assessor from office is governed by A.R.S. §§ 38-341
through -345. 213 The grounds for removal are "wilful or corrupt misconduct in office."'
Like for neglect of duty, there are few authorities in Arizona and elsewhere that provide
210 A.R.S. § 11-253(A)
211 Id. See Hounshell v. White, 219 Ariz. 381, 386 ¶ 14, 199 P.3d 636, 641 (App. 2008)
("Hounshell (A.R.S. § 11-253 "remains the law in Arizona, and the Board is entitled to take
action pursuant to it.").
212 Hounshell II, 219 Ariz. at 387 1119, 199 P.3d at 642.
213 For convenience, a copy of A.R.S. § 38-341 is included with the exhibits as Exhibit 2.
While "[e]lected officials who violate criminal statutes. . . may be prosecuted and removed from
office," Hounshell I, 220 Ariz. at 6 1124, 202 P.3d at 471 (citing A.R.S. § 38-343(C)), unproven
criminal charges are not themselves grounds for removal. See LaRance v. Hopi Tribe, No. 2007-
CV-0103, 2010 WL 8973160, at *13 (Hopi C.A. Oct. 11, 2010) ("Presuming guilt from the fact
of arrest violates the most basic principles of due process of law. . . ."). Likewise, a felony
conviction, on its own, does not disqualify a person from holding public office in Arizona. See
A.R.S. § 38-201 (qualifications for public office). Thus, the fact that Mr. Petersen has been
charged with crimes related to his private law practice and adoption business, standing alone,
does not automatically result in his removal from office. Conviction of any of these charges also
would not necessarily result in his removal. If Mr. Petersen were sentenced to imprisonment,
however, statutory provisions addressing vacancies in office would likely apply. See A.R.S.
§ 38-291(5) (ceasing to be resident), (6) (absence from state for more than three consecutive
months), (7) (ceasing to discharge duties for three consecutive months).
214 A.R.S. § 38-341.
52

guidance on the meaning of "wilful or corrupt misconduct in office," and the cases that
do are factually dissimilar. We provide below a brief discussion of the applicable
authorities uncovered in our research.
The Arizona Supreme Court has said that "[m]isconduct in office consists of a
public officer's corrupt violation of assigned duties by malfeasance, misfeasance, or
nonfeasance."215 "Wilfully' means, with respect to conduct or to a circumstance
described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware or believes that the
person's conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists." 216 "Corruptly' means
a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage to the person
guilty of the act or omission referred to, or to some other person." 217 "In office" connotes
conduct related to official duties.' Synthesizing these definitions, removal under A.R.S.
§ 38-341 would be appropriate if the officer commits malfeasance, misfeasance, or
nonfeasance in connection with his official duties knowing or believing that the conduct
is improper or for the wrongful benefit of himself or another person. 219
215 Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm 'n, 229 Ariz. at 356 1141, 275 P.3d at 1276 (citing Bryan
A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 564 (2d ed. 1995); Black's Law Dictionary
1089 (9th ed. 2009)).
216 A.R.S. § 1-215(41).
217 A.R.S. § 1-215(8).
218 See Johnson, 433 N.E.2d at 711 ("to warrant the removal of an officer for malfeasance in
office, the malfeasance must have direct relation to, and be connected with, the performance of
official duties"); In re Rubi, 148 Ariz. 167, 172, 713 P.2d 1225, 1230 (1985) (Holohan, C.J.,
dissenting) ("willful misconduct in office" and "willful and persistent failure to perform his
duties" "refer explicitly or implicitly to conduct in office").
219 See Vinson V. O'Malley, 25 Ariz. 552, 558, 220 P. 393, 395 (1923) ("Before misconduct
in office is a ground of removal of the incumbent, it must be willful and corrupt. . . . Certainly, to
say of an officer that he was derelict in some duty is not to charge him with corrupt or willful
misconduct.").
53

Removal proceedings are in the nature of criminal proceedings. 22° A written
accusation of wilful or corrupt misconduct in office must be made in writing by a grand
jury,221 the proceedings occur in the superior court, 222 and the case is tried to a jury. 223
The officer may appeal the removal, but the officer remains suspended until the judgment
is reversed. 224
Conclusion
The ultimate issue the Board must decide is whether Mr. Petersen's conduct
amounts to "neglect of duty" within the meaning of A.R.S. § 11-664. As discussed above,
we did not find evidence that Mr. Petersen failed to fulfill any particular statutory
obligations of the County Assessor.
The Board may, however, determine that Mr. Petersen had a duty to follow
County policies with respect to the use of County resources and to cooperate with County
authorized investigations, even though he is not subject to employee discipline for
violating those policies because he is not considered an employee of the County. In
considering that question, the Board will need to decide whether sustained misuse of
County resources while at the Office of the County Assessor and failing to cooperate with
a County-authorized investigation means that Mr. Petersen neglected his duties as an
elected official.
Our investigation established that Mr. Petersen devoted substantial time during
working hours to his adoption law practice, even after serious questions about its legality
220 State v. Burr, 12 Ariz. App. 72, 74, 467 P.2d 784, 786 (1970).
221 A.R.S. § 38-341(A).
222 A.R.S. § 38-342.
223 A.R.S. § 38-343(B).
224 A.R.S. § 38-345.
54

had been raised over the years. Moreover, the investigation confirmed that he created and
saved in excess of 800 documents relating to his private law practice on County
computers, while in his County office, during work hours. And, significantly, he did so
with full knowledge that County policies expressly forbid the use of County computers
for private business purposes. Mr. Petersen also failed to cooperate with this investigation
by not making his County-issued laptop available in a timely fashion after multiple
requests from multiple people on multiple occasions and by failing to submit to an
interview. And finally, as a consequence of his arrest and incarceration, Mr. Petersen was
unavailable to fulfill his duties as Assessor for the twenty-day period he was in custody.
While Mr. Petersen's conduct with respect to his misuse of County resources may
give rise to criminal charges or may form the basis for removal under A.R.S. § 38-341,
the Board must decide whether that conduct, as well as his absence from office for twenty
days and his failure to cooperate with this investigation, amounts to "neglect of duty,"
and thus warrants leaving his 120-day suspension in place. Regardless of whether Mr.
Petersen's conduct meets the "neglect of duty" standard, his conduct in office, namely his
misuse of County resources, may constitute "wilful misconduct in office," within the
meaning of A.R.S. § 38-341, and could subject him to removal from office.
55