📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Mariposa County Grand Jury
• 2023-2024
General Inquiry into County Operations: Continued Technology and Software Lessons
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F2
Page 26
Tyler's platform limitations and rigorous schedule for release raises concerns about the success of implementation
F3
Page 26
Technology and software support, training and assistance is lacking, leading to a slow transition to Oracle.
F4
Page 26
Multiple County employees use personal phones for county work, Multiple Factor Authentication, and communication, which raises concerns about security.
Recommendations 4
-
R2Page 26The County should examine methods of eliminating double entry in County functions within six (6) months.
-
R3Page 26The County should allow for ample time to implement Tyler while being aggressive about complete implementation of the new system.
-
R4Page 26The County should fully implement the Oracle Accounts Receivable module within one (I) year, in addition to any other areas of incomplete implementation.
-
R5Page 27The County should review use of private cell phones for work activities. The following governing boards are required to respond pursuant to Penal Code sections §933 and §933.05: Board of Supervisors: FI, F2, F3, F4, F5, RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, The following elected county official is required to respond with 60 days: County Auditor: FI, RI, R2, R4 The following appointed officials are invited to respond : Chief Administrative Officer: FI, F2, F3, F4, F5, RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 Assistant CAO/Human Resources: Fl, RI, R2, R4 Per Penal Code §933.05(a)( I) and (2), responses must include acceptance, refutal, and/or clarification of the findings, and a commitment to implementing the recommendations, as appropriate, per Penal Code §933.5(b)(l)(2)(3) and (4). Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides infonnation to the Grand Jury. Complaints and Code Compliance Multiple departments lack written procedures on how to handle, track, and respond to complaints. As a result, many citizens feel unheard and forgotten. The public is positioned to best understand the flaws of County processes; therefore, their complaints must be taken seriously. One of the County entities that handles the most complaints is the Code Compliance Division, housed under the Planning Department. The current Code Compliance Division processes and procedures illustrate some of the broader issues associated with complaint management across County departments. The Code Compliance Division investigates complaints relating to code violations, for example, grading without a permit or structures built within setback areas, but life and safety issues are usually the primary concern with investigations. Investigations regarding code violations begin predominately with citizen complaints. A citizen can submit a Request for Investigation (RFI), anonymously or not. Reporting forms are available at the Planning Department and on line. They can be mail, faxed, or emailed. Once an RFI is received, Code Compliance staff assigns an RFI number through the AS400/HTE system and tracks cases through an Excel spreadsheet with restricted access. The assigned RFI number does not necessarily carry through to other reviewing entities. Review of complaints by other County entities is generally completed via hard copy forms or over email.