6.08: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Election Anomalies === | === 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. It appears that MC have simply ignored the risk to Election Integrity from Signature Verifiers given the following: | |||
* Insufficient training development and implementation records to ensure training effectiveness | |||
* No indication of competency verification (i.e., test) following the Signature Verification Training | |||
* Temporary Employees performing the Signature Verifier Role without Training | |||
* No analysis or compensator measures to reduce human performance errors resulting from the repetitive and monotonous task of making mismatch decisions at an average rate of one decision every seven-seconds for eight hours a day, possibly longer. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:24, 21 August 2026
Risk Assessment
Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
Attribute 6.08 - Management defines risk tolerances for the defined objectives. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance relative to the achievement of objectives. Risk tolerances are initially set as part of the objective-setting process. Management defines the risk tolerances for defined objectives by ensuring that the set levels of variation for performance measures are appropriate for the design of an internal control system.
>>>Navigational Buttons<<<
- Index of Attributes
- Previous Attribute - 6.07
- Next Attribute - 6.09
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. It appears that MC have simply ignored the risk to Election Integrity from Signature Verifiers given the following:
- Insufficient training development and implementation records to ensure training effectiveness
- No indication of competency verification (i.e., test) following the Signature Verification Training
- Temporary Employees performing the Signature Verifier Role without Training
- No analysis or compensator measures to reduce human performance errors resulting from the repetitive and monotonous task of making mismatch decisions at an average rate of one decision every seven-seconds for eight hours a day, possibly longer.
