El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
Information Systems Committee Information Services General Review Reason for the Report
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 11 findings
F1
Some departments encourage employees to cross-train into the field of Information Technology (IT) to avoid the costs associated with the Information Services (IS) department’s programming, training, and PC support services.
F2
IT functions are handled independently by departments, so the total cost to the County for IT equipment and staff are unknown.
F3
Since budgets of departments vary, some departments are able to keep current with technology, while others are incapable of upgrading. 113
F4
In some cases, IS cannot produce or replicate industry specific software and the related service and support, so that departments must utilize outside vendors.
F5
There are no industry-specific requirements found within County departments, which might justify the wide array of email programs in use.
F6
The Board of Supervisors (BOS), Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), IS, and other departments have no venue to which they may refer purchases of multi-department or new systems development projects exceeding $10,000.
F7
The Information Technology Steering Committee (ITSC) is controlled and directed by its members. These members are countywide Departmental Directors, and must abide by County Policies and Procedures A-10 (2) (b) when submitting approval requests for purchases of multi-departmental and new systems development projects exceeding $10,000. By not attending the ITSC meetings, Departmental Directors invalidate the ITSC, and are thus incapable of enforcing decisions by the ITSC on themselves.
F8
In January 2001 and again in 2003, the BOS and the District Attorney’s Office (DA) together signed both the DAMION Software License and Maintenance Agreement contracts without the endorsement of IS through the ITSC.
F9
The DAMION contract was signed in 2001 by the BOS and the DA with full knowledge of a potential security breach for the County.
F10
The DA signed the contract for the DAMION Software License and Maintenance Agreement, and scheduled its submission to the BOS before giving it to IS for their approval.
F11
IS was given insufficient time (6 hrs) to review the DAMION Contract.
Recommendations 7
-
R1Since IS is in a position to provide the County with improved promotional decisions of IT workers, and provide ongoing testing and training of current technologies, departmental IT staff throughout the County should be trained and under the jurisdiction of the IS.
-
R2Since the County stands to benefit from bulk purchasing, the technology budget should be consolidated and shifted to IS.
-
R3In the event that the utilization of an outside vendor is required, IS should review hardware, software, and IT-related contracts before the departments go forward with purchases.
-
R4IS should establish a countywide standard for both Internet and intranet email applications, along with standards for database and operating systems. 114
-
R5The Board of Supervisors should vote to amend Policy A-10 by either dissolving the Information Technology Steering Committee (ITSC) or include language to enforce its duties.
-
R6The District Attorney’s Office and the Board of Supervisors should work with IS to ensure the DAMION system is equipped with the proper security tools for protecting the County’s IT data.
-
R7The Board of Supervisors should take seriously the recommendations made by IS as they relate to contracts or purchasing decisions, and ensure that departments allow IS reasonable time for this review process.
Commendations 1
-
CM1 Page 4The Information Technology Standard Sub-Committee (ITSSC) was well attended by departmental IT personnel and provided a useful format in the sharing of problems or information relevant to other County departments. Responses Required for Findings F1 through F11 El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Director of Information Services F6, F7, F8 El Dorado County Director of General Services F8 through F11 El Dorado County District Attorney Responses Required for Recommendations R1 through R7 El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Director of Information Services R2, R3 through R7 El Dorado County Director of General Services R6 El Dorado County District Attorney 115
No Responses Found 4
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of El Dorado
Agency
El Dorado County
County
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
El Dorado County District Attorney
Elected County Office