16.09

Monitoring

Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities

Attribute 16.09 - Management evaluates and documents the results of ongoing monitoring and separate evaluations to identify internal control issues [documentation requirement]. Management uses this evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the internal control system. Differences between the results of monitoring activities and the previously established baseline may indicate internal control issues, including undocumented changes in the internal control system or potential internal control deficiencies.

Note: The GAO emphasized the "documentation requirements."

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<

• Index of Attributes
• Previous Attribute - 16.08
• Next Attribute - 16.10

Jamie's Story

No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.

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. Apparently, none of the election anomalies were formally evaluated by MC, as in documented in an internal report to determine cause and take corrective action. If MC leadership had conducted an investigation, the AZ AG's inspector would have most certainly referenced the report as part of their investigation.

• Maricopa Signature Verification (2020)
• Maricopa Drop Box (2020)
• Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)
  • MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged
  • MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted
  • MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images
  • MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images
  • MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices
  • MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided
  • MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins
  • MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered
  • MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
  • MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

Using email, the Elections Department, Assistant Director of Recruitment and Training suspended the practice of handing out Sharpie Markers to in-person early voters on October 22 after issues were identified. However, the Assistant Director also directed that Sharpie Markers be handed to in-person voters on Election Day. These instructions were informally provided by email and contradicted the ballot instructions, which required ballpoint pens. After the Election, Maricopa County asserted the Sharpie Pens had no impact on the election results. If this attribute had been followed, the "issue" identified with Sharpie Markers would have been evaluated and results documented before resuming the distribution of Sharpies on Election Day.

• Maricopa County Leadership directed the use of Sharpie Markers on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
• Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to stop using Sharpie Markers and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
• Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.