8.01: Difference between revisions

From Arizona Citizen Voice
← Older edit

Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
2,850 edits
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
=== Jamie's Story ===
=== Jamie's Story ===


==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ====
==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
The discussion of Attribute 8.01 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract.
The discussion of Attribute 8.01 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract.


The relevance of this specific Green Book Attribute, 8.01, is based on the identification of numerous other specific attributes within Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. The recurrence of numerous specific attributes suggests a bigger issue, perhaps deviations from good governance aren't isolated occurrences. Maybe the frequency and magnitude of election-related anomalies reveal a deviant organizational culture. County employees aren't being deviant; they are doing what is normal and expected in a deviant organizational culture.  
The relevance of this specific Green Book Attribute, 8.01, is based on the identification of numerous other specific attributes within Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. The recurrence of numerous specific attributes suggests a bigger issue, perhaps deviations from good governance aren't isolated occurrences. Maybe the frequency and magnitude of election-related anomalies reveal a deviant organizational culture. County employees aren't being deviant; they are doing what is normal and expected in a deviant organizational culture.  


<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>
Contrary to the Green Book, multiple deviations from Green Book Principle 8 specific attributes suggest MC management has chosen to allow fraud to occur. Throughout my story, MC management chose <u>not</u> to investigate election-related anomalies. A healthy organization would purposefully try to understand the cause(s) for any anomaly that could potentially prevent their primary objective from being achieved so Corrective Action Plans could be developed to prevent their recurrence. Ultimately, no objective evidence was provided by MC to indicate they wanted to improve the process; they were more comfortable with recurring anomalies than taking action to gain public trust.
 
=== Election Anomalies ===
The Green Book's Principle 8 addresses Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. Obviously, improper payments is not a concern during the Assessment of Election Anomalies. However, improper payments by MC county may exist, but would require a separate assessment.
 
The Green Book's <u>emphasis on fraud and information security</u> as separate risk assessment activity is intentional. MC may be able to defer to the Arizona Secretary of State's Election Procedure Manual as general steps taken to ensure the integrity of election results. Fraud occurs when loopholes are identified and exploited by the fraudsters. The implementers of election services (i.e., Arizona Counties) are better positioned to detect fraud and assess the risk of fraud because they are handling the data, not the state. Hence, governance gaps may be identified from patterns of poor assessment and response to risk with respect to election fraud and information security.
 
==== 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 [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation]. In their oversight role, the Arizona Senate sought to understand the risk to accurate tabulation of election results given the abundance of election-related anomalies. The Arizona Senate's allegations were focused on the potential for fraud. Yet, MC elected officials and MC leadership did not investigate any of the election anomalies for fraud, which necessitated the turnover of their allegations to the Arizona Attorney General. This potential deviation from the Green Book standard applies to the following Arizona Senate Allegations:


Contrary to the Green Book, multiple deviations from Green Book Principle 8 specific attributes suggest MC management has chosen to allow fraud to occur. Throughout my story, MC management chose <u>not</u> to investigate election-related anomalies. A healthy organization would purposefully try to understand the cause(s) for any anomaly that could potentially prevent their primary objective from being achieved so Corrective Action Plans could be developed to prevent their recurrence. Ultimately, no objective evidence was provided by MC to indicate they wanted to improve the process; they were more comfortable with recurring anomalies than taking action to gain public trust.
* [[The Anomalies#Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)|Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged|MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted|MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images|MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images|MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices|MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided|MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins|MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered|MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved|MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS|MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS]]
 
===== [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]] =====
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. Section 2 of the AZ AG's inspector's report identifies numerous issues, which present risk to potential fraud. The following issues identified in the inspector's report were not assessed internally:


* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Missing Entries on Election Forms|Deviation: Missing Entries on Election Forms]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Missing Ballot Counts|Deviation: Missing Ballot Counts]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Used Email instead of EVBTS Forms|Deviation: Used Email instead of EVBTS Forms]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Unfulfilled Party Representation Requirement for Couriers.|Deviation: Unfulfilled Party Representation Requirements for Couriers]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database|Deviation: Fictious Addresses in MC Voter Registration Database]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Allegations Confirmed|Deviation: Allegations Confirmed]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Noteworthy: Consequences Unknown|Noteworthy: Consequences Unknown]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Noteworthy: Transmission of USPS Data to MC and Runbeck|Noteworthy: Transmission of USPS Data to MC and Runbeck]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage




__FORCETOC__
__FORCETOC__

Latest revision as of 10:34, 14 September 2026

Risk Assessment

Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk

Attribute 8.01 - Management should consider risks related to fraud, improper payments, and information security when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.

General Attributes

The following attributes contribute to the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of this principle:

  • Identify Risks Related to Fraud, Improper Payments, and Information Security
  • Types of Fraud and Fraud Risk Factors
  • Types of Improper Payments and Improper Payment Risk Factors
  • Types of Information Security Risk and Information Security Risk Factors
  • Analyze and Respond to Identified Risks

Navigational Buttons:


Jamie's Story

March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

The discussion of Attribute 8.01 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract.

The relevance of this specific Green Book Attribute, 8.01, is based on the identification of numerous other specific attributes within Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. The recurrence of numerous specific attributes suggests a bigger issue, perhaps deviations from good governance aren't isolated occurrences. Maybe the frequency and magnitude of election-related anomalies reveal a deviant organizational culture. County employees aren't being deviant; they are doing what is normal and expected in a deviant organizational culture.

Contrary to the Green Book, multiple deviations from Green Book Principle 8 specific attributes suggest MC management has chosen to allow fraud to occur. Throughout my story, MC management chose not to investigate election-related anomalies. A healthy organization would purposefully try to understand the cause(s) for any anomaly that could potentially prevent their primary objective from being achieved so Corrective Action Plans could be developed to prevent their recurrence. Ultimately, no objective evidence was provided by MC to indicate they wanted to improve the process; they were more comfortable with recurring anomalies than taking action to gain public trust.

Election Anomalies

The Green Book's Principle 8 addresses Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. Obviously, improper payments is not a concern during the Assessment of Election Anomalies. However, improper payments by MC county may exist, but would require a separate assessment.

The Green Book's emphasis on fraud and information security as separate risk assessment activity is intentional. MC may be able to defer to the Arizona Secretary of State's Election Procedure Manual as general steps taken to ensure the integrity of election results. Fraud occurs when loopholes are identified and exploited by the fraudsters. The implementers of election services (i.e., Arizona Counties) are better positioned to detect fraud and assess the risk of fraud because they are handling the data, not the state. Hence, governance gaps may be identified from patterns of poor assessment and response to risk with respect to election fraud and information security.

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. In their oversight role, the Arizona Senate sought to understand the risk to accurate tabulation of election results given the abundance of election-related anomalies. The Arizona Senate's allegations were focused on the potential for fraud. Yet, MC elected officials and MC leadership did not investigate any of the election anomalies for fraud, which necessitated the turnover of their allegations to the Arizona Attorney General. This potential deviation from the Green Book standard applies to the following Arizona Senate Allegations:

Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)

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. Section 2 of the AZ AG's inspector's report identifies numerous issues, which present risk to potential fraud. The following issues identified in the inspector's report were not assessed internally:


Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=8.01&oldid=2965"