17.05: Difference between revisions
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Jamie's Story === | === Jamie's Story === | ||
No | |||
==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ==== | |||
Excluding the Procurement Services department, Maricopa County employees did not respond to Jamie's PRR. Her inquiries were related to trying to determine if any of the election anomalies had been investigated and corrective actions plans implemented to prevent a recurrence of these issues. Given that no documents were provided, it's reasonable to conclude there was no meaningful evaluation. Procurement Services delivered two Runbeck Election Services contracts. It appears that the contracts were changed without referencing a documented evaluation that had occurred to prior the change, justifying the need to change the contract. | |||
==== [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] ==== | |||
Some of the contract changes were routine, while others were apparently needed to address an issue based on the scope. Those changes that were significant in scope lack the key aspects of Corrective Action Plans, identification, evaluation and corrective action. No documentation of those actions were provided with the contracts. | |||
=== Election Anomalies === | === Election Anomalies === | ||
| Line 40: | Line 45: | ||
===== [[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]] ===== | ||
As of September 2026, the Maricopa County website seeks to dispel suspicions of inappropriate use Sharpie Markers under the heading "2020 Election Myths." | |||
In chain of interrelated events and actions, Maricopa County claims the root of the problem was long lines at voting centers; "federal law requires counties to work to avoid long voting lines." | |||
For an effort to comply with Federal law, there is no documentation to support their claim that Sharpies were needed. The offer excuses and defend actions in the absence of any investigation and creation of corrective actions. Maricopa County claims long lines were occurring because of delays needed to clean the ballot tabulators, which had become fouled with ink. The transfer of ink to the tabulators was attributed to the use of ballpoint pens; the ink had not dried before running through the tabulator. They claim the issue only occurred at the voting centers because the ink always had enough time to dry for early mail-in ballots. | |||
It's a weak explanation, if that was truly the problem, why they returned to ballpoint pens at the voting centers? Where is the '''documentation''' to prove the use of Sharpie Markers were the result of rigorous analysis and planning by Maricopa County? | |||
Latest revision as of 18:11, 11 September 2026
Monitoring
Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
Attribute 17.05 - 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 [documentation requirement]. Management evaluates issues identified through monitoring activities or reported by personnel to determine whether any of the issues rise to the level of an internal control deficiency. Internal control deficiencies require further evaluation and remediation by management. An internal control deficiency can be in the design, implementation, or operating effectiveness of the internal control and its related process. Management determines from the type of internal control deficiency the appropriate corrective actions to remediate it on a timely basis. Management assigns responsibility and delegates authority for remediating the deficiency.
Note: The GAO emphasized "documentation requirement."
>>>Navigational Buttons<<<
- Index of Attributes
- Previous Attribute - 17.04
- Next Attribute - 17.06
Jamie's Story
Excluding the Procurement Services department, Maricopa County employees did not respond to Jamie's PRR. Her inquiries were related to trying to determine if any of the election anomalies had been investigated and corrective actions plans implemented to prevent a recurrence of these issues. Given that no documents were provided, it's reasonable to conclude there was no meaningful evaluation. Procurement Services delivered two Runbeck Election Services contracts. It appears that the contracts were changed without referencing a documented evaluation that had occurred to prior the change, justifying the need to change the contract.
Some of the contract changes were routine, while others were apparently needed to address an issue based on the scope. Those changes that were significant in scope lack the key aspects of Corrective Action Plans, identification, evaluation and corrective action. No documentation of those actions were provided with the contracts.
Election Anomalies
Arizona Senate Allegations
Arizona Senate allegations arose from MC's failure to recognize the Arizona Senates Oversight Role. These allegations were investigated and reported on by the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation. These allegations would not have occurred had MC leadership taken action to identify, investigate and remediate internal control issues associated with the 2020 General Election. This attribute specifically requires documentation for these corrective action related activities.
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Drop Box Collections issues.
The AZ AG's inspection did not report on any MC internal investigation of the lapses in chain of custody documentation, which should have been documented. Additionally, no corrective actions were identified even though the allegations had been confirmed; there were procedure violations.
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 inspector did not identify any investigation of Signature Verifier issues.
As of September 2026, the Maricopa County website seeks to dispel suspicions of inappropriate use Sharpie Markers under the heading "2020 Election Myths."
In chain of interrelated events and actions, Maricopa County claims the root of the problem was long lines at voting centers; "federal law requires counties to work to avoid long voting lines."
For an effort to comply with Federal law, there is no documentation to support their claim that Sharpies were needed. The offer excuses and defend actions in the absence of any investigation and creation of corrective actions. Maricopa County claims long lines were occurring because of delays needed to clean the ballot tabulators, which had become fouled with ink. The transfer of ink to the tabulators was attributed to the use of ballpoint pens; the ink had not dried before running through the tabulator. They claim the issue only occurred at the voting centers because the ink always had enough time to dry for early mail-in ballots.
It's a weak explanation, if that was truly the problem, why they returned to ballpoint pens at the voting centers? Where is the documentation to prove the use of Sharpie Markers were the result of rigorous analysis and planning by Maricopa County?
