Heat Maps: Difference between revisions
From Corrective Action Plan AZ
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles: | The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles: | ||
* Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (54%) | * '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%) | ||
* Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies (54%) | * '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%) | ||
* Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (43%) | * '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%) | ||
* Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (39%) | * '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%) | ||
Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight. | * '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority''' (see the following Note for Principle #2) | ||
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. | |||
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement. | * Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 41: | ||
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case. | * The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case. | ||
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State, which was less than adequate. Hence, Principle #2 scored low | All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State, which was less than adequate. Public documents from the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs) that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap. | ||
Revision as of 05:23, 7 September 2026
[need intro]
Combined
Jamies' Story
Election Anomalies
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit
- Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day
Heat Map of Election Anomalies
Summary
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:
- Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (54%)
- Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies (54%)
- Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (43%)
- Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (39%)
- Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority (see the following Note for Principle #2)
Note for Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute 2.01.
- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.
- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).
- The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.
- The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State, which was less than adequate. Public documents from the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs) that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.
