6.07: Difference between revisions
Created page with "'''Risk Assessment''' '''Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances''' '''Attribute 6.07''' - Management determines whether performance measures for the defined objectives are appropriate for evaluating the entity's performance in achieving those objectives. For quantitative objectives, performance measures may be a targeted percentage or numerical value. For qualitative objectives, management may need to design performance measures that indicate a level or de..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''Attribute 6.07''' - Management determines whether performance measures for the defined objectives are appropriate for evaluating the entity's performance in achieving those objectives. For quantitative objectives, performance measures may be a targeted percentage or numerical value. For qualitative objectives, management may need to design performance measures that indicate a level or degree of performance, such as milestones. | '''Attribute 6.07''' - Management determines whether performance measures for the defined objectives are appropriate for evaluating the entity's performance in achieving those objectives. For quantitative objectives, performance measures may be a targeted percentage or numerical value. For qualitative objectives, management may need to design performance measures that indicate a level or degree of performance, such as milestones. | ||
'''>>>Navigational Buttons<<<''' | |||
* '''[[Index of Attributes]]''' | |||
* '''Previous Attribute - [[6.06]]''' | |||
* '''Next Attribute - [[6.08]]''' | |||
__FORCETOC__ | |||
=== Jamie's Story === | |||
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute. | |||
=== Election Anomalies === | |||
===== [[Signature Verification|Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)]] ===== | |||
Governance issues identified from [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues. The absence of objective data measuring the effectiveness of Signature Verifiers was noticeably absent from the inspector's notes given the purpose was to address allegations of fraud within the Signature Verification process as identified by the Arizona Senate in 2021. Therefore, the County appears to be accepting the risk of fraud, assuming there is no effective method of assessing the effectiveness of objectively measuring their performance. | |||
Signature Verifier performance not impossible to assess. What if each early ballot was randomly assigned to two different Signature Verifiers and the early ballot would only be tabulated if both Signature Verifiers agreed that the signatures matched. The reconciliation of differences between the two Signature Verifiers could yield data to identify performance differences between verifiers. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:11, 21 August 2026
Risk Assessment
Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
Attribute 6.07 - Management determines whether performance measures for the defined objectives are appropriate for evaluating the entity's performance in achieving those objectives. For quantitative objectives, performance measures may be a targeted percentage or numerical value. For qualitative objectives, management may need to design performance measures that indicate a level or degree of performance, such as milestones.
>>>Navigational Buttons<<<
- Index of Attributes
- Previous Attribute - 6.06
- Next Attribute - 6.08
Jamie's Story
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.
Election Anomalies
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues. The absence of objective data measuring the effectiveness of Signature Verifiers was noticeably absent from the inspector's notes given the purpose was to address allegations of fraud within the Signature Verification process as identified by the Arizona Senate in 2021. Therefore, the County appears to be accepting the risk of fraud, assuming there is no effective method of assessing the effectiveness of objectively measuring their performance.
Signature Verifier performance not impossible to assess. What if each early ballot was randomly assigned to two different Signature Verifiers and the early ballot would only be tabulated if both Signature Verifiers agreed that the signatures matched. The reconciliation of differences between the two Signature Verifiers could yield data to identify performance differences between verifiers.
