Page 264 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 264

 220 2 0 1 7
Western District of Texas for human resources, administrative, and personnel issues, he works primarily with CMSO on operational issues, strategic planning, and daily IT functions. Mr. Kalar told the Committee:
With the new CMSO bureaucratic overlay, the IT administrative struc- ture for defenders is now hopelessly Byzantine. It is unclear to the defenders whether the new “Chief of Defender IT Support Division, Case Management Systems Office, Department of Program Services” answers to CMSO, or to DSO, or to neither, or to both. When Defenders have encountered problems, our questions trigger a tsunami of flow-chart dis- cussions and conference calls on bureaucratic structures.1026
10.3 Results of the Reorganization
10.3.1 Unintended Consequences
While the principles guiding the AO’s reorganization of defender data services included simplifying organizational structures, empowering managers, streamlining governance, and creating flexibility to respond to changing circumstances—all to cut costs—the actual outcome has been much the opposite. The reorganization has not met its objectives. Though it was intended to cut costs and promote efficiency, the “CMSO acquisition of Defender IT has fallen far short of the stated goals of the 2013 re-organization.”1027
Testimony indicated that “[o]perating costs have increased, as layers of redundant CMSO bureaucracy have been added on top of Defender IT.”1028 This is because “efforts must be expressly duplicated” when working with any of the defender systems, as CMSO supervisors are not legally permitted to see the privi- leged data that these databases contain.1029
The new structure is inefficient in other ways. Because CMSO maintains all contracts with outside vendors, the Chief of CMSO must approve all modifications or alterations to the three software programs that house defender data. 1030 Defenders cannot directly update or troubleshoot their data programs and have less flexibility to react to changes in circumstances, as “simple and inexpensive IT fixes are inex- plicably delayed,” and “requests languish in the shifting maze of CMSO bureaucra- cy.”1031 Because MOUs are in place to protect the confidentiality of the data, in order
1026 SteveKalar,FPD,N.D.Cal.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel7,Writ.Test.,at5. 1027 NACDLEthicsOpinionat7.
1028 Id.at4–5.
1029 Id.at5.
1030 AndrewZaso,Chief,CaseManagementSystemsOffice,AdministrativeOfficeoftheUnitedStates Courts, Public Hearing—Minneapolis, Minn., Panel 3, Tr., at 19.
1031 SteveKalar,FPD,N.D.Cal.,PublicHearing—SanFrancisco,Cal.,Panel7,Writ.Test.,at5.
No recommendation presented herein represents T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   262   263   264   265   266