Date: Monday, October 19, 2026
Informal Time: 9:30 AM
Executive Time: Immediately following informal adjournment
Informal Location: Supervisors’ Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Executive Location: Sullivan Conference Room, 301 W Jefferson, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Chair: Kate Brophy McGee (District 3)
Vice Chair: Debbie Lesko (District 4)
Attendance
| Supervisor | District | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Kate Brophy McGee | 3 | Present (Chair) |
| Debbie Lesko | 4 | Present (Vice Chair) |
| Mark Stewart | 1 | Present — arrived 9:39 AM |
| Thomas Galvin | 2 | Present |
| Steve Gallardo | 5 | Present — arrived 9:46 AM |
Also Present: Juanita Garza (Clerk), Mia Vargas (Minutes Coordinator, remote), Jen Pokorski (County Manager), Brooke Worcester (Legal Counsel)
Informal Meeting: Executive Summary
The October 19, 2026 Informal Meeting featured a single substantive agenda item: a detailed presentation by Elections Director Scott Jarrett and Assistant County Manager Zach Schira on the 2026 General Election Transition Plan from early voting to emergency voting and election day operations. The board heard extensive technical detail about equipment transitions, chain of custody procedures, and bipartisan staffing protocols. Notably, the board then voted unanimously to enter executive session, where seven closed-door items—including ongoing opioid litigation, risk management claims, and two code enforcement matters—were discussed without public transparency.
Agenda Item 1: Presentation and Update on the 2026 General Election Transition Plan
Presenters
- Zach Schira, Assistant County Manager
- Scott Jarrett, Elections Director (Contract C-21-27-010-X-00)
What Happened
Jarrett delivered a granular presentation on the transition of 46 early voting locations from the Recorder’s Office (which administers in-person early voting) to the Elections Department (which administers emergency voting and election day). This transition is mandated by a settlement agreement between the Board of Supervisors and the Recorder’s Office.
Key Technical Details
- 46 early voting locations will transition at staggered times:
- 1 location: Thursday, October 29 (closes early)
- 33 locations: Friday, October 30 afternoon/evening
- 12 locations: Saturday, October 31 morning
- Equipment swap: Non-technical items (booths, signage, tables) stay. Ballot-on-demand printers and site book check-in stations are swapped out. Election day tabulators are delivered only the weekend before election day—not left on-site for weeks.
- Timing: Mock transitions took ~40 minutes in controlled settings; real-world estimate is up to 2 hours per location.
- Bipartisan staffing: Truck drivers and couriers operate in Republican/Democrat pairs. “Texs” (technical staff) use personal vehicles and attempt to be bipartisan but don’t work in pairs.
- Voter information: The public can check real-time location status, wait times (updated every 15 minutes), and dropbox-only locations at locations.maricopa.vote.
The Settlement Agreement Context
Jarrett repeatedly emphasized that the separate-equipment requirement stems from the settlement agreement between the Board and the Recorder’s Office. This agreement resolved a dispute over election administration responsibilities but created operational complexity: the Recorder’s Office now manages its own ballot-on-demand printers with only early ballot and provisional ballot images, while Elections Department printers carry election day ballot styles. The stated rationale is “least privilege” IT security—each entity only accesses data it needs.
Board Questions and Tensions
Debbie Lesko (Vice Chair) pressed Jarrett on a key contradiction:
“Last time I think we were here, Recorder Heap came in front of us and spoke and said he was concerned about this transition. Did that surprise you since his leadership team was involved in this process?”
Jarrett’s response: The final mock transition happened the same afternoon as Heap’s appearance. Heap may still have had questions because the final walkthrough hadn’t occurred yet.
Lesko also raised a Friday night press release about an “incursion” at an early voting site where printers were tampered with. She asked whether blank ballot paper had proper chain of custody. Jarrett confirmed the Recorder’s Office is implementing the same nightly closing procedures as Elections—locking paper in compartments, logging counts—but noted he was “not privy” to whether those procedures were actually followed in the specific incident.
Pattern Observations
- Lesko’s active questioning: Unlike typical unanimous-meeting patterns, Lesko here is asking substantive follow-ups on election security. The printer tampering incident clearly has her attention.
- Late arrivals by Stewart and Gallardo: Two supervisors arrived after the meeting started. Stewart at 9:39, Gallardo at 9:46. In an election administration presentation, this is notable.
Agenda Item 2: Motion to Convene Executive Session
Vote Record
| Motion | Maker | Seconder | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Convene Executive Session | Debbie Lesko | Thomas Galvin | 5-0 Unanimous |
Ayes: Galvin, Brophy McGee, Stewart, Lesko, Gallardo
The informal meeting was adjourned and the board moved to the Sullivan Conference Room for executive session.
Executive Meeting: Closed-Door Deliberations
The executive session contained seven closed-door agenda items spanning nearly two decades of litigation, ongoing opioid litigation against Purdue Pharma, elections-related legal exposure, risk management claims, zoning disputes, and health code violations. Outside counsel from two major law firms (Greenberg Traurig and Keller Rohrback) were present alongside county attorneys and department heads. No public votes, actions, or financial commitments were disclosed.
Executive Session Agenda Items (As Disclosed on Public Agenda)
Item 1: Melendres, et al., v. Sheridan, et al. (CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS); Legal Advice
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3) — Legal Advice; A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(4) — Litigation; Contract Negotiations; Settlement Discussions
Attendees:
- Nicholas Lefevre, Outside Counsel, Greenberg Traurig
- Tom Liddy, Civil Division Chief, County Attorney’s Office
- Joe Vigil, Practice Group Leader, County Attorney’s Office
- Marcy Flanagan, Assistant County Manager
- Blanca Caballero, Assistant County Manager
- Kevin Tyne, Chief Procurement Officer
Analysis: Melendres v. Sheridan is a 19-year-old case (filed 2007) related to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and immigration enforcement. That this is still generating billable hours from outside counsel in 2026 is itself a data point. The presence of the Chief Procurement Officer suggests potential settlement or contract negotiation components.
Item 2: Maricopa County v. Purdue Pharma, et al.; Legal Advice
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4)
Attendees:
- Lynn Sarko, Outside Counsel, Keller Rohrback
- Tom Liddy, Civil Division Chief, County Attorney’s Office
- Joe Vigil, Practice Group Leader, County Attorney’s Office
Analysis: Purdue Pharma litigation is part of the national opioid settlement framework. Maricopa County is pursuing claims for public costs associated with the opioid crisis. Keller Rohrback is a prominent plaintiffs’ firm with deep experience in opioid litigation. This is likely revenue-generating for the county—but citizens have no visibility into settlement amounts, attorney fee structures, or distribution plans.
Item 3: Alger v. Maricopa County, No. CV2024-008238; Legal Advice
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4)
Attendees:
- Joseph La Rue, Deputy County Attorney
- Jack O’Connor, Deputy County Attorney
- Zach Schira, Assistant County Manager
- Scott Jarrett, Director, Elections Department
Analysis: This is the critical elections item. Case CV2024-008238 (Alger v. Maricopa County, filed 2024) involves the Elections Department directly. Jarrett and Schira’s presence confirms this is active, substantive litigation—not a routine review. With early voting already underway for the November 2026 election, any litigation affecting election procedures carries immediate public interest.
The public has a right to know: What is Alger about? What remedies are being sought? What exposure does the county face? None of this is disclosed.
Item 4: Risk Management; Review of Select Pending Claims and Litigation; Legal Advice
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3)
Attendees:
- Joe Vigil, Practice Group Leader, County Attorney’s Office
- Blanca Caballero, Assistant County Manager
- Chris Capels, Director, Risk Management Department
- Shannon Murphy, Claims Manager, Risk Management Department
Analysis: Risk Management reviews typically involve employee claims, vehicle accidents, and facility incidents. The public has no access to claim counts, settlement amounts, or patterns that might indicate systemic problems in county operations.
Item 5: Wranglers Roost Special Use Permit Application; Legal Advice
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4)
Attendees:
- Max Carpinelli, Deputy County Attorney
- Darcy Kober, Assistant County Manager
- Darren Gerard, Acting Director, Planning & Development
Analysis: Special use permits often involve zoning variances that affect neighborhoods. “Wranglers Roost” appears to be a specific development or business. Citizens living near this project have no visibility into what legal advice the board is receiving or what conditions might be negotiated.
Item 6: Zoning Ordinance and ARS Violations at 5122 West McNeil Street, Laveen, AZ
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4)
Attendees:
- Rosa Aguilar Dhakal, Caitlyn Mitchell, Stephanie Large (Deputy County Attorneys)
- Darcy Kober, Assistant County Manager
- Darren Gerard, Acting Director, Planning and Development
- Kathryn Garcia, Code Compliance Manager
Analysis: Three deputy county attorneys assigned to a single property violation case is unusual and suggests either significant legal complexity or significant property owner pushback. The APN (300-02-119) is in Laveen. This is a code enforcement matter being elevated to the Board level—typically indicating either an appeal or a need for board-level legal direction.
Item 7: Health Code and ARS Violations at 2141 North 76th Street, Mesa, AZ
Statutory Authority: A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3), (A)(4)
Attendees:
- Rosa Aguilar Dhakal, Caitlyn Mitchell, Stephanie Large (Deputy County Attorneys)
- Darcy Kober, Assistant County Manager
- Andy Linton, Director, Environmental Services
- Amanda Bond, Division Manager, Environmental Services
Analysis: Another elevated code enforcement matter—this one involving Environmental Services (health code). Same three deputy county attorneys as Item 6, suggesting either a related matter or that this team handles the county’s most complex enforcement cases. The Mesa property (APN 219-26-097B) is under health department jurisdiction.
Critical Patterns and Red Flags
1. Executive Session Opacity
Seven items discussed behind closed doors including:
- Melendres v. Sheridan (ongoing since 2007—19 years of litigation)
- Purdue Pharma opioid litigation
- Alger v. Maricopa County (elections litigation, 2024)
- Risk management claims
- Two code enforcement matters
Citizen Impact: Zero transparency on settlement discussions, legal strategy, or financial exposure. The public is expected to trust outcomes without seeing deliberations.
2. The Settlement Agreement as Structural Fault Line
The Board-Recorder settlement agreement is driving operational complexity that creates new failure modes:
- Equipment swaps across 46 locations
- Different ballot styles on different printers
- Coordination challenges between two elected officials’ offices
This was a political settlement, not an operational optimization. The cost and risk are borne by voters.
3. Security Incident Timing
A printer tampering incident at an early voting site—reported Friday night before this Monday meeting—should have triggered an emergency board briefing, not a routine informal agenda item. That it was raised only by Lesko’s question, not by staff proactively, suggests either minimization or lack of urgency.
4. Bipartisan Staffing Theater
The emphasis on “one Republican, one Democrat” pairs sounds rigorous but masks reality: texs (the technical staff who actually handle equipment) work solo in personal vehicles. The bipartisan pairing applies to drivers and couriers—not the people configuring ballot printers.
5. Outside Counsel Dependency
Two outside counsel firms on the same executive session agenda:
- Greenberg Traurig (Melendres — 19 years and counting)
- Keller Rohrback (Purdue Pharma — national opioid litigation)
The county maintains a robust County Attorney’s Office (three deputy/division chiefs present) yet still requires outside counsel for major litigation. This indicates either capacity limits or complexity that exceeds in-house expertise.
6. The “Acting” Director Problem
Darren Gerard is listed as “Acting Director, Planning & Development” on two items. Interim leadership in a department handling zoning enforcement and special use permits raises questions about institutional continuity and decision-making authority.
7. Elections Litigation Shadow
Alger v. Maricopa County (CV2024-008238) is the second elections-related legal matter in recent sessions. Combined with:
- The Lezley Shepherd election integrity notice (September 2026)
- The Recorder-Board settlement agreement driving operational complexity
- The Friday night printer tampering incident
…a pattern emerges of elections administration under legal and operational stress.
8. Code Enforcement Escalation
Two property-specific enforcement matters with three deputy county attorneys each. This is not routine code enforcement. Either the property owners are well-resourced opponents, or the county anticipates litigation and is preparing accordingly.
Financial Summary
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Elections Contract | C-21-27-010-X-00 | Jarrett’s position |
| Melendres (Greenberg Traurig) | Unknown | 19-year case; cumulative cost unknown |
| Purdue Pharma (Keller Rohrback) | Unknown | Likely contingency/hybrid fee |
| Alger v. Maricopa County | Unknown exposure | Active during voting period |
| Risk Management Claims | Unknown aggregate | No public reporting of claim trends |
Total disclosed: $0. The public receives an agenda. Not a ledger.
Transparency Assessment
| Item | Public Information | Missing Information |
|---|---|---|
| Election Transition | Technical details, timing, staffing | Actual incident reports, chain of custody failures, settlement agreement text |
| Melendres | Case number, outside counsel | Settlement status, cumulative cost, current legal strategy |
| Purdue Pharma | Firms involved | Settlement demands, fee structure, expected recovery |
| Alger | Case number, elections connection | Nature of dispute, remedies sought, hearing dates |
| Risk Management | Department heads present | Claim counts, amounts, patterns, settlements |
| Wranglers Roost | Project name | Location details, permit conditions, neighborhood impact |
| Laveen Zoning | Address, APN | Nature of violations, owner identity, penalty sought |
| Mesa Health Code | Address, APN | Violation type, facility type, enforcement history |
Citizen Questions That Should Be Answered
- What is the current annual cost of the Melendres litigation? After 19 years, citizens deserve an accounting.
- What is Alger v. Maricopa County about? Elections litigation during an active election cycle is a matter of urgent public interest.
- What happened in the Friday night printer tampering incident? Why wasn’t this an emergency briefing item?
- Are the Laveen and Mesa code enforcement matters related? Same attorney team, different departments, same executive session.
- What happened to the Planning & Development Director? Why is the position “acting”?
- What is the county’s expected recovery from Purdue Pharma, and how will it be used?
- Where can citizens read the full Board-Recorder settlement agreement?
