Data : ANOTHER DISREPUTABLE N.D. OSA AUDIT

By:

ANOTHER DISREPUTABLE N.D. OSA AUDIT

The North Dakota Office of the State Auditor has a reputation of slanted and biased methods of oversight. Like the methods of inference becoming extrapolation, extrapolation becoming assertion, and the totality of assertion becoming fact, agencies being audited seem to have similar reaction to the techniques, tactics, and misrepresentation of fact and selective ignoring of fact. Testimony given on March 13, 2006 to the Information Technology Committee by Dr. Greg Gallagher, Director of Standards and Achievement at the Department of Public Instruction is illuminating in the parallels with the claims of unfairness by the management of Workforce Safety and Insurance.

An Internal committee of Department staff uniformly raised concerns that the survey was insufficiently designed, inappropriately limited in scope, inaccurately worded, and prone to biased responses. (P.1)

The State Auditor largely disregarded the Department’s recommendations. (P.1)

The State Auditor’s survey bypassed these issues and evidenced a significant misunderstanding of the various roles different parties played in this project. (P.2)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of direct experience with the warehouse. (P.2)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of districts’ interest in enhancing their warehouse. (P.2)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of districts’ interest in expanding the design of their warehouse. (P.3)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of districts’ efforts to validate their own data. (P.3)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of the inclusiveness of local access to and participation in the warehouse. (P.3)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of commitment to or frequency of use for a future warehouse. (P.4)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of district data usage. (P.4)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of technical assistance support by EduTech. (P.4)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of contractor contacts. (P.4)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of district-to-Department communications. (P.5)

For whatever reason, the State Auditor elected not to seek this objective measure of the warehouse functionality. (P.5)

These findings effectively offer no insight to any of these important questions. (P.5)

If a survey cannot correctly discern and present the proper duties of parties, then its validity is undercut and bias is introduced. The State Auditor’s survey seeks only affective, perception questions, which often are predicated on inappropriate assumptions of the project. (P.5)

The Department will not accept on face value, however, findings that lack integrity, are weak in scope, and produce bias. (P.5)

It is inappropriate for the State Auditor to insinuate at this time that the process was inappropriate in any manner. To raise any such insinuation affectively destroys the legitimacy of the contract review process that state agencies presently undergo. (P.6)

Either a multi-layered review of RFPs and contracts means something or it does not. (P.6)

The Department followed the recommendations of ITD regarding the design of the RFP. (P.6)

The State Auditor is in error in stating its belief that the Department had conducted a perfunctory review process. (P.6)

The directive has never before been issues and marks an unprecedented requirement. (P.6)

It has been the Department’s understanding that a project manager was to be provided by ITD for major projects. (P.6)

It was the Department’s clear understanding that the ITD project manager provided oversight to the project and monitored the Department for proper compliance throughout the project. (P.7)

The State Auditor’s report introduces as an element of its evidentiary review comments from and internal ITD memo, unearthed for the first time and authored by and unnamed program analyst, which questioned the nature of the original proposal review based on an undifferentiated “gut feeling.” No specifics of what constituted this questioning were provided. (P.7)