16.02: Difference between revisions

From Arizona Citizen Voice
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:


=== Election Anomalies ===
=== Election Anomalies ===
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.
 
===== [[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 AZ AG's inspector did not document any internal investigation of the Signature Verification process, even after knowing the AZ AG was dispatching an inspector to assess the validity of the allegation. No evidence was provided to indicate internal monitoring of the SPV step was being performed.

Revision as of 16:21, 22 August 2026

Monitoring

Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities

Attribute 16.02 - Monitoring activities evaluate whether each of the five components of internal control, including controls to effect the principles within each component, is present and functioning or if change is needed. Management establishes a baseline to monitor the internal control system. The baseline is the current state of the internal control system compared against management's design of the internal control system. The baseline represents the difference between the criteria for the design of the internal control system and the condition of the internal control system at a specific point in time. In other words, the baseline consists of issues and deficiencies identified in an entity's internal control system.

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<


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 AZ AG's inspector did not document any internal investigation of the Signature Verification process, even after knowing the AZ AG was dispatching an inspector to assess the validity of the allegation. No evidence was provided to indicate internal monitoring of the SPV step was being performed.