Debunking MCBoS "forensic audit" Part 4
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was less than honest in their response to CHAIRWOMAN CAROLYN B. MALONEY.
"Maricopa has been a Dominion County for a long, long time," boasts Adrian Fontes in an interview after losing the bid for re-election as County Recorder in the November 2020 Election. When asked about lawsuits filed by Dominion, Mr. Fontes emphatically says, "I'm rootin' for Dominion! I am rootin' for Dominion Election Services because, guess who was one of the biggest customers Dominion ever had. - Helen Purcell! - Maricopa County has been a Dominion County for a long, long time and in 1996 Helen Purcell entered into the biggest contract that Dominion had had; and it grew into such a big contract that Dominion had offices inside the ballot tabulation center and two full time employees who worked out of the county facility ALL THE TIME! 365 DAYS A YEAR! That was their office; That's how big a customer Maricopa County has been to Dominion Election Services FOR DECADES."
Watch the interview here.
A rather unique and intriguing aspect of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' self-styled "forensic audit" does not get the attention it deserves. The procurement audit conducted by a Certified Public Accounting Firm. Considering all the possible components, types of election audits, and aspects of the election process that are possible to include in a "forensic audit" conducted to eliminate suspicions and increase confidence, the 'procurement process of an election tabulation system' is not often included. Factoring in Maricopa County's long-standing reputation as a - "Dominion County".
The Arizona Republican Party Chairman Jonathan Lines commissioned an audit in November 2018 of then-County Recorder Adrain Fontes, initiator of the procurement of the new tabulation system.
Lawyer Stephen Richer worked for the law firm Steptoe and Johnson at the time but; conducted the audit commissioned by Party Chairman Line as a volunteer, not as an employee of his firm.
Volunteer auditor and lawyer Stephen Richer did not finish the audit of Recorder Fontes's office.
Richer did manage to complete a lengthy 288-page interim report.
Jeremy Duda, a reporter for the Az Mirror wrote: "Attorney Stephen Richer, who is conducting the audit, was unable to substantiate several other claims, some of which did not cite a source for allegations, that Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes acted inappropriately and manipulated the election process to favor Democrats. Richer wrote that he is still awaiting records from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, and emphasized that the findings are not final".
Attorney Stephen Richer did not complete the task because Richer decided to challenge the incumbent rather than complete the project.
And Richer unseated Fontes in the 2020 election and aggressively championed the integrity of an election he won and had no part in facilitating. It's reasonable to think Richer found problems while auditing and that the Board of Supervisors was advised to lay down cover around procuring the system and awarding the contract to Dominion before it got questioned.
The CPA's procurement evaluation report is available here.
This third leg of the "forensic audit" authorized by the Board of Supervisors did not garner much attention when it was released. I call your attention to a letter from the Supervisors written in response to the written questions submitted by Members of the House Oversight Committee following the October 7, 2021, hearing:
QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN CAROLYN B. MALONEY
Question 1: What were the results of the two independent audits of Maricopa County’s elections conducted by firms certified by the Election Assistance Commission?
County Response: The multi-layered forensic audit was comprised of three separate audits performed by two United States Elections Assistance Commission Voting System Testing Laboratories and a Certified Public Accounting Firm
(The scope of this article is limited to procuring the Dominion system Maricopa used in the 2020 General Election.)
"The additional procurement audit conducted by the Certified Public Accounting Firm, Berry Dunn, found that the County conducted the solicitation and award of the Elections Tabulation System in a fair and ethical manner that was transparent and in accordance with all requirements of state statute and the Maricopa County Procurement Code."
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was less than honest in their response to CHAIRWOMAN CAROLYN B. MALONEY.
As if they had not already embarrassed our county and state enough by sounding like country bumkins who knew little other than Election Community propaganda and nothing about the brand new 6.1 million dollar tabulation system they approved from Dominion Voting Systems. Those men who, so self-righteously indignant and with a mean spirit, locked arms with the Professional Elections Community and every news outlet, television, and print all singing the same song? They pushed the envelope a little further.
To make sure their tails were well covered and out of sight? Did they not trust the cover they laid by including the procurement evaluation in their "forensic audit" in the first place? It was not enough?
Why else would they lie?
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors intentionally misrepresented the findings of the procurement audit conducted by the Certified Public Accounting Firm, Berry Dunn, which they entered as evidence, by omitting material facts contained in the report. Specifically, from the first section SUMMARY
" BerryDunn noted that the Office of Procurement Services generally complied with the Maricopa County Procurement Code and County Procurement Procedures, with the exception of the discrepancies identified in this report.
The County incorrectly attributed to CPA BerryDunn, as a statement of findings, a statement which, in fact, is the summary comment of the Office of Procurement Services (OPS), the entity being audited. The County doesn't even acknowledge the "minor informalities" the Office of Procurement Services (OPS) admits to.
From the Berry Dunn report:
"OPS Summary Comment
OPS conducted the solicitation and award of the Elections Tabulation System in a fair and ethical manner that was transparent and in accordance with all requirements of state statute and the Maricopa County Procurement Code. Minor informalities observed had no bearing on the solicitation or the resultant award. "
The Berry Dunn report has clearly stated objectives:
Objective 1: Verify that the Office of Procurement Services (OPS) conducted the procurement and awarded the contract with integrity, honesty, and fairness, in accordance with the Maricopa County Procurement Code and County Procurement Procedures.
The observation section of the report states:
"Sections 1.4 through 1.5 of the internal OPS Operating Procedures require the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) to provide
signed approval of the RFP,
evaluation committee members,
and the evaluation criteria and weights
prior to the advertisement of the solicitation.
The solicitation was advertised in the Arizona Business Gazette on March 28, 2019, and April 4, 2019, but the CPO did not sign the approval form until May 1, 2019."
A recent report from Secretary of State Hobbs also includes an audit of the award of the over six million dollar contract to Dominion. The Auditor-Generals report includes the participation of the Secretary of State in Maricopa County continuing to be a Dominion County. The Auditor General's report of Maricopa County becoming users of Dominion Democracy Suites 5.5 B for the 2020 elections contains a timeline of steps taken by the County to procure, test, and acquire the New Dominion Voting System for use in the 2020 elections.
From the timeline:
"March 28, 2019 - County Office of Procurement Services issued RFP for voting system. "
The Berry Dunn Report states on March 28, 2019, The solicitation was advertised in the Arizona Business Gazette but the CPO did not sign the RFP approval form until May 1, 2019.
Furthermore, the BerryDunn report states the auditor observed documentation of email communication and meeting invites, which verified that the CPO was informed of and involved with the procurement throughout the creation of the solicitation. The Berry Dunn report does not specifically state that the Office of Procurement Services (OPS) conducted the procurement and awarded the contract. It does say the CPO was informed of and involved with the procurement, but not that OPS conducted it.
I have noticed a propensity on the part of the oppressor to interpret and present information in such a way that it is easy to get the wrong impression because the communication can be understood in more than one way. An intentional effort to give an innocent impression while admitting guilt.
Certified Public Accounting practices may be lax but, when a procedure requires a signature of approval of something, in this case, the Request For Proposal, "evaluation committee members, and the evaluation criteria and weights, prior to the advertisement of the solicitation." Publicly advertising the Request For Proposals (RFP) BEFORE APPROVALS of it ARE SIGNED is not a "discrepancy." Someone did not follow the Maricopa County Procurement Code and County Procurement Procedures. It was a violation.
*It could be argued that the CPO and the OPS were evaluated in the report and it was not the CPO or the OPS running around violating policy and procedure, in which case the determinations of the CPA make sense. *
The timeline in the Auditor General report starts on March 28, 2019, stating "County Office of Procurement Services issued RFP for voting system. " speaks volumes about the inaccuracy of the report and casts shadows on Secretary of State Hobbs's part in this. Adrain Fontes' "I told you so" comment about the Auditor Generals' already discredited Special Report on the procurement of the voting system didn’t go unnoticed. More about them in Part 5.