6.01: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Attribute 6.01:''' Management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances. | '''Attribute 6.01:''' Management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances. | ||
__FORCETOC__ | |||
=== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] === | === [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] === | ||
The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract. | The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract. | ||
Revision as of 23:38, 14 August 2026
Risk Assessment
Principle 6: Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
Attribute 6.01: Management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances.
The discussion of Attribute 1.03 is from this March 12, 2026 event, under the subheading of Motor Vehicle Department Contract.
This potential governance gap relates to Adrian Fontes', (Arizona Secretary of State), press release on September 30, 2024. Voter registration records were adversely impacted for approximately 218,000 individuals. These records were corrupted during the transfer of Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) to Maricopa County.
No documentation was provided to me to explain this anomaly. That said, there was a gross misunderstanding the riskiness of the registering voters by the MVD to have that many records corrupted.
Potential Green Book Deviation:
Contrary to the Green Book, MC management apparently did not identify the risk associated with the collection of voter registration data by the MVD and subsequent transfer to MC Recorder's Office.
