https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Neil+thibodauxArizona Citizen Voice - User contributions [en]2026-10-04T22:00:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.46.0https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3273Interesting Takeaways2026-10-04T01:57:30Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County won their court against a citizen wanting their vote to be counted. However, Maricopa County is lying when they claim their court victory for this court case debunked Sharpie Gate.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...<br />
The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county. Implying no records exist to share. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. In inspector concluded Maricopa County Election Procedures for drop boxes had been violated based on the documentation the investigator reviewed. <br />
<br />
Maricopa County's legal team' claimed Maricopa County has no records to "create" the documents Jamie requested in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-452. The Arizona Attorney General's inspector found Maricopa County must create election procedures in accordance with the Arizona Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual, which was established to comply with A.R.S. § 16-452. In fact, the investigator found the county had violated county and state election procedures based on documentation that was not stated in A.R.S. § 16-452, but contained in the State's Election Procedures Manual, which was mandated to the county. <br />
<br />
Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. Maricopa's legal team may have been legally corrected by ethically wrong. Maricopa County is required to maintain documentation to fulfill A.R.S. § 16-452 as mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State, which has responsibility for A.R.S. § 16-452. Jamie's requests seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way t,Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3272Interesting Takeaways2026-10-04T01:29:47Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County won their court against a citizen wanting their vote to be counted. However, Maricopa County is lying when they claim their court victory for this court case debunked Sharpie Gate.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...<br />
The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3271Interesting Takeaways2026-10-04T01:23:28Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Catch-22 for Governance */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...<br />
The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3270Heat Maps2026-10-03T22:29:35Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage. <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
===== Lack of Oversight =====<br />
Intuitively, ACV saw clear link between ineffective organizational oversight and organizations prone to unethical behaviors and integrity lapses. In ACV's first use of Artificial Intelligence (Google-based), ACV searched "What role does lack of organizational oversight lead to poor organizational ethics?" and received the following response:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
<br />
Lack of organizational oversight significantly contributes to poor organizational ethics. Without effective oversight mechanisms, organizations may experience several detrimental effects:<br />
<br />
* Inconsistent Decision-Making: When oversight is weak, there are often no clear guidelines or processes for ethical decision-making. This can lead to reliance on personal judgment, resulting in varied responses to similar ethical dilemmas.<br />
* Increased Risk of Misconduct: Weak oversight can create an environment where unethical behavior goes unchecked. Employees may feel empowered to engage in unethical practices if they believe there will be no consequences.<br />
* Erosion of Accountability: A lack of oversight diminishes accountability at all levels. When individuals are not held responsible for their actions, it can foster a culture of impunity, further undermining ethical standards.<br />
* Failure to Address Ethical Issues: Without proper oversight, ethical concerns may not be identified or addressed in a timely manner. This can lead to a culture where ethical violations become normalized.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
<br />
This AI response confirmed ACV's belief that a '''Lack of Effective Oversight was a higher priority than Ethical and Integrity Issues.''' Negative outcomes result from both. However, effective oversight is needed to improve ethical and integrity issues. Conversely, oversight is not made more effective from strong organizational ethics and integrity. <br />
<br />
* '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was ranked as our highest priority, even with a low heat map score. <br />
* '''Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' was ranked as our third priority. <br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Sixth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.<br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3269Heat Maps2026-10-03T22:26:07Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Lack of Oversight */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage. <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
===== Lack of Oversight =====<br />
Intuitively, ACV saw clear link between ineffective organizational oversight and organizations prone to unethical behaviors and integrity lapses. In ACV's first use of Artificial Intelligence (Google-based), ACV searched "What role does lack of organizational oversight lead to poor organizational ethics?" and received the following response:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
<br />
Lack of organizational oversight significantly contributes to poor organizational ethics. Without effective oversight mechanisms, organizations may experience several detrimental effects:<br />
<br />
* Inconsistent Decision-Making: When oversight is weak, there are often no clear guidelines or processes for ethical decision-making. This can lead to reliance on personal judgment, resulting in varied responses to similar ethical dilemmas.<br />
* Increased Risk of Misconduct: Weak oversight can create an environment where unethical behavior goes unchecked. Employees may feel empowered to engage in unethical practices if they believe there will be no consequences.<br />
* Erosion of Accountability: A lack of oversight diminishes accountability at all levels. When individuals are not held responsible for their actions, it can foster a culture of impunity, further undermining ethical standards.<br />
* Failure to Address Ethical Issues: Without proper oversight, ethical concerns may not be identified or addressed in a timely manner. This can lead to a culture where ethical violations become normalized.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
<br />
This AI response confirmed ACV's belief that a '''Lack of Effective Oversight was a higher priority than Ethical and Integrity Issues.''' Negative outcomes result from both. However, effective oversight is needed to improve ethical and integrity issues. Conversely, oversight is not made more effective from strong organizational ethics and integrity. <br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Sixth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.<br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3268Heat Maps2026-10-03T22:24:33Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage. <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
===== Lack of Oversight =====<br />
Intuitively, ACV saw clear link between ineffective organizational oversight and organizations prone to unethical behaviors and integrity lapses. In ACV's first use of Artificial Intelligence (Google-based), ACV searched "What role does lack of organizational oversight lead to poor organizational ethics?" and received the following response:<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
Lack of organizational oversight significantly contributes to poor organizational ethics. Without effective oversight mechanisms, organizations may experience several detrimental effects:<br />
<br />
* Inconsistent Decision-Making: When oversight is weak, there are often no clear guidelines or processes for ethical decision-making. This can lead to reliance on personal judgment, resulting in varied responses to similar ethical dilemmas.<br />
* Increased Risk of Misconduct: Weak oversight can create an environment where unethical behavior goes unchecked. Employees may feel empowered to engage in unethical practices if they believe there will be no consequences.<br />
* Erosion of Accountability: A lack of oversight diminishes accountability at all levels. When individuals are not held responsible for their actions, it can foster a culture of impunity, further undermining ethical standards.<br />
* Failure to Address Ethical Issues: Without proper oversight, ethical concerns may not be identified or addressed in a timely manner. This can lead to a culture where ethical violations become normalized.<br />
<br />
<nowiki>***</nowiki><br />
<br />
This AI response confirmed ACV's belief that a '''Lack of Effective Oversight was a higher priority than Ethical and Integrity Issues.''' Negative outcomes result from both. However, effective oversight is needed to improve ethical and integrity issues. Conversely, oversight is not made more effective from strong organizational ethics and integrity. <br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Sixth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.<br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3267Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T21:43:17Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...<br />
The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3266Heat Maps2026-10-03T12:55:49Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Disclaimer */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage. <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews.<br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.'''</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3265Heat Maps2026-10-03T12:54:34Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review the section titled [[Heat Maps#Heat Map? What's that?|Heat Map? What's that?]] and then return to the top of this webpage. <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3264Heat Maps2026-10-03T12:52:51Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Special Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
If unfamiliar with the concept of Heat Maps, you may want to review <br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
Heat Map Findings will be presented after the Special Findings. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3263Heat Maps2026-10-03T12:50:15Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were identified as problematic. However, these findings were not derived from a comparison of all attributes in the conventional sense. <br />
<br />
* Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility was identified as a priority because of a lack of oversight. There was no way to assess oversight if no oversight was being implemented. <br />
* Documentation Requirements was identified as a priority. Documentation requirements stated in only seven of 196 Green Book Attributes and weaknesses were identified in all seven Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
Finish this section!!!!!<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3262Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T05:27:03Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court rule. As noted above, the count's primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, then the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county does not have any records to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 with the following statement from Page 6, Line 4:<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...<br />
The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investgator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the legal team's position, it appears that the Election Procedures Manual for Maricopa County does exist. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. The request seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3261Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T05:04:42Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court rule. As noted above, the count's primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, then the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county does not have any records to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 with the following statement from Page 6, Line 4:<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to<br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3260Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T05:04:09Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court rule. As noted above, the count's primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, then the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== Do They or Don't They? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county does not have any records to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 with the following statement from Page 6, Line 4:<br />
Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.” Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual '''and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.''' See A.R.S. § 16-452.<br />
Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3259Heat Maps2026-10-03T04:38:03Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were not identified as problematic from the Heat Maps. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of the County in Jamie's complaint against the county for not fulfilling her Public Records Request. The legal team's primary argument is the county is under no obligation to create records unless required by law. This may prevail in court. However, this is an example of poor governance. See the section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Can you see a pattern?|Can you see a pattern?]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3258Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T04:31:36Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== Can you see a pattern? ===<br />
Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their [https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/images/8/84/2026-03-20_Defendants%27_Response_Brief.pdf Defendants' Response Brief] to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.<br />
<br />
The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
<br />
* In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section '''does not require''' any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)<br />
* Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, '''none of the statutes''' require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)<br />
* Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and '''imposes no duty''' on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-121. The '''statute imposes no requirement''' for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)<br />
* '''No part of the statue requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)<br />
* See A.R.S. § 16-166. '''No part of the statute requires''' the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)<br />
* Accordingly, Defendants are under '''no statutory obligation''' to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)<br />
* '''No statute or other authority requires''' the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)<br />
* Section 39-121.01(E) '''imposes no duty on any public body''' to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)<br />
* '''No statute requires''' the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court rule. As noted above, the count's primary argument is that if the law does not require documentation, then the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to '''[https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/section-2-establishing-an-effective-internal-control-system/ OV2.11]''' Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]].<br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=March_12,_2026:_Maricopa_County_Defense_Briefing&diff=3257March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing2026-10-03T03:43:24Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Defense Brief */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; '''February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing'''<blockquote>The next part of Jamie's Story is [[April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing]]</blockquote><br />
----<br />
<br />
This page critiques the Maricopa County's Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The critique focuses on governance gaps and ignores legal arguments. Basically, Maricopa County leadership and its legal team defend themselves in Court by presenting legal arguments that reveal poor governance. <br />
<br />
This may have been their strategy for a long time. They may have been intentionally trying to be so sloppy in their governance that no evidence would be preserved and they could never be held accountable in a court of law. <br />
<br />
=== Jamie's Timeline ===<br />
{{Jamies_Timeline}}<br />
<br />
=== Background ===<br />
This part of my story explains how Maricopa County chose to represent themselves in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County of Maricopa. In their representation, their legal team portrays the County as being fully committed to doing the bare minimum to comply with the law. Arizona statutes did not specify any documentation retention requirements for Arizona counties; therefore, the County kept no records. Hence, Maricopa County could not provide me with all the documentation I requested. They did provide some contract documents with third-party companies where documentation becomes a legal requirement for enforceability. Unbeknownst to the County's legal team, their efforts to prevail in court revealed how poorly they are at day-to-day governance.<br />
<br />
On March 12, 2026, three lawyers for Maricopa County (Defendants) responded to my Plaintiff's briefing with a Defense Brief. <br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Legal Team representation of multiple Defendants with the same arguments unknowingly revealed how widespread poor governance existed within Maricopa County. Multiple departments reporting to two different elected Officials displayed the same culture. By making the argument Maricopa County was under no legal obligation to create and retain documentation addressing statutory requirements, their legal team was '''also''' making the argument that Citizens must rely on the assertions of Maricopa elected officials and employees of full compliance since the County did not preserve any records. Thus, the public would be unable to provide oversight as intended by lay.<br />
<br />
=== Contradictions with Green Book ===<br />
Maricopa County is required to comply with the law, which is the focus of their Defense Brief.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the GAO's Green Book sets the standard of internal controls for Federal departments under the Executive Branch. Maricopa is not required to comply with the Green Book standards. The comparison is made to illustrate how far Maricopa County deviates from good governance. <br />
<br />
===== Green Book Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values =====<br />
'''Attribute 1.04''' The oversight body's and <u>management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical value</u>s expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and <u>management reinforce the commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the <u>public.</u><br />
<br />
'''Consideration:''' Every time you see the lawyer claim they are in compliance with the law, consider if the citizen's request. Is the request reasonable considering that sloppy internal controls can change election outcomes?<br />
<br />
===== Green Book Appendix I, Requirements, Documentation =====<br />
Documentation is a '''necessary part of an effective internal control system.''' The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed. Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. (paragraph OV2.11) Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system. (paragraph 3.09) Documentation of the internal control system is further discussed at principle 3.<br />
<br />
The Green Book also includes the following '''minimum documentation requirements:'''<br />
<br />
* If management determines that a principle is not relevant, management supports that determination with documentation that includes the rationale for how, in the absence of that principle, the associated component could be designed, implemented, and operated effectively. (paragraph OV2.06)<br />
* Management documents the results of the risk assessments, including the identification, analysis, and response to risks, that are completed on both a periodic and ongoing basis. This includes documentation of the consideration of risks related to fraud, improper payments, information security, and significant internal and external changes that could impact the internal control system. (paragraph 7.15)<br />
* Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur. (paragraph 9.05)<br />
* Management establishes control activities by documenting in policies what is expected and in procedures specified actions that implement policies, to mitigate risks to achieving the entity's objectives to acceptable levels. (paragraph 12.02)<br />
* Management evaluates and documents the results of ongoing monitoring and separate evaluations to identify internal control issues. (paragraph 16.09)<br />
* Management evaluates and documents internal control issues and determines appropriate corrective actions for internal control deficiencies, including those reported from internal and external audits and evaluations, on a timely basis. (paragraph 17.05)<br />
* Management completes and documents corrective actions to remediate internal control deficiencies, including those reported from internal and external audits and evaluations, on a timely basis. (paragraph 17.06)<br />
<br />
=== Defense Brief ===<br />
Maricopa County's Defendants' Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County was submitted on March 12, 2026, which is available from the following hyperlink.<br />
<br />
>>[[Media:2026-03-20 Defendants' Response Brief.pdf|'''The Complete Defendants' Briefing to Court''']]<<<br />
<br />
=== Topics from Defense Briefing ===<br />
The text within the following yellow boxes was taken directly from the Defense Brief. <br />
<br />
==== Maricopa County's List of Records Requested by the Plaintiff ====<br />
<br />
===== Contracts with External Service Entities =====<br />
On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a public records request to the Maricopa County Office of Procurement Services (hereafter “Procurement Services”). [Ex. B at pdf 1] This public records request was designated as OPS Record # 719 (hereafter “PRR 719”). [Ex. B. at pdf 1] Through this request, Plaintiff sought contracts related to the 2018, 2020, and 2024 elections,1 specifically asking for contracts from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, Dominion, Runbeck, and “first level signature verification with temp agency contract” for those years. [Ex. A at pdf 7-9; Ex. B at pdf 1] Plaintiff’s request also stated she wanted “to see how AZ 16-452 is impacted by the same contractual conditions that were missed.” [Ex. A at pdf 9]<br />
<br />
===== Documentation of Compliance with the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2019_elections_procedures_manual_approved.pdf Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual] =====<br />
For the first item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-452 and asked for “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and for “[r]eports or metrics . . . justifying approval of 2020 election results.”<br />
<br />
===== Reports on Proof of Citizenship =====<br />
For the second item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-161 and asked for “[r]eports submitted to the Secretary of State on voters registered without proof of citizenship, including ballots cast for federal offices only, per § 16-168(G).”<br />
<br />
===== Processes and Reports to Maintain Accurate Voter Lists =====<br />
For the third item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-121 and asked for “[p]rocesses and reports used to maintain accurate voter lists, ensuring only eligible voters were included.” [Ex. C. at pdf 1]<br />
<br />
===== Records of Checks to Remove Deceased Voters from Rolls =====<br />
For the fourth item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-165 and asked for “[r]ecords of checks to remove deceased voters from rolls, including any identified failures and corrective actions.” <br />
<br />
===== Documentation of Registration Data Reported to the Arizona Secretary of State =====<br />
For the fifth item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-166 and asked for “[d]ocumentation of voter registration data reported to the Secretary of State, including compliance with federal form requirements.” <br />
<br />
===== Explanation of Runbeck/Dominion Contracts in Place during 2020 =====<br />
For the sixth item, Plaintiff requested documents related to the 2020 Runbeck/Dominion contracts, including “evidence of compliance with contract terms, including certification of Dominion’s software/hardware by the Secretary of State, source code escrow with the Secretary of State, maintenance of Optech Insights and 400-C units, and explanation for strikethroughs in [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered|Runbeck]]/[[June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered|Dominion]] contract disaster recovery language . . . and why new contracts were not initiated.” <br />
<br />
==== Argument, I ====<br />
From the Defense Briefing:<br />
It is unclear why Plaintiff believes additional records must exist. In PRR 719 she refers to Section 16-452, but this section does not require any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. See [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00452.htm A.R.S. § 16-452]. In PRR 1123, the May 15th, 2025, request, Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00121.htm Sections 16-121], [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00165.htm 16-165], and [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00166.htm 16-166] for records she is requesting but, again, none of the statutes require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking.<br />
<br />
There is no obligation for a public entity to create a record in response to a public records request.<br />
<br />
...none of the statutes require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking.<br />
<br />
If the text is clear and unambiguous, a court will not apply other methods of statutory interpretation.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' All of these four Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. <br />
<br />
==== Argument, I. A ====<br />
For item one of PRR 1123:<br />
Section [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00542.htm 16-452] authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.<br />
A contrary claim is made by the inspector for the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.] The inspector notes the Maricopa does have election procedures, which mimic the Secretary of State's Election Procedures manual within the investigation of Arizona Senate's Allegation #2, Drop Box Collections. In fact, five procedure violations occurred because election requirements were not documented in accordance with procedures Maricopa County <u>and</u> Secretary of State Election had in effect during the 2020 General Election. <br />
<br />
It's a mystery as to why Maricopa County's management and legal team did not want to reveal they also had Election Procedures.<br />
<br />
For item two of PRR 1123:<br />
Section [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00121.htm 16-121] does require the creation of reports.<br />
For item three of PRR 1123:<br />
The statute imposes no requirement for any Defendant to create reports.<br />
For item four of PRR 1123:<br />
No part of the statue requires the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought.<br />
For item five of PRR 1123:<br />
No part of the statute requires the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought.<br />
For item six of PRR 1123:<br />
No statute mandates any of the Defendants create these types of records.<br />
In summary:<br />
The statutes Plaintiff cites to are clear—none require the Defendants to have the additional records she seeks or to have ever created them in the first place. Accordingly, Defendants are under no statutory obligation to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' All of these seven Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. <br />
<br />
==== Argument, I. B ====<br />
Maricopa County's leadership and legal team erroneously misconstrued my request as asking them to create records on my behalf. They responded appropriately, based on their misunderstanding of my request. <br />
Public bodies only have a duty to search for the public records they have.<br />
<br />
==== Argument, I. C ====<br />
Again, Maricopa County's leadership and legal team erroneously misconstrued my request as asking them to create records on my behalf. They responded appropriately, based on their misunderstanding of my request. <br />
No statute or other authority requires the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. Therefore, the Defendants have produced to Plaintiff all the public records subject to their control that are responsive to her public records requests.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' This one Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. <br />
<br />
==== Arguments, II ====<br />
Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants have a duty to explain their production, provide legal citations allowing the withholding of responsive public records, and state whether no responsive records exist. She cites Sections 39-121.01(D) and (E) as support. Plaintiff is incorrect.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' This one Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. <br />
<br />
==== Arguments, II, A ====<br />
A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(2). This requirement is only imposed on agencies. Id. The statute provides that the definition of “agency” is the same as in Section 41-1001.<br />
<br />
While Section 39 121.01(D)(2) creates a duty for agencies to provide an index upon request, the Defendants are not included in the definition of “agency.”<br />
<br />
If no responsive public records are withheld, there is no index to provide.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' The first two Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. The final argument is a logical position assuming no records were withheld and compliance with the law for the first and second argument. <br />
<br />
==== Arguments, II, B ====<br />
No statute requires the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. Similarly to the non-existent records previously discussed, Plaintiff merely wishes the Defendants did this, but they do not have to.<br />
<br />
Plaintiff may want additional explanations, descriptions, and certifications, but she is not entitled to them. Plaintiff will be unable to point to any statute, case, or other authority requiring the Defendants furnish her with this information, because none exists.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' These two Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. <br />
<br />
==== Arguments, III ====<br />
...the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office is incapable of being sued and it is an improper party in this case.<br />
'''ACV Conclusion:''' The Plaintiff did not originally seek records from the Maricopa County Recorders office. It was Maricopa County workers that reassigned the Plaintiff's Public Records Request to the Maricopa County Recorder's Office. The Plaintiff was simply identifying the defendants based on the transferring of requests to other departments as though it was a [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato|game of hot potato.]]<br />
<br />
==== Conclusion ====<br />
For the reasons above, each of Plaintiff’s claims fail and she is not entitled to any relief. Defendants respectfully request the Court enter final judgment in their favor. <br />
<br />
=== Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) ===<br />
I had sought contracts between Maricopa County and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) for the purpose of determining responsibility voter eligibility decisions, knowing people could register to vote using MVD services. This request was submitted by Public Records Request (PRR) 719.<br />
<br />
By way of background, Adrian Fontes, the Arizona Secretary of State, issued a '''[https://azsos.gov/news/849 press release on September 30, 2024]''', indicating over 218,000 Arizona residents were adversely affected by a “coding error.” I sought to understand the contractual responsibility for this error by reviewing the contracts between Maricopa County and the MVD. The Maricopa County Legal Team responded with, “In response to PRR 719, Plaintiff was informed there were no contracts with the Motor Vehicle Division.”<br />
<br />
The June 2026 Maricopa Count Defense Brief would lead one to believe there is '''no agreement in place to handle the transfer of critical information from the Motor Vehicle Division to Maricopa County'''. If true, this represents a serious breach of public trust. To this day, I cannot understand how Maricopa County could receive important information from the MVD without a written agreement of responsibilities. After all, erroneous data transfers of voter registration data could compromise the integrity of election results, regardless of intent.<br />
<br />
Giving Maricopa County the benefit of doubt, perhaps I didn't put the correct terminology in my request. Maybe the agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe the agreement was between Maricopa County and the Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. There is a serious ethical problem within the County if they denied the legal agreements I sought because I used the wrong terminology. How could a citizen possibly know the correct terminology to put in the PRR when the third-party agreements to outside entities are not publicly accessible, except by the PRR process itself? It would be a terrible breach of public trust if records were denied based on a language technicality so that my intent could be disregarded.<br />
<br />
=== Potential Governance Gap(s): ===<br />
<br />
* Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br />
** Attribute(s): [[1.01]], [[1.03]], [[1.04]], [[1.05]]<br />
* Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br />
** Attribute(s): [[2.02]]<br />
* Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br />
** Attribute(s): [[3.04]], [[3.09]], [[3.10]]<br />
* Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br />
** Attribute(s): [[6.01]]<br />
* Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks<br />
** Attribute(s): [[7.04]], [[7.15]]<br />
* Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information<br />
** Attribute(s): [[8.01]], [[8.02]], [[8.04]], [[8.05]], [[8.09]]<br />
* Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 10 - Design Control Activities<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 13 - Use Quality Information<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 14 - Communicate Internally<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 15 - Communicate Externally<br />
** Attribute(s): [[15.01]], <br />
* Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities<br />
** Attribute(s):<br />
* Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies<br />
** Attribute(s):</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3256Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T01:36:33Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3255Heat Maps2026-10-03T01:34:55Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were not identified as problematic from the Heat Maps. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see [[Heat Maps#Heat Map of Documentation Requirements|Heat Map of Documentation Requirements]], below). <br />
<br />
Governance weaknesses were identified in six of the seven Attributes that specified Documentation Requirements. The low score for documentation of change assessment process, Attribute 9.05, was scored low because of the number of observations in that area, not because of strengths. <br />
<br />
Jamie's Public Records Request was seeking Maricopa County contracts with entities that support their implementation of Elections. Maricopa County delivered the Runbeck. The contract was changed after the original approval. However, [[Interesting Takeaways#Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained|Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained]] as described on the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3254Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T01:24:58Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Runbeck Contract Changes not Approved or Explained */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained ===<br />
[[File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png|border]]<br />
<br />
Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process, according to how it was documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic. <br />
<br />
Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation. <br />
<br />
In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."<br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Runbeck_Disaster_Recovery.png&diff=3253File:Runbeck Disaster Recovery.png2026-10-03T01:02:29Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Interesting_Takeaways&diff=3252Interesting Takeaways2026-10-03T00:53:49Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.<br />
----This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Interesting Takeaways'''<br />
<br />
These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.<br />
<br />
=== <u>56,226 Fictitious Addresses</u> ===<br />
There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.<br />
These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.<br />
<br />
For more details, <br />
<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>86,391 Fictitious People</u> ===<br />
In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. <br />
The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a '''"belief"''' that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a ''belief'' with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation. <br />
<br />
Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS. <br />
<br />
A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation. <br />
<br />
For more details,<br />
<br />
* see Allegation #6 [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020),]] Sub-allegation #8<br />
* see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]], Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database<br />
<br />
=== <u>Who is Watching the Hen House</u> ===<br />
Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:<br />
Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.]<br />
<br />
The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.<br />
<br />
The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.<br />
<br />
The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]<br />
<br />
In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. Howe can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?<br />
<br />
Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. <br />
<br />
Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. <br />
So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?<br />
<br />
=== <u>''Catch-22'' for Governance</u> ===<br />
catch-22 (noun): '''a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions''' <br />
This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested. <br />
<br />
Judge's final decision acknowledged '''Jamie's pursuit of accountability''' and controls for Maricopa County.<br />
<br />
The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that '''Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records''' Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.<br />
<br />
This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling. <br />
<br />
* On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.<br />
* On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. <br />
<br />
Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. . <br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
<br />
=== <u>587 "bad signatures"</u> ===<br />
During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. <br />
The following information will put this in perspective:<br />
<br />
* 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having '''no''' signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.<br />
* 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)<br />
<br />
In summary, <br />
<br />
* 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?<br />
* 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute ([https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G]).<br />
Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate. <br />
*For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
* To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, [https://handcountroadshow.org/sigver/ The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show]<br />
<br />
=== <u>7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud</u> ===<br />
"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).<br />
By law, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00550-01.htm A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,]the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database). <br />
<br />
According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.<br />
<br />
Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Training for us, but not for thee</u> ===<br />
The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers. <br />
"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in '''June 2020''' prior to the General Election.<br />
In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.<br />
"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from O'''ctober 30th to November 6th 2020''' to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."<br />
According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:<br />
"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.<br />
This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences</u> ===<br />
"'''Election Procedure Violations.''' Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.<br />
<br />
Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.<br />
Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.<br />
<br />
* The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.<br />
* The inspector did <u>not</u> determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.<br />
<br />
This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
<br />
=== <u>Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server</u> ===<br />
An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least '''two differing party preferences''' shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."<br />
<br />
The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a '''two-person''' rule to enter the room.<br />
Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:<br />
<br />
* Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box <u>and</u> the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.<br />
* Two people are required to have access to the EMS.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.<br />
* Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.<br />
<br />
Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:<br />
<br />
* Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.<br />
* Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.<br />
<br />
By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]].<br />
* For additional details, see [[MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book</u> ===<br />
The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek '''accountability''' and understand how the county was '''controlling''' their processes with the following summary:<br />
"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about '''accountability and control'''s in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."<br />
His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for '''accountability and controls''' would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government '''Accountability''' Office (GAO) wrote ''Standards for '''Internal Control''' in the Federal Government.''<br />
''"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."<br />
The GAO's Green Book <u>is required for federal agencies.</u> Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing ''Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities'' by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision|June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision,]] Catch-22 for Governance.<br />
* For additional details, begin by reading the [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/how-to-use-the-green-book/ Green Book Overview.]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Does this sound familiar?</u> ===<br />
[[File:Beau Johnson.png|left|thumb]]<br />
In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government:<br />
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br>Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message. <br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
=== <u>Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose</u> ===<br />
A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following: <br />
“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”<br />
The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing: <br />
"Defendants have no duty to explain." <br />
Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulation'''s, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the '''public.'''" Empasis was by ACV. <br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]]<br />
* For additional details, see [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth</u> ===<br />
The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:<br />
'''[https://elections.maricopa.gov/voting/just-the-facts.html#Myths Just the Facts,] Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths'''<br />
By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:<br />
#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']<br />
The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County did prevail in court, but it's a lie to say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by this court case.<br />
<br />
* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== <u>Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?</u> ===<br />
On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:<br />
"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. <br />
Key points of the email are as follows:<br />
<br />
# We acknowledge the '''issues and concerns''' about Sharpie Markers.<br />
# '''Stop''' using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.<br />
# '''Start''' using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?<br />
<br />
This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a <u>''sinister mindset''</u> during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections. <br />
<br />
During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time. <br />
<br />
A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.<br />
<br />
For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]<br />
<br />
=== Runbeck Contract Changes not Approved or Explained ===<br />
<br />
=== To Be Developed ===<br />
<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way to the Election Management System!</u><br />
<br />
<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u><br />
<br />
<u>Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only</u><br />
<br />
<u>Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses</u></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3251Heat Maps2026-10-03T00:15:23Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Green Book Documentation Requirements */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were not identified as problematic from the Heat Maps. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Heat Map of Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3250Heat Maps2026-10-03T00:14:49Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Findings ===<br />
This section identifies governance gaps that were not identified as problematic from the Heat Maps. <br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Documentation Requirements ====<br />
The US GAO's Green Book has a special consideration for Documentation Requirements, which are as follows:<br />
<br />
Note: Bold font was emphasized by the US GAO, and underlined font was emphasized by ACV. <br />
OV2.10 <u>Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system.</u> The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed.<br />
<br />
OV2.11 <u>Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system.</u> Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.<br />
<br />
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.<br />
<br />
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "'''[documentation requirement]'''" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in [https://guides.gaoinnovations.gov/greenbook/2025/appendix-i-requirements/ appendix I].<br />
Maricopa County has repeatedly stated they are in compliance with the documentation requirements as stated in the law as a reason for not delivering documentation to oversight or the public.<br />
<br />
The United States Government Accountability Office states documentation is required for internal controls or good governance!<br />
<br />
OV2.13 describes the minimum documentation requirements, which are stated in the Green Book as an Attribute. Seven Attributes specify Documentation Requirements, which were plotted on a heat map (see <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3249Heat Maps2026-10-02T23:47:23Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Special Finding */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Finding ===<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations. Contrary to this assumption, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out as a governance weakness because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations, not high numbers. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight in place to judge the performance of the oversight entity. In fact, in many cases Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3248Heat Maps2026-10-02T23:43:06Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Finding ===<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight and Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
==== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3247Heat Maps2026-10-02T23:42:44Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Special Finding - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Finding ===<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight and Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
=== Top Priority - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ===<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election.<br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3246Heat Maps2026-10-02T23:40:59Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Top Priority - Special Finding - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Special Finding - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ===<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight and Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election. <br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
==== Top Priority ====<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3245Heat Maps2026-10-02T23:40:02Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Wrong Tone Set at the Top */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Top Priority - Special Finding - Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility ===<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #2 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[2.01|Attribute 2.01]]''' The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Oversight Structure<br />
* Oversight for the Internal Control System<br />
* Input for Remediation of Deficiencies<br />
<br />
'''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' was an unexpected surprise!<br />
<br />
The trending of Maricopa County poor governance practices and behaviors began with the assumption that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility stood out because a surprisingly <u>low</u> number of oversight observations. The low numbers were NOT because of good oversight; the low numbers were because of an <u>absence of oversight.</u> There was no oversight and Maricopa County consciously acted in ways to prevent oversight.<br />
<br />
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should have been directly responsible for oversight of Maricopa County programs, processes and people. Instead, MCBOS blocked, stalled and litigated against the Arizona Senate that was trying to provide oversight in 2021 to election anomalies that occurred prior to, during and after the 2020 General Election. <br />
<br />
Read a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role.<br />
<br />
Maricopa County's performance with Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility is the '''weakest''' of all 17 Green Book Principles even though it's heat map rating was low. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Second Priority - Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[1.01|Attribute 1.01]]''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values. <br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
'''[[1.04|Attribute 1.04]]''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is described in a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
As Secretary of State, Kaite Hobbs oversaw her own election for Arizona Governor during the 2022 midterm election. She did not violate any law. However, her actions raised ethical issues. More importantly, she opened the door to poor ethical practices for those election workers that reported to her, directly or indirectly. If someone had low ethics, they would certainly be encouraged to push the limits if the person in charge was pushing the limits, especially if the "wrong" thing to do was still within the letter of the law (see above).<br />
'''Attribute 1.03''' The oversight body and management lead by an example that demonstrates the organization's values, philosophy, and operating style. The oversight body and management set the tone at the top and throughout the organization by their example, which is fundamental to an effective internal control system. In larger entities, the various layers of management in the organizational structure may also set the "tone in the middle." Although it is the oversight body and management's responsibility to set the tone at the top, other personnel throughout the entity play an important role in supporting the tone that permeates the organizational culture.<br />
Meanwhile, Maricopa County leaders and frontline employees willingly did not comply with written procedures according to the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation,] Allegation #2. Additional details are available from a section titled [[Interesting Takeaways#Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences|Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage. Violating procedures is unethical, but not against the law. In this case, five procedure violations may have potentially compromised thousands or tens of thousands of ballots. Those violating procedures may have felt that "If the people at the top can push the limits of ethical behavior, why can't we do the same?"<br />
<br />
==== Third Priority - Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #17 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[17.01|Attribute 17.01]]''' Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Reporting of Issues<br />
* Evaluation of Issues<br />
* Corrective Actions<br />
<br />
Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies was the second <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 38% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 17 were scored as weakness.<br />
==== Fourth Priority - Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (25%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #12 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[12.01|Attribute 12.01]]''' Management should implement control activities through policies and procedures.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Documentation of Control Activities Through Policies and Procedures<br />
* Periodic Review of Control Activities<br />
<br />
Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities was the third <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 25% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 12 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
==== Fifth Priority - Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (24%) ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #8 is stated in the following:<br />
'''[[8.01|Attribute 8.01]]''' Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.<br />
Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security<br />
* Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors<br />
* Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors<br />
* Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks<br />
<br />
Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information was the fourth <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle based on the Heat Maps, which plotted ACV's observations. 24% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 8 were scored as weakness.<br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3244Heat Maps2026-10-02T19:09:22Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1, [[1.01|Attribute 1.01]] states, "The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values." Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle of the ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
1.04 The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is illustrated [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' ====<br />
<br />
<br />
The trending of poor governance practices and behaviors by Maricopa County began with the belief that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' stood out because of a visible absence oversight. Read [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role. <br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map of Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3243Heat Maps2026-10-02T19:08:28Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is illustrated Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1, [[1.01|Attribute 1.01]] states, "The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values." Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle of the ACV's observations. 45% of all possible observations of Green Book Attributes within Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
===== Using the Law as a Shield for Accountability =====<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book [[1.04|Attribute 1.04]] states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
1.04 The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is illustrated [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] from the [[Interesting Takeaways]] webpage.<br />
<br />
===== Wrong Tone Set at the Top =====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' ====<br />
<br />
<br />
The trending of poor governance practices and behaviors by Maricopa County began with the belief that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' stood out because of a visible absence oversight. Read [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role. <br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3242Heat Maps2026-10-02T18:39:46Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
This section identifies the top governance issues identified from the trending of Maricopa County internal control weaknesses identified from Jamie's personal observations or publicly available information. <br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' ====<br />
The Green Book summary of Principle #1 states, "The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values." Attributes of this principle are grouped into one of the following categories:<br />
<br />
* Tone at the Top<br />
* Standards of Conduct<br />
* Adherence to Standards of Conduct<br />
<br />
Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values was the <u>weakest</u> Green Book Principle. 45% of all possible Green Book Principle 1 were scored as weakness. <br />
<br />
A common theme to low scoring on Integrity and Ethical Values was recurring practices and behaviors of using existing laws as a shield by Maricopa leaders, front-line employees and legal team. In other words, they were accountable to no one as long as they were in compliance with the law.<br />
<br />
Green Book Attribute 1.04 states (Emphasis added by ACV):<br />
1.04 The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the '''commitment to doing what is <u>right</u>, not just maintaining a <u>minimum level</u> of performance necessary to <u>comply with applicable laws and regulations</u>''', so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br />
<br />
==== The concept of hiding behind the law to avoid doing what is right is illustrated [[Interesting Takeaways#Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose|Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose]] ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%) ====<br />
<br />
==== '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' ====<br />
<br />
<br />
The trending of poor governance practices and behaviors by Maricopa County began with the belief that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' stood out because of a visible absence oversight. Read [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role. <br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3241Heat Maps2026-10-02T01:47:26Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
The trending of poor governance practices and behaviors by Maricopa County began with the belief that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' stood out because of a visible absence oversight. Read [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage for a list of entities that should be performing oversight, but were blocked by the county, neglected their duty or actively prevented other entities from performing their oversight role. <br />
<br />
<big>FIx the following:</big> <br />
*'''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.'''<br />
* '''Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).''' <br />
* '''The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.'''<br />
* '''The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.'''<br />
<br />
'''All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.'''<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3240Heat Maps2026-10-02T01:44:16Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Green Book Documentation Requirements */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
The trending of poor governance practices and behaviors by Maricopa County began with the belief that problematic internal controls would be shown by a higher number of observations, which is mostly true. However, '''Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' stood out because of a visible absence oversight. Read [[Interesting Takeaways#Who is Watching the Hen House|Who is watching the hen house?]] on the Interesting Takeaways webpage <br />
*Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).<br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.<br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
Based on observations, the Green Book Principles with the weakest governance performance are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (45%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (38%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (25%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (24%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (13%)<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.<br />
<br />
[[File:Documentation Requirements.png]]</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Documentation_Requirements.png&diff=3239File:Documentation Requirements.png2026-10-02T01:02:11Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3238Heat Maps2026-10-02T00:54:58Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
<br />
*Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).<br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.<br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (32%) stands out as dominant area of poor governance.<br />
<br />
The next two items are as follows:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' (16%) <br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies'''<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3237Heat Maps2026-10-01T23:42:54Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Disclaimer */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map Findings ===<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). <br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. <br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.<br />
<br />
=== Green Book Documentation Requirements ===<br />
The US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government Appendix I specifies Documentation Requirements for effective implementation of internal controls. A separate Heat Map was prepared to illustrate Maricopa County's governance with respect to Documentation Requirements.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3236Heat Maps2026-10-01T23:08:56Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of Maricopa County governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Disclaimer ===<br />
The data collected and plotted on these heat maps was constrained data availability. <br />
<br />
* ACV's observations were <u>not</u> obtained from an internal structured organizational assessment., which would have theoretically had better internal documents and employee attitudes obtained from interviews. <br />
* ACV's observations were obtained from the best available data, which included Jamie's personal experience and publicly available information from the internet.<br />
<br />
Jamie's personal experience was perhaps the most accurate for scoring of an individual Green Book Attribute because the insight came from a clear understanding of the context and there were no biases introduced by third parties. However, Jamie's personal agenda limited the number of Attributes observed; some governance attributes were simply not observed.<br />
<br />
An [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] was the primary source of publicly available information used for this governance assessment. This report from the AG's Office was prepared to address the Arizona Senate's allegations of malicious or criminal behavior after Maricopa County refused to willingly cooperate with the Senate's oversight of election anomalies. In this case, there were biases introduced by the investigators; these were not first-hand observations. That said, the documented observations of professional investigators were considered credible. The AG's Office found no criminal wrongdoing. However, their explanation for election anomalies repeatedly used sloppiness or poor governance as the explanation for the election anomaly. In other words, '''Maricopa County's inadequate internal controls or noncompliance with appropriate internal controls caused the election anomalies.''' <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
There were 11 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Jamie's Stories was comprised of the following events:<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). <br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. <br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3235Heat Maps2026-10-01T22:22:43Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map of Election Anomalies */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will explain how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
==== Jamie's Story Heat Map Data [[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]] ====<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Jamie's Story Heat Map ====<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomalies Heat Map Data ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Interpretation of Election Anomaly Heat Map ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority''' (see the following Note for Principle #2)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). <br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. <br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3234Heat Maps2026-10-01T22:19:24Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Combined */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will explain how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from All Observations ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Jamie's Story ===<br />
<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map from Observations Taken from Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Heat Map of Election Anomalies ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomaly Summary ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority''' (see the following Note for Principle #2)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). <br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. <br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Heat_Maps&diff=3233Heat Maps2026-10-01T22:17:32Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Heat Map? What's that? */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page will explain how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of governance.<br />
<br />
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps'''<br />
<br />
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:<br />
<br />
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]]<br />
<br />
=== Heat Map? What's that? ===<br />
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. <br />
<br />
Red colors represent a larger number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attribute. Attributes and Principles that are red or have reddish tones should be interpreted as organizational behaviors and practices that are in need of attention in terms of fulfilling the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. <br />
<br />
Conversely Green colors represent a smaller number of observations that found governance issues with the specific attributes. Fewer observations may denote organizational alignment to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. However, Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; green colors or greenish tones may also mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. <br />
<br />
In summary, the heat maps shown in this section shows Green Book Attributes and Principles that suggest poor governance practices in red color or reddish tones. From a performance improvement perspective, reddish colors are worthy of management attention. <br />
<br />
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map as x.01 through x.23, where "x" denotes the Green Book Principle, and number to the right of the decimal point denotes the Attribute within the Principle (see below). This Attribute data is straightforward. For <u>each</u> relevant observation of a deviation from the stated attribute, a value of one was added to the cumulative score.. This is a one-for-one relationship. Larger number of observations are shown in red colors or reddish tones.<br />
<br />
Colors were based on a comparison to all other Attributes within all Principles. Attributes were compared to Attributes. <br />
<br />
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ====<br />
Some math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. A straightforward numerical comparison would be invalid. <br />
<br />
For Green Book Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. A percentage of actual observations to potential observations was determined for each of the 17 Green Book Principles. <br />
<br />
All Green Book Principles weighting factors (%) were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. As with Attributes, Green colors do not necessarily denote good governance for the Principles; green colors may have occurred because the Attributes within a Principle were simply not observed. <br />
<br />
=== Combined ===<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Combined.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Jamies' Story ===<br />
<br />
# [[2020: General Election Anomalies]] - Public View<br />
# [[2021: My Journey Begins]]<br />
# [[November 2022: Mid-term Election|November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election]] <br />
# [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] <br />
# [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] <br />
# [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] <br />
# [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]<br />
# [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] <br />
# [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] <br />
# [[August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Heat Map Jamies Examples.png|border]]<br />
<br />
=== Election Anomalies ===<br />
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:<br />
<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS<br />
# AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit<br />
# Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day<br />
<br />
==== Heat Map of Election Anomalies ====<br />
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]]<br />
<br />
==== Election Anomaly Summary ====<br />
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:<br />
<br />
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%)<br />
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%)<br />
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%)<br />
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority''' (see the following Note for Principle #2)<br />
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. <br />
<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.<br />
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). <br />
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. <br />
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.<br />
<br />
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=3232MediaWiki:Sidebar2026-09-28T13:55:53Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>* Home / Main Page<br />
** mainpage|Home<br />
** Arizona Citizen Voice Goal|AZ Citizen Voice Goal<br />
** Legislative Action|Legislative Action<br />
** Public Support|Public Support<br />
* Background<br />
** Five Paper Trails|Our Video<br />
** Jamies_Story|Jamie's Story<br />
** Main_Page#Our_Prayer|Our Prayer<br />
<br />
* Proposed Bill<br />
**Proposed_Bill|Proposed Bill<br />
**Create County Ombudsman|--County Ombudsman<br />
**Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements|--County Records<br />
**Delete County Complaint Statute|--County Complaints<br />
**Add State Oversight by Ombudsman|--State Oversight<br />
**Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection|--State Selection<br />
* Good Governance<br />
**Standard for Good Governance|Standard for Good<br />
**About the Green Book|--GAO's Green Book<br />
* Governance Gaps<br />
**Governance_Gaps|Governance Gaps<br />
**Governance Analysis|--Governance Analysis<br />
**Heat_Maps|--Heat Maps<br />
**Interesting Takeaways|--Interesting Takeaways<br />
* Poor Governance Data<br />
** Poor Governance Examples|Poor Governance Examples<br />
** The Story|--Jamie's Examples<br />
** The Anomalies|--Gov Examples<br />
* Helpful Links<br />
** Acronyms & Definitions|Acronyms & Definitions<br />
** Fraud Flow Diagrams|Fraud Flow<br />
** Process Overview|--Process Overview<br />
**Process Specification| --Process Specification<br />
** Index_of_Attributes|Attribute Index<br />
** About Us|About Us<br />
<br />
* Tools<br />
** recentchanges-url|Recent changes<br />
** specialpages-url|Special pages<br />
** demo-page|Demo page</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Bill&diff=3231Proposed Bill2026-09-28T13:54:42Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation. <br />
<br />
=== Proposed Bill ===<br />
The proposed bill would include changes to multiple Arizona Revised Statutes. <br />
<br />
==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====<br />
Proposed new Arizona Revised Statutes: <br />
<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.01. Definitions|11-393.01. Definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.02. Exemptions|11-393.02. Exemptions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee|11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.04. Qualifications|11-393.04. Qualifications]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation|11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.06. Powers and duties|11-393.06. Powers and duties]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions|11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.08. Scope of investigations|11-393.08. Scope of investigations]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification|11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation|11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections|11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity|11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify Statute for County Records ====<br />
Proposed revision to Arizona Revised Statute:<br />
<br />
* [[Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements#11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection|11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection]]<br />
<br />
==== Delete Statute for County Complaint Procedure ====<br />
Proposed deletion of Arizona Revised Statute: <br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Oversight by Ombudsman#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
<br />
==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1279.03. Powers and duties|41-1279.03. Powers and duties]]<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bills Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===<br />
Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Bill&diff=3230Proposed Bill2026-09-28T13:51:53Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* The Proposed Bill Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation. <br />
<br />
=== Proposed Bills ===<br />
<br />
==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====<br />
Proposed new Arizona Revised Statutes: <br />
<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.01. Definitions|11-393.01. Definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.02. Exemptions|11-393.02. Exemptions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee|11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.04. Qualifications|11-393.04. Qualifications]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation|11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.06. Powers and duties|11-393.06. Powers and duties]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions|11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.08. Scope of investigations|11-393.08. Scope of investigations]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification|11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation|11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections|11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity|11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify Statute for County Records ====<br />
Proposed revision to Arizona Revised Statute:<br />
<br />
* [[Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements#11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection|11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection]]<br />
<br />
==== Delete Statute for County Complaint Procedure ====<br />
Proposed deletion of Arizona Revised Statute: <br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Oversight by Ombudsman#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
<br />
==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1279.03. Powers and duties|41-1279.03. Powers and duties]]<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bills Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===<br />
Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Bill&diff=3229Proposed Bill2026-09-28T13:49:21Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation. <br />
<br />
=== Proposed Bills ===<br />
<br />
==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====<br />
Proposed new Arizona Revised Statutes: <br />
<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.01. Definitions|11-393.01. Definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.02. Exemptions|11-393.02. Exemptions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee|11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.04. Qualifications|11-393.04. Qualifications]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation|11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.06. Powers and duties|11-393.06. Powers and duties]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions|11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.08. Scope of investigations|11-393.08. Scope of investigations]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification|11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation|11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections|11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity|11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify Statute for County Records ====<br />
Proposed revision to Arizona Revised Statute:<br />
<br />
* [[Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements#11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection|11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection]]<br />
<br />
==== Delete Statute for County Complaint Procedure ====<br />
Proposed deletion of Arizona Revised Statute: <br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Oversight by Ombudsman#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
<br />
==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection#41-1279.03. Powers and duties|41-1279.03. Powers and duties]]<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bill Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===<br />
Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Add_State_Role_in_County_Ombudsman_Selection&diff=3228Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection2026-09-28T13:47:23Z<p>Neil thibodaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members. <br />
<br />
=== County Specific Selection Committee ===<br />
A.R.S. 41-1373 Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee specifies how candidates for the State's Ombudsman are selected and approved, which involves the Arizona Legislature and Governor. The state selection process seeks to minimize political bias. However, the methodology is too complicated for County Ombudsman. Therefore, the selection committee was staffed with the following:<br />
<br />
* Chairperson - Arizona Ombudsman or delegate. <br />
* Five Members - One appointment by each Board of Supervisors from a pool of active Chamber of Commerce members in the County<br />
* One Member - Arizona Auditor General or delegate.<br />
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Democratic Party<br />
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Republican Party<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Ombudsman Role in Selection ===<br />
<br />
* Title 41- State<br />
** Chapter 8- Agencies of the Legislative Department<br />
*** Article 5 - Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide<br />
<br />
==== 41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions ====<br />
Add Paragraph F.<br />
<br />
F. In addition to the powers and duties prescribed in section 41-1376, the ombudsman-citizens aide, or delegate, shall chair Selection Committees for county ombudsman-citizens' aide positions.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Auditor General Role in Selection ===<br />
<br />
* Title 41- State<br />
** Chapter 7 - Legislature<br />
*** Article 10.1 - Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Auditor General<br />
<br />
==== 41-1279.03. Powers and duties ====<br />
Add Paragraph F.<br />
<br />
F. The auditor general shall appoint two staff members to serve as selection committee members for county ombudsman citizens' aide positions, which is a temporary and collateral duty.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Add_State_Role_in_County_Ombudsman_Selection&diff=3227Add State Role in County Ombudsman Selection2026-09-28T13:46:59Z<p>Neil thibodaux: Created page with "This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members. == Contents == * Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed..."</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will require the Arizona State involvement with the selection committee for each county's Ombudsman. The Arizona Ombudsman (or delegate) will chair the selection committee. The Arizona Auditor General will delegate two managers from the staff to be selection committee members. <br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.|Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.]]<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
=== County Specific Selection Committee ===<br />
A.R.S. 41-1373 Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee specifies how candidates for the State's Ombudsman are selected and approved, which involves the Arizona Legislature and Governor. The state selection process seeks to minimize political bias. However, the methodology is too complicated for County Ombudsman. Therefore, the selection committee was staffed with the following:<br />
<br />
* Chairperson - Arizona Ombudsman or delegate. <br />
* Five Members - One appointment by each Board of Supervisors from a pool of active Chamber of Commerce members in the County<br />
* One Member - Arizona Auditor General or delegate.<br />
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Democratic Party<br />
* One Member - Appointed by the Chair of the County Republican Party<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Ombudsman Role in Selection ===<br />
<br />
* Title 41- State<br />
** Chapter 8- Agencies of the Legislative Department<br />
*** Article 5 - Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide<br />
<br />
==== 41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions ====<br />
Add Paragraph F.<br />
<br />
F. In addition to the powers and duties prescribed in section 41-1376, the ombudsman-citizens aide, or delegate, shall chair Selection Committees for county ombudsman-citizens' aide positions.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. for State Auditor General Role in Selection ===<br />
<br />
* Title 41- State<br />
** Chapter 7 - Legislature<br />
*** Article 10.1 - Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Auditor General<br />
<br />
==== 41-1279.03. Powers and duties ====<br />
Add Paragraph F.<br />
<br />
F. The auditor general shall appoint two staff members to serve as selection committee members for county ombudsman citizens' aide positions, which is a temporary and collateral duty.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Bill&diff=3226Proposed Bill2026-09-28T13:27:59Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation. <br />
<br />
=== Proposed Bills ===<br />
<br />
==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====<br />
Proposed new Arizona Revised Statutes: <br />
<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.01. Definitions|11-393.01. Definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.02. Exemptions|11-393.02. Exemptions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee|11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.04. Qualifications|11-393.04. Qualifications]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation|11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.06. Powers and duties|11-393.06. Powers and duties]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions|11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.08. Scope of investigations|11-393.08. Scope of investigations]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification|11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation|11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections|11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity|11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify Statute for County Records ====<br />
Proposed revision to Arizona Revised Statute:<br />
<br />
* [[Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements#11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection|11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection]]<br />
<br />
==== Delete Statute for County Complaint Procedure ====<br />
Proposed deletion of Arizona Revised Statute: <br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====<br />
<br />
* [[Add State Oversight by Ombudsman#41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B|41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B]]<br />
<br />
==== Change State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph E?<br />
<br />
==== Change the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bill Requires a New Governor in November 2026 ===<br />
Sadly, partisan politics stand in the way of a bipartisan citizen issue. <br />
<br />
The proposed bill is for the citizen and does not favor one political party over the other. However, the Governor of Arizona, Katie Hobbs, must be removed from her position as Governor to move this bill realistically forward. Why?<br />
<br />
* News articles have taken note of the large number of bills vetoed by Katie Hobbs. Depending on the news slant, the large number of vetos is not disputed; it's the justification for the veto that is disputed. The bill is unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with her past veto record. <br />
* As the Arizona Secretary of State during the 2020 election, Katie Hobbs spent more effort attacking the investigators and defending Maricopa County in her [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County]. The bill is even more unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with this bias.<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bill Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===<br />
Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Add_State_Oversight_by_Ombudsman&diff=3225Add State Oversight by Ombudsman2026-09-28T04:53:00Z<p>Neil thibodaux: Created page with "This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will implement statistical oversight of county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies, which will be reported annually in the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agency. == Contents == * Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures * Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A..."</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains a proposed amendment to Arizona Revised Statutes that will implement statistical oversight of county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies, which will be reported annually in the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agency.<br />
<br />
== Contents ==<br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures|Proposed Deletion of A.R.S. 11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.|Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S.]]<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Changes to 41-1376.01, Paragraph B ===<br />
41-1376.01, Paragraph B currently explains the required contents of the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agency's annual report. The contents are being revised to perform a statistical analysis of the annual performance of the county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agencies from the following counties:<br />
<br />
# Apache County<br />
# Cochise County<br />
# Coconino County<br />
# Gila County<br />
# Graham County<br />
# Greenlee County<br />
# La Paz County<br />
# Maricopa County<br />
# Mohave County<br />
# Navajo County<br />
# Pima County<br />
# Pinal County<br />
# Santa Cruz County<br />
# Yavapai County<br />
# Yuma County<br />
<br />
=== Proposed Change to Existing A.R.S. ===<br />
<br />
* Title 41- State<br />
** Chapter 8- Agencies of the Legislative Department<br />
*** Article 5 - Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide<br />
<br />
=== 41-1376.01 - Additional powers and duties; definitions, Paragraph B ===<br />
B. The annual report of the ombudsman-citizens aide shall include the following information about public access:<br />
<br />
1. The number of inquiries that are received from the public, the media and government agencies.<br />
<br />
2. The number of inquiries that are received about state agencies, county agencies, city or town agencies, school districts and other local jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
3. The number of requests that are received concerning public records and public meetings.<br />
<br />
4. The number of investigations that are conducted and the results of the investigations.<br />
<br />
5. Statistical evaluation of each county's annual report of their county Ombudsman Citizens' Aide complaints and investigation to identify crosscutting issues potentially in need of Arizona Legislative intervention.</div>Neil thibodauxhttps://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Bill&diff=3224Proposed Bill2026-09-28T04:36:01Z<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page explains the various statutes that require creation, amendment or deletion to implement laws that will hold Arizona Counties accountable to external and independent oversight, including public access to documentation. <br />
<br />
=== Proposed Bills ===<br />
<br />
==== Create Statutes for New County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide ====<br />
Proposed new Arizona Revised Statutes: <br />
<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.01. Definitions|11-393.01. Definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.02. Exemptions|11-393.02. Exemptions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee|11-393.03. Ombudsman-citizens aide selection committee]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.04. Qualifications|11-393.04. Qualifications]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation|11-393.05. Ombudsman-citizens aide; term; compensation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.06. Powers and duties|11-393.06. Powers and duties]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions|11-393.07. Additional powers and duties; definitions]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.08. Scope of investigations|11-393.08. Scope of investigations]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification|11-393.09. Complaint; investigation; investigative authority; violation; classification]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation|11-393.10. Procedures after an investigation]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections|11-393.11. County Ombudsman-citizens aide protections]]<br />
* [[Create County Ombudsman#11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity|11-393.12. County ombudsman-citizens aide political activity]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify Statute for County Records ====<br />
Proposed revision to Arizona Revised Statute:<br />
<br />
* [[Expand County Records/Documentation Requirements#11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection|11-251.03. Records center; contents; open to inspection]]<br />
<br />
==== Delete Statute for County Complaint Procedure ====<br />
Proposed deletion of Arizona Revised Statute: <br />
<br />
* [[Delete County Complaint Statute#11-1608. Complaints; procedures|11-1608. Complaints; procedures]]<br />
<br />
==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Oversee County Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Agencies ====<br />
<br />
* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph B<br />
<br />
==== Modify State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide Statute to Chair the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* 41-1376.01. Additional powers and duties; definitions / Paragraph E?<br />
<br />
==== Modify the State Auditor General Statute to be members of the County Ombudsman Selection Committee ====<br />
<br />
* 41-1279.03. Powers and duties<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bill Requires a New Governor in November 2026 ===<br />
Sadly, partisan politics stand in the way of a bipartisan citizen issue. <br />
<br />
The proposed bill is for the citizen and does not favor one political party over the other. However, the Governor of Arizona, Katie Hobbs, must be removed from her position as Governor to move this bill realistically forward. Why?<br />
<br />
* News articles have taken note of the large number of bills vetoed by Katie Hobbs. Depending on the news slant, the large number of vetos is not disputed; it's the justification for the veto that is disputed. The bill is unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with her past veto record. <br />
* As the Arizona Secretary of State during the 2020 election, Katie Hobbs spent more effort attacking the investigators and defending Maricopa County in her [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County]. The bill is even more unlikely to get Governor Hobbs approval with this bias.<br />
<br />
=== The Proposed Bill Requires a Legislative Sponsor Before the End of 2026 ===<br />
Bills are normally presented annually, during January of each year. An Arizona Senator or Representative would need to begin sponsoring this bill in November or December of 2026 in order to submit the proposed bill into the Legislative process of review and approval in January of 2027.</div>Neil thibodaux