15.01

Information and Communication

Principle 15 - Communicate Externally

Attribute 15.01 - Management should communicate relevant and quality information with appropriate external parties regarding matters impacting the functioning of the internal control system.

Attribute Categories

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

• Communication with External Parties
• Appropriate Methods of Communication

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<

• Index of Attributes
• Previous Attribute - 14.08
• Next Attribute - 15.02

Jamie's Story

2020: General Election Anomalies

Maricopa County's performance with the tabulation of ballots during the 2020 General Election deviated significantly from past elections. Any rationalization to attribute the results to Covid-19 public health mandates could be discredited given that Maricopa County's performance was substandard to the tabulation of results nationwide, which were also operating under Covid-19 public health mandates. The external communications did not adequately address the public's concerns.

2021: My Journey Begins

I directed questions to the Maricopa County Recorder, expecting a response since this is an elected position. I incorrectly assumed that elected officials would be interested in addressing citizen concerns. There was a brief interface between me and the Maricopa County Recorder. However, there was no response to my inquiries.

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Chose to be Represented in Court

This discussion of Attribute 15.01 from this March 12, 2026 event is specifically from a discussion titled, "No Duty to Explain Anything."

In response to my request to provide an explanation for records withheld, the complete quote of the legal team was "Defendants have no duty to provide an index or explain anything." The management and legal teams were compelled to belittle a citizen who dared to inquire into their business practices. The legal team provided a legal argument, which refuted my claim that they were responsible to fulfill my request. I referred to a statute, which seemed applicable. However, they referred to definition within another statute to explain why my claim didn't apply. Much later, the later, they got to the point, no index would be provided because no documents were withheld. Contrary to the Green Book, the Maricopa County acted in a manner which suggested they felt no duty to explain their actions or inactions to members of the public.

Election Anomalies

>>>>This needs to be written after all seven issues have been addressed.<<<<

Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)

This explanation also applies to the following topics based on the content of the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation report:

• Maricopa County Signature Verification Process
• Maricopa County Drop Box Collections
• Maricopa County Election Management Server
• Maricopa County Data not provided fTor election audit
• Pima County Voter Spike
• Unknown Published Flyer
• Representative Mark Finchem 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County

Management should communicate relevant and quality information with appropriate external parties regarding matters impacting the functioning of the internal control system. which investigated Arizona Senate allegations of improper conduct by Maricopa County Election Department - Drop Box Collections issues.

Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)

Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues.

See Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) , above for an explanation of this attribute, 15.01 to this election anomaly.