1.10 - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-15T14:08:34Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 15 September 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a "decision was made" to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly. The deviation from the established process was significant, changing from an actual count to an estimate by weight.		Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a "decision was made" to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly. The deviation from the established process was significant, changing from an actual count to an estimate by weight.

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		==== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] ====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.10 seeks to establish a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. In this case, management is directing personnel to distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day instead of ballpoint pens, knowing there are issues with the Sharpies. The following unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.10 seeks to establish a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. In this case, management is directing personnel to distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day instead of ballpoint pens, knowing there are issues with the Sharpies. The following unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-10T00:40:29Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 9 September 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.10 seeks to establish a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. In this case, management is directing personnel to ~~violate the ballot instructions and~~ distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day instead of ballpoint pens. The following unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.10 seeks to establish a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. In this case, management is directing personnel to distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day instead of ballpoint pens, knowing there are issues with the Sharpies. The following unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership <u>~~directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day~~</u>~~ contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.		* Maricopa County Leader directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership~~ asked personnel to ~~<u>~~stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day~~</u>~~ in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The inspectors were informed of issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers. Yet, the email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day after issues and concerns with the use of Sharpie Pens had been identified. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ensuring secure elections apparently complied with the request to distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers. The Maricopa County Leader seeks to ensure everyone is passing out Sharpie Markers contrary to the ballot instructions. Everyone is alerted to issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers, but apparently no one questioned their extensive use on Election Day. This email message was delivered by the Elections Department Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training. In this case, numerous temporary workers are hired for a short period of time, for the single purpose of supporting an election. The Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training would have been more influential to newly hired temporary workers. It seems odd that a staff management position (i.e., Training) would be communicating a line management decision, or what should be a line management decision.
	* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day ~~in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are~~ issues with the use of Sharpie Pens ~~on ballots prior to October 22, 2020~~. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ~~directing compliance~~ with the ~~ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told~~ to ~~violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers~~ distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.		* An investigation into 2022 Mid-term election anomalies confirmed that Sharpie Markers bled through some ballots, which would be consistent with the reports of "issues and concerns" identified with the use of Sharpie Markers before October 22, 2020.
			* As Maricopa County tells the story, they were concerned about long lines at voting centers. Their story goes on to attribute ballot tabulator fouling as the cause of long lines; delays and long lines occurred when voting stopped to clean the tabulators. They attributed fouling of the ballot tabulator to the wet ink from ballpoint pens being transferred to the tabulator. Their solution was to distribute Sharpie Markers at the Voting Centers to the voters; Sharpie ink apparently dries faster than ballpoint pen ink. The problem with their story is that it sounds more like an excuse than a plan. If any part of their story had been documented, which showed a thoughtful investigation, then most of the public's suspicions of foul play even would have been resolved, even if the corrective action to use Sharpie Markers was wrong.

Neil thibodaux: /* Dropbox Collection (2020) */

2026-09-06T22:40:34Z

Dropbox Collection (2020)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 6 September 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a "decision was made" to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly. The deviation from the established process was significant, changing from an actual count to an estimate by weight.		Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a "decision was made" to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly. The deviation from the established process was significant, changing from an actual count to an estimate by weight.

			===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
			This Green Book Attribute, 1.10 seeks to establish a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. In this case, management is directing personnel to violate the ballot instructions and distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day instead of ballpoint pens. The following unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

			* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
			* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
			* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamie's Story */

2026-09-04T21:24:52Z

Jamie's Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 4 September 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== Jamie's Story ===		=== Jamie's Story ===
	~~No examples are available~~ to ~~illustrate~~ governance ~~gaps~~ for this ~~attribute~~.
			==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
			From Attribute 1.07: Maricopa County management, with Katie Hobbs' oversight, were responsible when numerous election anomalies occurred during the 2020 General Election. Governance issues were identified in this assessment under [[The Anomalies\|"Election Anomalies"]] which used 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] as objective information to identify governance issues. Katie Hobbs was accused of being unethical in her decision to not recuse herself from her Election Oversight responsibilities during the 2022 Mid-term election. Similarly, Maricopa county employees displayed unethical behavior by violating election procedures (See [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Dropbox Collection - 2020]]). Like Katie Hobbs, MC election personnel were not violating any laws, they were just violating the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Election Procedures Manuals,] Interestingly, Katie Hobb's was responsible for those procedurs as the Arizona Secretary of State in 2020.

			Relevant to this Attribute, 1.10, there is no eveidence was found to demonstrate Katie Hobbs had taken timely actions to remediate deviations during the 2020 General Election. Ethical issues are demonstrated in the 2020 General Election and 2022 Mid-term election.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamie's Story */

2026-08-19T23:59:39Z

Jamie's Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 19 August 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''		* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''
	* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''		* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.09]]'''
	* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''__FORCETOC__		* '''Next Attribute -''' '''[[2.01]]'''__FORCETOC__

	=== Jamie's Story ===		=== Jamie's Story ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Election Anomalies */

2026-08-19T23:58:58Z

Election Anomalies

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 19 August 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===
	~~No examples are available~~ to ~~illustrate governance gaps for this attribute~~.
			==== [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]] ====
			The following statement is made in the AZ AG's Office 2020 General Election inverstigation.

			"After October 21, 2020, the number of ballots received became too large to utilize the ballot counter and the decision was made to weigh the trays containing approximately 200 ballots each." This appears to be a significant change from the established process. The decision changed the method of counting ballots from counting each ballot to estimating the number of ballots based on the weight of the box.

			Potential Governance Gap:

			Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a "decision was made" to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly. The deviation from the established process was significant, changing from an actual count to an estimate by weight.

Neil thibodaux at 23:54, 19 August 2026

2026-08-19T23:54:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 19 August 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''		* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''
	* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''__FORCETOC__		* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''__FORCETOC__
	Jamie's Story
			=== Jamie's Story ===
	No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.		No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.
	Election Anomalies
			=== Election Anomalies ===
	No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.		No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.

Neil thibodaux at 23:52, 19 August 2026

2026-08-19T23:52:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 19 August 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''		* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''
	* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''		* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''
	* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''		* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''__FORCETOC__
			Jamie's Story
			No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.
			Election Anomalies
			No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.

Neil thibodaux at 16:18, 15 August 2026

2026-08-15T16:18:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 15 August 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''		'''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''

	'''~~Adherence~~ to ~~Standards~~ of ~~Conduct~~'''		'''Attribute 1.10:''' Management determines tolerance levels for deviations from standards of conduct. For instance, management may determine that the entity will have zero tolerance for deviations from certain expected standards of conduct, while deviations from others may be addressed with warnings to personnel. Management establishes a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. Management, with oversight from the entity's oversight body and with consideration of applicable laws and regulations, takes appropriate actions to remediate deviations.

			<nowiki>***</nowiki>

			'''Navigational Buttons:'''

	'''Attribute 1.~~10:~~''' ~~Management determines tolerance levels for deviations from standards of conduct~~. For instance, management may determine that the entity will have zero tolerance for deviations from certain expected standards of conduct, while deviations from others may be addressed with warnings to personnel. Management establishes a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. Management, with oversight from the entity'~~s oversight body and with consideration of applicable laws and regulations, takes appropriate actions to remediate deviations.~~		* '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''
			* '''Previous Attribute -''' '''1.09'''
			* '''Next Attribute -''' '''2.01'''

Neil thibodaux: Created page with "'''Control Environment''' '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' '''Adherence to Standards of Conduct''' '''Attribute 1.10:''' Management determines tolerance levels for deviations from standards of conduct. For instance, management may determine that the entity will have zero tolerance for deviations from certain expected standards of conduct, while deviations from others may be addressed with warnings to personnel. Management estab..."

2026-08-14T10:49:16Z

Created page with "'''Control Environment''' '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' '''Adherence to Standards of Conduct''' '''Attribute 1.10:''' Management determines tolerance levels for deviations from standards of conduct. For instance, management may determine that the entity will have zero tolerance for deviations from certain expected standards of conduct, while deviations from others may be addressed with warnings to personnel. Management estab..."

New page

'''Control Environment'''

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

'''Adherence to Standards of Conduct'''

'''Attribute 1.10:''' Management determines tolerance levels for deviations from standards of conduct. For instance, management may determine that the entity will have zero tolerance for deviations from certain expected standards of conduct, while deviations from others may be addressed with warnings to personnel. Management establishes a process for evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct that escalates and remediates deviations timely and consistently. Management, with oversight from the entity's oversight body and with consideration of applicable laws and regulations, takes appropriate actions to remediate deviations.