Kern County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
• Agency Response
Tracking and Response Reports
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 1 findings
F5
regarding the time it took to fully understand how this erroneous filing could have occurred. It was a function of a very slow response time from the IRS, misinformation from the current financial software provider, and a deficiency in that system due to its age. The City stated their staff worked continuously during the eight months to both assist affected individuals and worked with the IRS to understand how this happened. It took time to resolve. The City partially disagrees with F6, F7 and F8. The City’s response to F6 stated, they were in the process of developing a formalized written security incident management program. F7, the City has been investing in the development of the Technology Services Department with the addition of 20 new staff positions over the last three years (a 52% increase). F8, on-going training for staff; training would have been unlikely to have prevented this specific issue; however, additional training is always preferable and beneficial. RAND COMMUNITIES WATER DISTRICT March 23, 2022
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
has been addressed by the City, which has issued a RFP to replace the current ERP. The City agrees with Findings F1, F2, and F3. They do not agree with F4. The City states they were not made aware of the full extent of the IRS issue until May; letters were sent to all affected employees and retirees in July. The City stated no payments were made to the IRS regarding this matter. They are adamant that there was no data breach. The City partially disagrees with