5.02: Difference between revisions

From Arizona Citizen Voice
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:


=== Jamie's Story ===
=== Jamie's Story ===
No example.
 
==== [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]] ====
The inconsistent use of approval signatures for contract changes suggest personnel were not being held accountable to being diligent with contract changes.
 
==== [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] ====
Debbie Lesko provides an oversight role as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS). Her presentation of why two boxes of ballots could not be located for three days following a November 2025 election parroted the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/news-and-information/elections-news/november-statement-election-1172025.html Election's Department statement]from November 7, 2025. She seemed to be accepting of people not following procedures to place the boxes of ballots in an unauthorized location for transport and how fortuitous it was that they had coincidently been stored in an area with 24-hour surveillance. Hence, a person in an oversight role did not communicate that management would be held accountable to address this ongoing issue with election processes.  


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

Latest revision as of 19:45, 11 September 2026

Control Environment

Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability

Attribute 5.02 - Management enforces accountability of individuals performing their internal control responsibilities. Accountability is driven by the tone at the top and supported by commitment to integrity and ethical values, organizational structure, and expectations of competence, which influence the control culture of the entity. Accountability for performance of internal control responsibility supports day-to-day decision-making, attitudes, and behaviors. Management holds personnel accountable through mechanisms such as performance appraisals and disciplinary actions.

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<


Jamie's Story

The inconsistent use of approval signatures for contract changes suggest personnel were not being held accountable to being diligent with contract changes.

Debbie Lesko provides an oversight role as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS). Her presentation of why two boxes of ballots could not be located for three days following a November 2025 election parroted the Election's Department statementfrom November 7, 2025. She seemed to be accepting of people not following procedures to place the boxes of ballots in an unauthorized location for transport and how fortuitous it was that they had coincidently been stored in an area with 24-hour surveillance. Hence, a person in an oversight role did not communicate that management would be held accountable to address this ongoing issue with election processes.

Election Anomalies

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.

This attribute (5.02) notes a relationship to Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values. Unfortunately, eight Attributes within Principle 1 have already been identified as potential governance gaps. Hence, it is difficult to have accountability when integrity and ethics are compromised as foundation of organizational effectiveness. Day-to-day decision making was seriously flawed to allow five procedure violations, which opened the door to Consider the deviations and noteworthy information related to this specific topic.

The Maricopa County Assistant Director of Recruitment and Training directed unethical activities, apparently using the senior management position to informally instruct personnel to use Sharpie Markers on Election Day, even though issues and concerns had been previously identifed. This senior management person wasn't holding election personnel to doing the right thing.