Required Response Form Grand Jury Report Title : Mendocino County's Trailing Information Technology Report Dated : July

The CEO and BOS have not clearly defined the scope, authority or recruitment strategy for the proposed CIO position. Partialy Disagree. The BOS Information Technology ad-hoc committee is currently engaged with the CEO in refining the job description and duties based on present and projected needs.

The completion of the 99 Initiatives of the IT Master Plan has been delayed by 21 months due to factors such as a low priority for improving IT, uncoordinated project management, budgetary commitments and demonstrated deficient leadership. Partially Disagree. The 99 initiatives include a mosaic of tasks with varying levels of effort to address and a range of departments as lead. Some of the tasks can be completed and marked as such, while others represent ongoing responsibilities. County IS staff are developing a matrix of the IT Master Plan Initiatives that will more clearly identify the County’s lead, whether the task can be (or has been) simply completed, or if it represents an ongoing effort. Once the ITMP Initiatives are organized in this manner with updated status, County IS will maintain the to-date Schedules going forward. This will include a breakdown of completed, pending, and in process Initiatives.

The BOS approves funding for the ITMP but does not participate on the ITMP Steering Committee to communicate priorities, provide leadership and approve resources. Agree. The BOS will ask the IT ad-hoc committee to participate in ITMP meetings.

Since some costs are recorded in departmental budgets but not consolidated into the ITMP, the total cost of the Initiatives is possibly underrepresented by millions of dollars. Agree. Historically, County IS has been responsible for enterprise technology related costs and supporting infrastructure utilizing the IS operating budget and IT Reserve. Departments are responsible for department specific technology related expenditures and it can be difficult to capture the relation of these expenditures to ITMP Initiatives. With the existing structure in place, staff are able to identify expenses in the IT Reserve, IS operating budget and a portion of expenses in designated IT Equipment line item 862230 utilized by all departments. This would not identify expenses allocated to 864370 (fixed assets), 862189 (professional services) or 864360 (structural improvements) which would be combined with other departmental expenses.

The SO IS Department has been allowed to operate separately from the County’s IS department which is a detriment to efficient delivery of services and cost effectiveness. Agree. While the SO has IS staff independent of County IS, at the discretion of the SO Computer Operations Manager, there is regular interface in the following areas: Networking Infrastructure, System Administration, Telecommunications, and Mobile Device management.

If the IT staff with access to DOJ systems have received clearance to maintain equipment of the SO, there is no legal obstacle that would prevent reporting to a central IT Department headed by a CIO. Agree. County IS supports certain aspects of the SO (see F5), but currently has no authorization to access DOJ information or systems. Regardless of Authorization status, ultimate approval must come from the Sheriff.

Project status reporting is not clearly or regularly represented to the public and the BOS, thus leaving them uninformed of IT’s priorities and project initiatives. Agree. High level project updates are provided in monthly CEO reports, but improvements to Project status reporting have been determined to be a Department need. Efforts are currently underway to further develop Project Management methodologies and tools. Project status to date and change since last report should be included in the monthly CEO report.

Project Manager position(s) are unfilled, or the need not recognized, which leads to project plans not consistently being prepared for the management of IT Initiatives. Agree. County IS does not currently have Project Manager positions, though the need for additional Project Management or Project Manager position(s) is recognized. Consideration of potential PM positions is a key component of our efforts to develop our internal PM practices.

Project managers and process application analysts are critical and unfilled positions in Mendocino County's IT organization, which is already understaffed given the number of Initiatives in the ITMP as well as on-going operational needs. Agree. The Board has funded a new Business Analyst position; County IS is currently working with Human Resources to create this. The Business Analyst position will assist in application process improvements. Evaluation of these positions is a high priority for County IS as the need has increased.

The Auditor/Controller has not established the accounting procedure for the mandated funding reserve established by County Policy 35 which is obsolete and inadequately capped at $850,000. Agree. County IS agrees this policy should be reviewed. The Board of Supervisors adopted County Policy 35 in May 2000. Many technology improvements and infrastructure replacements were deferred due to a lack of available funding. In November 2018, the Board of Supervisors adopted the ITMP and allocated funding to critical projects. The IT Reserve currently holds funding for ITMP, enterprise internal service fund (ISF) and Public Safety Microwave Cost Recovery. The Enterprise ISF and Public Safety Microwave Cost Recovery were developed to not only identify cost allocations by entity, but also create a funding mechanism for future replacements. Annual contributions identified for these items currently exceed the amount identified in this policy.

Unlike many modernized California Counties, there are few mechanisms for the public to request most on-line County services or electronically submit forms thus inadequately serving the needs of the public and efficiently processing through County staff. Agree.

The County plans to issue an unnecessary and expensive RFP to select an alternative email service to replace GroupWise, when Microsoft email could simply be implemented. The County already licenses all other Office software from Microsoft except for email which is tightly integrated with all other Microsoft products. Agree. Migration of over 1,500 mailboxes, accounts, and the associated shares, proxies, contacts, distribution, calendars, etc. is a much more complex process than setting up an account. This requires a large training program as well as working with each department to ensure their embedded processes are not disrupted during this transition. There is the migration of an existing and established email system, to a new hosted platform, this requires DNS, AD integration and hand off. There are many technical and complex components to successfully migrate the entire enterprise. There is a need for a 3rd party to assist with the migration to ensure it is successful. The RFP process has been completed, resulting in several responses from qualified firms. A scope of work will be developed, with a contract brought to the Board for consideration. The County’s transition from GroupWise to Office 365 is expected to take place by Spring of 2022. County could opt for an inexpensive and quick alternative: contract for subscription, create the accounts, skip migration, tell county employees to use GroupWise side by side to access old email messages. Response to Recommendations: