Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Mendocino County Information Services Department The Information Services Department (isd) directly or indirectly

5 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 20 findings

F1
The 1989-90 Grand Jury reported, “Some departments have developed independent computerized systems with no coordination of efforts.” The report recommended, “Department heads and key personnel of all county departments should participate in development and operation of a central computerized data processing, information storage, retrieval and analysis system.” The County has not yet implemented this forward- looking recommendation.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
ISD provides computer and software support for most County departments. Because of perceived unique requirements, the following departments have IT staff to provide computer and software support: Public Health Mental Health Child Support Services Social Services (DSS) Sheriff Assessor/Clerk Recorder
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The ISD Director is working toward all departments in a County-wide system. Past and present ISD Directors stated that, using one system, the ISD can provide service to all departments, including the Sheriff and DSS. (Directors recognized that DSS must use State-supplied computers to run State-mandated programs.) The Sheriff and DSS IT personnel report that those departments require separate systems and personnel for delivery of their services (except for County financial data).
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Grand Jury interviews revealed that some departments IT personnel are not aware of the authority granted to the ISD Director under Policy 22. Policy 22, Section 4 (2) states that the ISD Director “may award various levels of authority to different departments” based on analysis of the services required and the skill level of the supporting staff. Policy 22, Section 5, The Role of Departmental IT Personnel, states: “This section is applicable only when a determination has been made by IS that departmental IT personnel are required to support departmental computer systems. If such a determination is made, the departmental IT personnel shall be employees of their respective departments.”
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Department heads hire their IT personnel, with some ISD input in the early screening process.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Policy 22, Section 4(3) gives the ISD authority to “conduct assessments of the technical services and the IT skill levels of supporting staff. The result of an assessment may cause ISD to modify the delivery model of IT services in the County, including the assignment of department personnel.”
No recommendations for this finding
F7
County decisions on voice and data communication format and equipment are fragmented. For example, the Sheriff and DSS acquire and maintain their own equipment. A County-wide unified system could use current computer technology for digital transmission of voice and data communication.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The lack of long-range planning and consolidation has led to a fragmented use of all the County IT assets, personnel, hardware, and software. Each department acting independently often causes duplication of services and hardware.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The two County AS400 mainframe computers, one in ISD and one in the Sheriffs Office, have network connection only. To ensure continuous operation in case of failure, the ISD Director has considered requesting another AS400 at a cost of approximately $100,000. The Director found that the two existing computers have ample capacity to configure the AS400s so that if one failed, or needed to be taken off-line for maintenance or upgrade, the other could take over with minimal loss of data and service to the County. ISD employees report that they can provide the additional required security to address the concerns of Sheriffs IT personnel regarding law enforcement data.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Department heads meet monthly to discuss information services and information technology.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
ISD and IT personnel hold monthly meetings to discuss technology and seek solutions to common problems.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Lack of a standardized County data security system compromises a completely secure County-wide system.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
ISD employees report that the software firewalls and passwords in place at ISD are adequate to ensure the security of the data at ISD.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
ISD has a policy and procedure for periodic backup of data kept and maintained by ISD. ISD does not control backup within departments. Backup procedures and equipment vary from department to department. A centralized file server would eliminate the need for individual department backup.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Storage of backup data varies from department to department. The County does not have a designated fireproof central depository for all data backup. Departments store backup tapes at the Sheriffs secure vault, within their own departments, and in private facilities, including employee homes.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The lack of an identified County network topology decreases the ability to locate, identify, and troubleshoot County-wide network connections and hardware.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
ISD physical security is not as effective as it could be because ISD shares the building with other departments. One department requiring daily public access will relocate this year.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Information for the operation of the ISD computer system is not consolidated in manuals.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
ISD has not updated its systems design and programming functions manual recently.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
ISD has not updated the Disaster Recovery Guide since October 2000. Personnel, vendor contacts, and phone numbers are not current.
No recommendations for this finding

Comments 1