1.05 - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamies Story */

2026-08-19T23:45:13Z

Jamies Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 19 August 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	=== Jamies Story ===		=== Jamies Story ===

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ====
	This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).		This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).

Neil thibodaux at 23:05, 19 August 2026

2026-08-19T23:05:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 19 August 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''		* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''
	* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.04'''		* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.04]]'''
	* '''Next Attribute -''' '''1.06'''		* '''Next Attribute -''' '''[[1.06]]'''

			=== Jamies Story ===

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===
Line 21:		Line 23:

	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

			=== The Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court */

2026-08-17T11:35:27Z

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 17 August 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===
	This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, ''Motor Vehicle Department ~~Contract~~.''		This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).

	The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona ~~Motor Vehicle Department (~~MVD). This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I ~~will~~ assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.		The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona MVD. This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I can assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.

	<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>		<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>

	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

Neil thibodaux at 15:47, 15 August 2026

2026-08-15T15:47:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 15 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''Control Environment'''

	'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value'''		'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value'''

Neil thibodaux at 15:46, 15 August 2026

2026-08-15T15:46:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 15 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.		'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.
	__FORCETOC__		__FORCETOC__
			<nowiki>***</nowiki>

			'''Navigational Buttons:'''

			* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''
			* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.04'''
			* '''Next Attribute -''' '''1.06'''

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===

Neil thibodaux at 23:49, 14 August 2026

2026-08-14T23:49:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 14 August 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:

	'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.		'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.
			__FORCETOC__

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court */

2026-08-14T01:16:05Z

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:16, 14 August 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>		<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>

	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD. Perhaps it was called a Memorandum of Understanding or the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. ~~Regardless~~		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

Neil thibodaux at 01:05, 14 August 2026

2026-08-14T01:05:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 14 August 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===
	The		This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, ''Motor Vehicle Department Contract.''

			The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department (MVD). This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I will assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.

			<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>

			Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD. Perhaps it was called a Memorandum of Understanding or the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. Regardless

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court */

2026-08-13T23:48:11Z

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 13 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.		'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.

	=== March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court ===		=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===
	The		The

Neil thibodaux: Created page with "'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value''' '''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may fa..."

2026-08-13T23:47:45Z

Created page with "'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value''' '''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may fa..."

New page

'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value'''

'''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.

=== March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court ===
The