[00:00:01]
RIGHT THEN AT,[Audit Committee Meeting on December 15, 2020. ]
UH, TWO OH EIGHT LET'S CONVENE THE DECEMBER 15TH, 2020, UH, CITY OF GARLAND AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING.ARE WE RECORDING? YES, WE ARE.
I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER, DEBRA MORRIS AND COUNCILMAN BJ WILLIAMS. WELCOME TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS IS, UH, REPLACING THE VACANCY ON THIS COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE RESIGNATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER GIBBONS.
SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU BJ LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER ONE, 2020 MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES MR. CHAIRMAN? I MOVE TO APPROVE THEM THROUGHOUT THE MINUTES.
I'LL SECOND THAT IF WE NEED A SECOND.
YEAH, BECAUSE I CAN'T SECOND IT BECAUSE I'M NOT PART OF THE COMMITTEE.
I THINK TECHNICAL, WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
WELL, IT'S APPROVED BY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THEY'RE APPROVED BY ACCLIMATION.
UH, JEN, IF YOU COULD JUST GET THOSE TO ALL SIGN A SENTENCE AND I THINK I HAVE A COPY HERE.
DO YOU WANT TO DO THE, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE SOFTWARE LICENSE.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T NUMBER THREE.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER.
UH, SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER, UH, LAST YEAR IN 2019, WE DID A SOFTWARE LICENSING AUDIT AND IT WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT AND BOTH CDAT AND ALSO GPL.
UM, SO, UH, WE HAD A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM, FROM THAT TIMEFRAME.
UH, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LIKE TO DO IS GO BACK AND SEE IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE PREVIOUSLY.
HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? HOW MANY OF THEM ARE STILL UNDER WORKS? UH, I'M GLAD TO REPORT TO YOU THAT, UH, WITH THE SUPPORT OF CITY MANAGER, UH, THE, THE IT DEPARTMENT AND ALSO GPN L I T DEPARTMENT, THEY IMPLEMENTED ALMOST ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE AND SO KUDOS TO THOSE, TO MANAGEMENT, ESPECIALLY REGGIE PATRICK AND HIS STAFF, AND THEN HIS STAFF.
UH, WE COULDN'T, WE COULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT AND WITHOUT THEIR IMPLEMENTING THESE, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE, I CAN, UH, I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT, UH, GLAD TO LET YOU KNOW THAT APPROXIMATELY AT LEAST 160 SOFTWARES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE WE REPORTED THIS BACK IN MARCH OF 2019.
UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, UH, OUR OBJECTIVES FOR THE INITIAL AUDIT WERE, UH, WE WANTED TO SEE IF WE WERE UTILIZING THE SOFTWARES THAT WE HAD INSTALLED IN OUR SYSTEMS. AND, AND IF WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE AGREEMENT, AND WE ALSO WANTED TO SEE IF EMPLOYEES ARE USING SOFTWARE, THAT IS IF THEY ARE USING ANY UNKNOWN SOFTWARES THAT, UH, WANTED TO VERIFY THAT.
ALSO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE PAYING ACCURATELY, UH, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE SOFTWARE CONTRACTS.
LASTLY, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD COPIES OF ALL THE CONTRACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH, UH, THE TEXAS STATE LIBRARY AND OUR CUSTOMER PERMISSIONS WELCOME SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, SO WE WENT BACK, ALEX, DID THIS FOLLOW UP, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR SCOPE.
MAINLY WAS FROM MARCH, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 18, 2020.
UH, WHEN WE DO FOLLOW UPS, IT'S NOT LIKE WE DID NOT PERFORM ANY NEW RISK ASSESSMENT.
WE WERE BASICALLY GOING BACK AND VERIFYING IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE IMPLEMENTED.
SO ALEX IS GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE, AND THEN HE'S GOING TO COVER WHAT WE DID AND THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS.
SO, SO FOR THE, UH, FINDING NUMBER ONE UTILIZATION SOFTWARE.
SO DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE WANTED TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT SOFTWARE WAS BEING UNUTILIZED BY COG AND SOMEPLACE.
AND TO DO THAT, WE ORIGINALLY SAID, I SURVEY OUT TO C AND G EMPLOYEES TO SEE WHAT SOFTWARE THEY'RE USING, HOW THEY WERE USING THE SOFTWARE AND HOW CRITICAL
[00:05:01]
SOFTWARE THAT THEY WERE USING IS, AND WE COMPILED ALL OF THEIR RESULTS INTO THE TWO TABLES HERE.AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE 313 ON UTILIZED SOFTWARE BY A CGIT EMPLOYEES.
AND THERE WAS 39 ARE UTILIZED SOFTWARE BY GPL EMPLOYEES.
AND WE ALSO KIND OF, THERE WAS ALSO SOME SOFTWARE IN THAT WHERE WE WERE KIND OF MORE CONCERNED WITH LIKE BASED ON THE ANSWERS.
AND THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE A 110 FOR THE GP OR FOR A CGIT 16 FOR GP AND LTS AS OUR, OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR COG I T AND G P AND L T S MANAGEMENT TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE IDENTIFIED SOFTWARE USAGE AND REMOVE ANY UNNECESSARY SOFTWARE TO PERIODICALLY RUN REPORTS, TO VALIDATE THE USAGE AND CRITICALITY OF SOFTWARE INSTALLED ON CRG AND CHIEF AND ALL COMPUTERS OR EDUCATE COG AND GPL EMPLOYEES REGARDING THE RISKS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF USING UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO A PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES POLICY, AND ORIGINALLY BOTH CGT AND G PLTS CONCURRED ON OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE TOOK A SAMPLE OF 11 SOFTWARE FROM THAT, UM, THIS OFFER THAT WE IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL AUDIT AS KIND OF MORE CONCERNING THAT HIRING 10 SOFTWARE.
AND WE DID THAT THERE, THEY REMOVED EIGHT OF THOSE.
THERE WERE STILL THREE THAT WERE INSTALLED, BUT THEY ALL HAD A VALID REASON FOR STILL BEING INSTALLED.
SO COG, IT INFORMED US THAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON CONDUCTING A YEARLY REVIEW OF SOFTWARE UTILIZATION, VALIDATED THE CLG.
THAT INCLUDES ITEMS SUCH AS THE INSTALLATION OR APPROPRIATE SOFTWARE THAT THEY UPDATED.
NUMBER ONE, THAT INCLUDES RULES RESTRICTING UNAPPROVED SOFTWARE.
SINCE CBRE'S AUDIT CHEAPY AND LTS HAS REMOVED ALL OR HAS REMOVED 10 OF THE SOFTWARE THAT WE WERE KIND OF MORE CONCERNED WITH AND THEN SIX STILL INSTALLED.
BUT AGAIN, THEY HAD A VALID REASON FOR BEING INSTALLED AND LTS PERFORMS A YEARLY REVIEW AS PART OF THE CIP REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT IS WHERE THEY ASSESS EMPLOYEE'S SOFTWARE ACCESS AND DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY NECESSARY REMOVALS.
AND WE RECEIVED DOCUMENTATION OF THIS AND NOTED THAT IT WAS BEING PERFORMED.
AND FINALLY, UH, THAT GP LTS INFORMED EMPLOYEES OF THE IT.
NUMBER ONE THING INCLUDES RULES RESTRICTING UNAPPROVED SOFTWARE AND THEIR USB STORAGE POLICY.
ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH T AND GPO LTS.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS HERE? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
WE'RE FINDING NUMBER TWO NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE.
SO AGAIN, DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE IDENTIFIED SOFTWARE THAT WAS INSTALLED ON EITHER COG OR GPL EMPLOYEE COMPUTERS HAD A NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE.
SO IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
WE THOUGHT THE WAY THAT WE FOUND THAT WAS THAT WE OBTAINED A LISTING OF SOFTWARE INSTALLED ON COG EMPLOYEE COMPUTERS AND, AND PLAY COMPUTERS AND RE AND IDENTIFIED THE SOFTWARE.
AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 38 SOFTWARE FOR THE CO2 SIDE AND 29 SOFTWARE FOR THE GP AND OUTSIDE IN THOSE SOFTWARE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE CALL IT AN EMULATOR, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT WE KIND OF HAD EVEN MORE GREATER CONCERNS ABOUT THAT WE NOTED IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT.
OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR COG IT, AND SHE COULD LTS MANAGEMENT TO MOVE ALL CURRENT SOFTWARE WITH A NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE GOING FORWARD REVIEW SOFTWARE EVERY SIX MONTHS AND REMOVE ANY NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE OR ANY NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE INDICATES TUG AND GPO EMPLOYEES REGARDING THE RISK AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF USING UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HEARING TO THE COG PERSON POLICIES, UM, POLICY AND, OR THE ORIGINAL MANAGER RESPONSIBLE IS BOTH SUJIT IT AND KEEP, YOU KNOW, TS CONCURRED.
UM, AND SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT COG, IT MOVED 37 OF THOSE SOFTWARE AND THE LAST ONE IS STILL INSTALLED.
[00:10:01]
A VALID REASON FOR BEING INSTALLED.THE ALSO OBTAIN IN THE DEPARTMENTS, A YEARLY NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE REVIEW, AND THAT IS BEING PERFORMED TO PROVIDE TRAIN.
THEY INCLUDED ITEMS SUCH AS THE INSTALLATION OR USE OF APPROPRIATE SOFTWARE AND SECURITY AND WOULD EDUCATE STAFF ABOUT SOFTWARE UTILIZATION.
AND IF THEY UPDATED THE IT DIRECTOR OF ONE, THAT INCLUDES RULES RESTRICTING OUR APPROVED SOFTWARE.
SHE PLTS HAS, AND WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY ROUTE ALL THE NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE, AND THEY HAVE A YEARLY NON BUSINESS PURPOSE OR BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE REVIEW.
AND WE OBTAINED DOCUMENTATION FROM THAT REVIEW TO NOTE THAT IT IS BEING PERFORMED FINALLY, GPL INFORMED EMPLOYEES OF THE IT DIRECTOR NUMBER ONE, PREDICTING ON FREE SOFTWARE AND THE USB STORAGE POLICY.
WE FOUND THAT ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY BOTH COG IT AND CHEEKY AND LTS QUESTIONS.
SO I'M GOING TO FINDING NUMBER THREE SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT.
SO DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE NOTED THAT CGT AND I HAD A QUESTION I'M SORRY.
UM, ONE QUESTION ON A NON TWO QUESTIONS, UM, ONLY NOT BUSINESS SOFTWARE, UH, WERE THERE ANY COST ASSOCIATED WITH, WITH, WITH THOSE ARE WHERE THEY'RE ALL PHRASED? MY FIRST QUESTION.
AND, UH, CAN YOU BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE, THE TRAINING, UH, THAT THAT'S IN PLACE TO PREVENT, UM, UH, THIS, THIS, THIS PRACTICE IN THE FUTURE IS SET PART OF OUR TRAINING.
CAN SOMEBODY TOUCH ON THOSE TWO THINGS FOR ONE THE COST ISSUE AND THEN, UH, THE, THE TRAIN? SURE.
SO IN THE ORIGINAL, OUR SCOPE FOR THIS TESTING, IT WOULD INCLUDE IF THE SOFTWARE PAYMENTS FOR THE SOFTWARE, WE WERE JUST SEEING WHAT SOFTWARE WAS INSTALLED THAT HAD A NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE SOFTWARE LA IN A FURTHER FINDING LATER DOWN, NUMBER FOUR, WE LOOKED FOR, UM, CONTRACTS TO SEE IF THEY HAD THEIR PAYMENTS THAT EQUAL WHAT THE CONTRACTED ANNOUNCED SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE IDENTIFIED AND FINDING FOR, BUT FOR THIS FINDING THE NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE ONE, WE ONLY LOOK TO SEE IF THE SOFTWARE HAD A BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR BEING INSTALLED.
WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE, A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE BEEN A COST ASSOCIATED, BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT.
IS THAT OKAY, COUNCIL MONEY? IF I MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY COSTS.
UH, SOME OF THESE, UH, HAVE BEEN INSTALLED SOMETIME AGO WHEN WE RAN THE, UH, EXPENSES.
WE DID NOT FIND ANY, UH, PAYMENTS RELATED TO THIS ONE, BUT ALEX IS CORRECT.
OUR MAIN SCOPE WAS WHETHER WHAT'S THE PURPOSE BEHIND IT.
WE DID NOT FIND ANY INAPPROPRIATE PAYMENTS TO US.
WE SCAN THROUGH THOSE PAYMENTS.
I BELIEVE HE HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.
PARTIES WERE GETTING THE TRAINING.
UH, HE HAS BEEN, IT HAS, UH, HAS BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN SENDING OUT TRAININGS.
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN A FEW SINCE WE'VE GOT ACCESS.
IT'S, IT'S COMING FROM NO BEFORE, UH, SOFTWARE THAT THEY'RE USING IN A COMPANY THAT THEY'RE USING TO PUSH OUT TRAININGS.
I GET IT AT LEAST I BELIEVE ONCE A MONTH.
AND I BELIEVE THE CITY MANAGER GETS SOME KIND OF REPORT OR THE CIO GETS SOME KIND OF REPORT.
IF, IF SOME PEOPLE DOES NOT TAKE THOSE TRAININGS, THEY ALSO HAVE SOME, THEY WILL SEND YOU SOME, UH, FAKE EMAILS TO SEE IF EMPLOYEES ARE CLICKING ON THE LINK FROM THERE, SUPPOSE THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY VERY PROACTIVE, VERY EFFECTIVE TRAINING.
SO THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR, FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS NOW.
SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL GO DOWN TO FINDING NUMBER THREE, THEN FOR FINDING NUMBER THREE, SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT, AND IN THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE NOTED SUCHI I T AND G PLTS.
I HAD A LIMITED PROCESS IN PLACE THAT TO MANAGE THE SOFTWARE THAT WAS BEING USED, BUT YEAH, HE HAD A
[00:15:01]
SHARE POINT DATABASE WITH THE LISTING OF SOFTWARE MANAGED BY CGIT, BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE SUCH CRITICAL INFORMATION SUCH AS CONTRACT DURATION.AND THE NUMBER OF USES PERMITTED.
IT WAS IN CERTAIN CRITICAL SOFTWARE AND GP NOTES.
HE HAS HAD A SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED AS A SHAREPOINT OFFER, BUT IT WASN'T CURRENTLY CONFIGURED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
AND OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR SIOUX GIT AND G PLTS MANAGEMENT SHOULD DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE SOFTWARE MANAGING MECHANISM AND THE ORIGINAL MANTRA RESPONSIBLE AS CGIT CONCURRED, WHILST D PLTS PARTIALLY CONCUR SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT BE NOTED, SUJI IS USING THE ITSMS SYSTEM TO TRACK THE VENDOR NAME, SIGNATURE DATE, CONTRACT OWNER, CONTRACTOR CREATION, AND THE BUDGETED AMOUNT.
HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT TRACK THE NUMBER OF SOFTWARE LICENSES AND ONLY SOFTWARE THAT IS PURCHASED BY CMG.
AND FOR DEEPEN LTS, WE NOTED THAT THE REQUESTED SOFTWARE OR MAINTENANCE IS NOT ADDED TO THE INVENTORY REPORT ITEMS SUCH AS THE OWNER NAME, RENEWAL DATES, NUMBER OF LICENSES.
WE OBTAINED A RECENT VERSION OF THE INVENTORY REPORT AND NOTED THAT THAT IS BEING DONE OR BEING PERFORMED.
AND SO THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR THESE IS CGT AS PARTIALLY PLANETS AND GPS.
LTS HAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED THIS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
IF I MAY, THE, THE COG, ITS ONLY PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTING THE MONITORING OF THE NUMBER OF SOFTWARE LICENSES.
HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE IS THAT IN REALITY? CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? SURE.
SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TRACKING ALL THE SOFTWARE LICENSES.
A LOT OF OUR ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE IS SITE-WIDE LICENSES.
AS WE RENEW OUR SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS WITH OUR VENDORS, WE'RE GOING TO ADD THE SOFTWARE LICENSES TO THIS TRACKING MECHANISM.
SO IT ISN'T THAT WE DON'T, WE WILL NOT BE DOING IT.
WE WILL, WE ARE JUST BUILDING OVER TIME.
OH, GO TO FINDING NUMBER FOUR, SOFTWARE CONTRACTS AND PAYMENTS IN THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.
WE UH, TO, TO SEE IF CONTRACTS WERE BEING RETAINED.
IF CONTRACTS HAD CRITICAL INFORMATION IN THEM, TRACK PAYMENTS WERE EQUAL TO THE TERMS LISTED IN THE CONTRACTS AND THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.
WE NOTICED THAT THAT WAS NOT BEING PERFORMED.
AND OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR CGT AND CHIEF PLTS MANAGEMENT TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PROCESS THAT ENSURES THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE CONTRACT AND ANY AMENDMENTS INCLUDE PAYMENT AND LICENSING INFORMATION AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE FOR ATTENTION, DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PERIODIC PROCESS TO DETERMINE A COG AND GPL ARE WITHIN CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOFTWARE USAGE AND TO ENHANCE THE CURRENT SOFTWARE PAYMENT PREVIEW PROCESS TO REQUIRE REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTS FOR PAYMENT AND UH, MEASURE RESPONSES.
G C, G, AND G CAN LTS BOTH CONCURRED.
SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE NOTICED THAT
AND WE WANTED TO TEST AND SEE, UM, WHAT THE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN NEW PURCHASE CONTRACTS LOOK LIKE? SO WE NOTED THAT THERE WERE TWO CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.
AND WE NOTED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACTS AND FOUND THAT THOSE CONTRACTS HAD THE INFORMATION SUCH AS THE CONTRACT DURATION NUMBER OF USERS PERMITTED AND THE ORIGINAL PAYMENT AMOUNTS LISTED IN THOSE CONTRACTS.
AND ALSO AS MENTIONED, FINDING THREE
AND FINALLY THAT I REVIEWED THE TWO OR WE ALSO GOT LISTING OF THE PAYMENTS FOR THOSE TWO NEW SOFTWARE AND NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT TERMS FOR THE, FOR GP LTS.
[00:20:01]
WE NOTED THAT THEY DIDN'T PURCHASE ANY NEW SOFTWARE SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.SO WE WEREN'T ABLE TO TEST THAT.
SO INSTEAD WE FOUND SOFTWARE UPDATES THAT PERFORMED SINCE THEN.
SO WE OBTAINED THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THOSE UPDATES AND WE NOTED THAT ONE OF THOSE SOFTWARE UPDATES WAS OUTRIGHT OWNED BY G P AND L.
SO, SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE AS MANY TURNS IN THAT WERE NECESSARY IN THE CONTRACT.
AND THE OTHER CONTRACT GPL PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION FOR THE PERMITTED ADVICE DANCES.
AND AGAIN, WE OBTAINED THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE UPGRADES AND NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.
WE NOTED THE COG, IT WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE FIRST PIECE, PARTIALLY COMMITTED FOR THE SECOND AND FULLY IMPLEMENT IT FOR THE THIRD WHILE SHE PLTS WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR ALL THREE 30 QUESTIONS FOR THIS ONE.
OKAY, GOOD TO FIGHTING NUMBER FIVE, THE INADEQUATE INTOLERANT REPORT.
SO DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, WE REVIEWED THE TORMENT REPORT AND THIS REPORT IS SENT TO MANAGEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE UNDER THAT MANAGER AT ANY APP OR ANY SOFTWARE ACCESS THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAVE DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.
WE NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE REPORT WAS NOT SENT OUT IN OVER A YEAR WHEN USUALLY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THIS SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR.
IT WASN'T SENT TIMELY IN THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.
AND WE ALSO HEARD THAT IT DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL CRITICAL SOFTWARE USED BY COG EMPLOYEES, UM, IN OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION OR SORRY.
AND GPR LT HAS HAD A SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE THAT COULD BE USED AS IN TOWN REPORT ALTERNATIVE, BUT IT WASN'T CURRENTLY CONFIGURED FOR THAT.
OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR CGT AND CHICO TS MAJOR.
IT SHOULD DEVELOP IN SOME REPORTS INCLUDE ALL CRITICAL SYSTEMS AND PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT MINERAL MANAGEMENT FOR REVIEW ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS, ORIGINAL ONE, UM, COG IT CONCURRED AND GP NOTES.
YES, PARTIALLY CONCURRED SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT COG IT.
UM, THE INCOME REPORT CURRENTLY INCLUDES ENTERPRISE BY SOFTWARE AS WELL AS DEPARTMENTAL CRITICAL SOFTWARE.
WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT GIT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF INCLUDING OTHER DEPARTMENTAL SOFTWARE OBTAINED EVIDENCE THAT THE INTOLERANT REPORT IS BASED OUT TIMELY.
NOW FOR GE PLTS, SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, THEY ARE NOW PERFORMING A RECURRING SOFTWARE REVIEW AS PART OF THE CIP REQUIREMENTS OR CRITICAL SYSTEMS. AND THEY REVIEW EACH IN PLACE SOFTWARE ACCESS AND DETERMINE ANY REMOVALS.
AND WE OBTAINED DOCUMENTATION AS NOTED THAT IT WAS BEING PERFORMED.
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH CGIT AND CIPRIAN LTS ANY QUESTIONS FIRST.
SO I THINK THAT'S, UH, THAT'S IT THERE CHAIRMAN ONCE AGAIN, I WANNA, I WANT TO THANK BOTH DEPARTMENTS, ESPECIALLY I KNOW HOW HARD REGGIE WORKED, UH, TO IMPLEMENT THIS.
AND HE HAS BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION THROUGHOUT THE, UH, THROUGHOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.
UH, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? UH, YOU KNOW, HE'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE HIM AND HIS TEAM FOR WORKING THROUGH THERE.
THEY MANAGE A LOT OF SOFTWARES AND, AND SO IT'S, IT, WASN'T AN EASY TASK.
SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THEM FOR, FOR IMPLEMENTING THESE, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND PARTICULARLY TO YOUR TEAM JED FOR, FOR THE INITIAL REPORT AND THEN ALSO, ALWAYS FOR THESE FOLLOW-UPS I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
AND, UH, IT'S ALWAYS A GREAT THING WHEN, UM, WHEN WE CAN USE EASE AND COLLABORATION AND STAFF CAN, I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF WORK, UH, REGGIE TO, TO GET ALL THIS STUFF KIND OF SORTED OUT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU, YOU DOING THAT AND GETTING IT ALL SET UP.
SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE? ALL RIGHT.
AND WITH THAT, UH, RECOMMEND THAT WE GO AHEAD AND SEND THIS FORWARD TO, UH, TO COUNSEL EVERYONE ELSE.
UM, WITH THAT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
I SEE THAT MR. NEIL HAS JOINED US.
AND SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CIRCLE BACK TO THE, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE LIABILITY CLAIMS ON IT.
I'M GLAD THAT ROBBIE'S ABLE TO
[00:25:01]
BE HERE.UH, EVEN THOUGH HE'S TECHNICALLY RETIRED A VERY ONE I'M VERY MUCH APPRECIATE HIM FOR COMPLETING THIS AUDIT WHILE HE WAS HERE WITH US.
UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A, UH, AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, THESE ARE CLAIMS AGAINST THE, AGAINST THE CITY.
SO RISK MANAGEMENT HANDLES TWO TYPES OF CLAIMS, AT LEAST TWO, UH, ONE AGAINST THE CITY AND ONE, THE CITY AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE.
WHEN THERE ARE DEFAULT CITIZENS.
IN THIS CASE, UH, IN THIS AUDIT, OUR FOCUS WAS, UH, ABOUT THE CLAIMS, UH, THAT, UH, CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES HAVE FILED AGAINST THE, AGAINST THE CITY.
SO WE HAD A NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES, UH, THAT WE WANTED TO COVER.
THE FIRST ONE WAS TO DETERMINE IF CLAIMS ARE PROPERLY PROCESSED, WERE SEARCHED AND APPROVED.
PART TWO WAS TO DETERMINE IF THE MONITORING PROCESS REGARDING THE FREQUENCY OF FILES, UH, FILED AGAINST THE CITY, UH, UH, BY VARIOUS, UH, ABOUT VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS INCIDENTS, PART THREE OF US TO VERIFY THE VALIDITY OF, UH, THE ACCESS OF ACCESS RIGHTS, ADEQUACY OF THE ACCESS RIGHTS WITHIN THEIR SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ACCESS HAVE ACCESS.
AND LASTLY, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THIRD PARTY VENDOR PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR SERVICES PROVIDE.
AND OUR SCOPE WAS FISCAL FROM FISCAL YEAR 2018 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2020.
AND DURING THIS TIMEFRAME, APPROXIMATELY 508 CLAIMS WERE PROCESSED.
UH, HOW DID THAT? 15% OF THE CLAIMS WERE APPROVED AND 41% OF THE CLAIMS WERE DENIED.
UH, I SEE THAT TRAIN IS JOINING US TODAY.
UH, HE, HE WAS NOT HERE WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS AUDIT, HOWEVER, BASED ON THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE AND THE STATUS, UH, I'M SURE HE WILL BE INVOLVED IN THIS ONE GOING FORWARD.
UH, ALEX WAS THE AUDITOR IN CHARGE OF THIS AUDIT.
UH, JESSE WAS THE MANAGER WHO REVIEWED HIS WORK.
SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FINDINGS OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALEX IS GOING TO COVER THE FIRST FIVE.
THEN JESSE IS GOING TO COVER THE LAST FIVE.
SO WITH THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN, I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO ALEX TO GO OVER THE FINDINGS.
UM, SO FOR FINDING NUMBER ONE, THE CLAY'S NOT PROCESSED.
SO WE NOTED THAT THERE WERE CLAIMS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY, BUT WERE NOT ENTERED INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
AND WE FOUND THIS BY THE LIST OF CLAIMS RECEIVED THIS, THE SECRETARY TO THE LIST OF CLAIMS IN THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
AND USING THIS, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE THREE THAT WERE, THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE CITY SECRETARY, BUT WEREN'T ACTUALLY ENTERED INTO THE CLAIM SOFTWARE.
UM, TWO OF THESE HAD AN INCIDENT DATE OF 2018 AND ONE OF THESE, AN INCIDENT DATE OF 2019 AND THESE PLANES AREN'T PROCESSED UNTIL, UM, I ALERTED FIRST MANAGEMENT OF THESE CLAIMS AND SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES FOR THIS IS THE CHANCELLOR OF A CLAIM FORM IS A MANUAL PROCESS BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND CHRIS MANAGEMENT.
AND AFTER A CLAIM FORM IS RECEIVED, THE C SECRETARY IS NOT DIRECTLY ENTERING THE CLAIM INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE.
THERE'S NO RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE C SECRETARY CLAIM LISTING AND THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLEANS SOFTWARE LISTING.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT RISK MANAGEMENT SHOULD IMPLEMENT A REVIEW PROCESS TO ENSURE ALL CLAIMS PERCEIVED BY THE SEA SECRETARY OR ENTERED INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE AND TICKETS BETTER EVALUATING THE CURRENT PROCESS TO ALLOW THE C SECRETARY TO ENTER CLAIMS DIRECTLY INTO THE CLAIM SOFTWARE AND MANAGEMENT CONCURRED.
AND ACTION PLAN IS THAT THE CLAIMS THAT WERE MISSING FROM THE CLAIM SYSTEM HAVE BEEN ADDED AND WE'LL PERFORM PERIODIC CROSSCHECKS BETWEEN THE SEASICK TREE LOG AND THE CLAIM SYSTEM.
AND THAT THE OPTION OF THE SEA SECRETARY OFFICE ENTRY A CLAIMS TO THE CLAIM SYSTEM WAS CONSIDERED WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED.
HOWEVER, WE OFTEN RECEIVE MULTIPLE CLAIM DOCUMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE SAME CLAIM AND THAT THE CLAIMS SECRETARY STAFF WOULD HAVE, WOULD NEED TO PERFORM CLAIM RESEARCH, AND BE FAMILIAR WITH THE AND CASE REPRESENTATION TO PREVENT DUPLICATE CLAIM ENTRY AND NUMBERING AS REEVALUATE THIS OPTION.
SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?
[00:30:01]
FIND THE CLAIM PROCESSING TIMEFRAME FOR THIS, THIS FINDING.WE WERE LOOKING AT THE TIMEFRAME OF THE LIABILITY CLAIMS PROCESS AND THREE DIFFERENT AREAS.
FIRST ONE IS THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS DAYS BETWEEN THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE AND THE DATE, THE EMPLOYEE INFORMED THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INCIDENT.
AND FOR THIS, WE NOTED THAT THERE WERE 41% OF INCIDENTS THAT WERE REPORTED BY THE EMPLOYEE TO THE DEPARTMENT FIVE OR MORE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE.
THE NEXT ONE IS THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS DAYS BETWEEN THE DAY THE CITY RECEIVED THE CLAIM AND ENTER THE CLAIM INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
AND FOR THIS, WE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE 36% OF THE CLAIMS THAT TOOK THE CITY LONGER THAN TWO BUSINESS DAYS.
ONCE THEY RECEIVE, THEY WERE RECEIVED TO ENTER INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
AND FINALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUSINESS DAYS BETWEEN ENTERING THE CLAIM INTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE AND THE CLAIM BEING CLOSED.
AND FOR THIS, WE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE 21% OF THE CLOSED CLAIMS TOOK 60 OR MORE BUSINESS DAYS TO PROCESS FROM THE DATE RISK MANAGEMENT ENTERED THE CLAIM.
AND UNDER THE MISMANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE TO THE DATE, THE CLAIM WAS CLOSED.
HE NOTICED THERE'S SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THIS ARE THAT THE POLICIES PROCEDURES DO NOT INCLUDE CLAIM PROCESSING MILESTONES.
THAT MANAGEMENT DOES NOT USE AN AGING REPORT TO MONITOR CLAIM PROCESSING DURATION, AND THAT THE SEA SECRETARY DOES NOT DIRECTLY ENTER THE CLAIMS THROUGH THE RISK MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT RISK MANAGERS SHOULD AMEND THE COG CITY SAFETY DIRECTIVE TO ADDRESS FOR, FOR REPORTING INCIDENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER TO UPDATE THE RISK MANAGEMENT LIABILITY CLAIM PROCEDURE POLICY, TO INCLUDE CLAIM PROCESSING MILESTONES, EVALUATING THE CLAIM PROCESS, TO ENABLE THE SECRETARY TO ENTER CLAIMS IN THE RISK MATRIX CLAIM SOFTWARE, AND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AND COMMUNICATE A CLAIM STATUS REPORT TO SEE MANAGEMENT AND DEPARTMENTS IN THE MANAGEMENT CONCURRED WITH THIS AND THEIR ACTION PLANS ARE THAT THEY WILL UPDATE THE C SAFETY DIRECTIVE TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY REPORTING.
AND THE RISK MANAGER WILL CONTINUE TO STRESS TO ALL DEPARTMENTS, THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBMITTING INCIDENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER THAT CLAIM PROCESSING MILESTONES WILL BE DEVELOPED.
AND THIS WAS IN THE C-SECTION ENTERING.
THE CLAIMS WAS CONSIDERED DURING IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BUT NOT PURSUED.
IT'S KIND OF THE SAME THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, ABOUT THE FINDING ABOVE.
AND THE LAST ONE IS THAT THIS MANAGEMENT WILL DEVELOP DEPARTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION REPORTING TOOLS, THREE QUESTIONS FOR THIS ONE.
SO FINDING NUMBER THREE, CLAIMANT NOTIFICATION AND INCIDENT DOCUMENTATION.
SO WE NOTED THAT THERE WERE 408 INCIDENT REPORTS THAT LACKED CORRESPONDING CLAIMS IN THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
AND WE TOOK A SAMPLE OF 76 INCIDENT REPORTS, AND WE NOTED THAT 22% OF THOSE BLACK EVIDENCE OF THE INCIDENT OCCURRENCE SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS AND 58% OF THOSE LACKED EVIDENCE OF DEPARTMENTAL IDENTIFICATION INCIDENT TO THE POTENTIAL CLAIMANT.
SO THIS LAST ONE, THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CLAIMANT THAT, SO THAT WOULD MEAN IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN THAT THE CLAIMANT MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, LIKE THERE'S SOME DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY.
THE CLAIMANT MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT.
SOME POTENTIAL CAUSES FOR THIS IS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE INCONSISTENT PRACTICES OR POLICIES FOR NOTIFYING POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS OF INCIDENCE AND DOCUMENTING THE PROCESS, THE RESEARCH, A CLAIMS SOFTWARE, FOR INSTANCE.
SO DEPARTMENTS LOOKING FOR BLUE CARD WITH THE POTENTIAL CLAIMANT AND OTHERS WILL LEAD THEIR SUPERVISOR'S BUSINESS CARD.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS A RISK MANAGEMENT SHOULD REVIEW INCIDENT REPORTS TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION IS INCLUDED IF AVAILABLE AND TO UPDATE THE CITY SAFETY DIRECTIVE, TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ADVISE POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS OF WHO TO CONTACT FOR PURSUING A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY AND THE MANAGEMENT CAN OCCURRED AND THEIR ACTION PLANS THAT THEY WILL IN CASES WHERE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON AN INCIDENT REPORT TO BEGIN PROCESSING A SYSTEM GRANT ACCESS LINK IS SENT TO THE PERSONS, PRODUCING THE REPORT, INSTRUCTING THEM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
GRANT ACCESS MAY ALSO BE USED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION WHERE A CLAIM IS FILLED OUT FOR NOTICE THAT IT HAS BEEN REPORTED, WHICH IS THE CASE OF A DEPARTMENT
[00:35:01]
NOT HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLOCATION.OTHERWISE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS GATHERED THROUGH THE CLAIM INVESTIGATION PROCESS AND MANAGEABLE UPDATE THE COG CITY SAFETY DIRECTIVE TO PROVIDE EXTENDED GUIDANCE RELATED TO CONTACTING POTENTIAL CLAIMS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, ALEX? YEAH, THIS IS TWINE I DO ON THIS ONE.
UH, THIS IS A LITTLE INTERESTING FOR ME IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SCALING THE SCOPING THIS APPROPRIATELY AND THE INSURANCE WORLD IS SOMETHING CALLED NOT A CLAIM THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY WHERE THIS IS INTENDING TO AIM AT IS, SEEMS TO BE, I GUESS, LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ANALYSIS CORRECTLY.
IS THIS AN, A SITUATIONS WHEREIN OUR EMPLOYEE OR DEPARTMENT IS AWARE THAT THEY HAVE CAUSED AN INCIDENT AND MAYBE NO ONE WAS AROUND TO WITNESS IT AND SORT OF IF YOU WOULD LEAVE IN A COURTESY CARD FOR CONTACT PURPOSES? YEAH.
SO THESE WERE INCIDENT REPORTS THAT WERE CREATED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT DIDN'T HAVE A, LIKE A LINK I CLAIMED BY THE RISK BY THE, UM, BY THE QUIET CUSTOMER.
SO LIKE SOMEBODY DIDN'T SUBMIT, THIS WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT NOTICED THAT THEY, THAT HAPPENED AND THEY SUBMITTED AN INCIDENT REPORT FOR THAT.
AND SO IN THOSE CASES, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING OR WHAT THIS IS SUGGESTING IS THAT WHEN AN APARTMENT EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN, UM, HAS BEEN TRUTHFUL AND NOTICE THAT THEY CAUSED AS, UH, AN ACCIDENT SOMEWHERE, THEY SHOULD DO WHAT WE W WE WERE KIND OF HOPING THAT THEY WOULD KNOW THEY WOULD NOTIFY THE CLAIMANT THAT THAT'S FOREVER DAMAGED.
IT'S LIKE, SO THEY'RE MAKING THE INSTANCE ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LET THE CLAIMANT KNOW ABOUT THAT IS THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE HOPING TO SEE WAS HAPPENING.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M ASKING THIS, BECAUSE I JUST WANT US TO ALL BE AWARE OF WHAT THIS CONSTITUTES AND OFF THE PAPER OFF THE PAPER.
WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS, IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE, AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN INSURANCE WORLD, BUT I'M ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE A PUBLIC ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY THAT GOES BEYOND JUST, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL SENSE.
AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT IF WE DO THAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS BASICALLY SAYING TO US, HEY, WE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT.
PLEASE COME FILE A CLAIM IN LAY TERMS DIRECTLY SPEAKING, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT IF THE EMPLOYEE IN THE POTENTIAL BACKLASH, TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYEES NOW REALIZE, OH, WE'RE GETTING MORE CLAIMS ON GETTING MORE.
NO-NOS, I'LL STOP SAYING SOMETHING WHEN I'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, UM, AS A POTENTIAL ON THE SIDE OF THE COIN.
BUT, UH, IF THE PAPER, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH, I'M FINE WITH IT AS FROM A RISK MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT.
I JUST WANT US TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE INDICATING CHAIRMAN.
I MEAN, OUR, OUR CURRENT POLICY AS IS THAT THE EMPLOYEE, IF THEY KNOW THEY CREATED SOME DAMAGE OR CAUSING DAMAGE, THAT THEY CONTACT THEIR SUPERVISOR AND THEN THE SUPERVISOR HANDLES ANY CONTACT TYPICALLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR THE CLIENT POTENTIAL CLAIMANT.
AND LET THAT BE AT THE HIGHER LEVEL RATHER THAN BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE HOMEOWNER CHAIRMAN.
I THINK THERE WAS A HAND UP BY COUNCILMAN BJ WILLIAMS. OKAY.
MY QUESTION, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE IS, UM, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING AND CORRECT ME, IF I'M, IF I'M WRONG, WE DON'T HAVE A CITYWIDE POLICY OR PROTOCOL FOR NOTIFICATIONS OF INSTANCE TO THE PUBLIC.
AM I CORRECT? YEAH, THERE IS NOT A STANDARDIZED PROCESS.
THERE'S NOT AS CENTERED AS PROCESS.
NEXT PIECE IS TO THAT, UH, WITHOUT A STANDARDIZED PROCESS.
UM, TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THAT EXPOSE THE CITY? UM, LEGALLY, BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN FOLKS GO AFTER YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY RAISED, THAT, THAT YOU EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE.
AND IF, UH, AS FAR AS THE LEGAL LIABILITY IS CONCERNED, AND AS AN EXAMPLE, IF, IF, IF I'M A CITY EMPLOYEE IN MY, I ACCIDENTALLY GET BACK INTO SOMEONE'S
[00:40:01]
FENCE AND THERE'S NO ONE HOME, AM I UNDERSTANDING? SO IN THE PRESENT, PRESENT PROCESS, UH, WOULD I JUST, WOULD I DRIVE AWAY AND GO AND PUT IT TO MY SUPERVISOR OR, WELL, I LEAVE A NOTE OR A CARD OR SOMETHING AT THAT RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS TO INDICATE THAT WHAT ARE WE, AND I THOUGHT I'D JUST TURRET.I THINK IT WAS ROBBIE THAT SAYS THE EMPLOYEE GOES BACK TO THE SUPERVISOR AND THE SUPERVISOR INTERVENES.
SO MY QUESTION ON THAT IS HOW DOES THAT IMPACT OUR FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, OUR EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE TO CONTACT THE PUBLIC ON THESE SENTENCES? CAN SOMEBODY ADDRESS THAT FOR ME? OH, WELL, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, UM, LEGAL COUNSEL ONLINE TODAY.
I, I, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE DIDN'T, I JUST, I, I DON'T, I DIDN'T SEE BRAD OR BRIAN OR ANYONE ONLINE.
UM, AND, AND I WANT TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL BEFORE I TAKE ANY STAB AT THAT, ALTHOUGH, NO, I MEAN, THERE'S, I, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK THERE'S A POLICY QUESTION YOU'RE THAT, THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FLORIDA FOR COUNCIL OR WHATNOT.
UM, BUT FROM A LIABILITY STANDPOINT, I DON'T KNOW, THAT WOULD IMPACT ON A LOT OF THESE CASES.
THERE ARE LIABILITY LIABILITY IS NOT ALWAYS THE ISSUE DUE TO THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ISSUES AND WHATNOT.
UM, ALTHOUGH IN THE CASE THAT YOU DESCRIBED THAT, I THINK THAT SOME OF THAT'S IMMEDIATELY PROBABLY WAVED FOR, BUT I'D REALLY RATHER HAVE, UH, UH, COUNSEL TO DESCRIBE THAT, UM, UNLESS SOMEONE ON THE RISK SIDE WANTS, WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
BUT OTHERWISE I THINK I DO THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY ANY THERE ABOUT SOME KIND OF FROM, UH, FROM, UM, I GUESS I'D CALL IT ALMOST A MORAL PERSPECTIVE IF WE CAUSE DAMAGE TO SOMEONE WE CERTAINLY NEED.
I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT SOMETIMES THE INSURANCE COMPANY, CAN WE, BUT WE'RE NOT, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY SIDE OF IT YET.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF THE CITY IS CITY'S CAUSED SOME DAMAGE.
AND, AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OUR, TO OUR CITIZENS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF NOTIFICATION PROCESS, BUT, BUT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S BETTER FOR A, UM, FOR COUNTS FOR FULL FULLER COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
BUT I ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE, ONE JUMP IN IF I MAY.
I'LL PULL THAT ONE BACK FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU'VE JUST STATED.
MY LAST QUESTION IS, AND WHAT I'M HEARING, UH, WANT TO BE SURE.
UM, SO JUST EACH DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE, HAS THIS, UM, HANDLES THIS KIND OF SITUATION, UM, IN THE WAY THAT I THINK WAS ROBBIE DESCRIBED IT, OR DID YOU FIND, DID YOU FIND UNIFORMITY BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS OR IS EACH DEPARTMENTS KIND OF CREATING THEIR OWN SET OF INFORMAL PROCESS? DID YOU FIND, DID YOU FIND ANY, ANY, UM, PAST PRACTICE, A GOOD PRACTICE THREAD BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS OR IS EVERYBODY KIND OF DOING, THEY'RE DOING THEIR OWN THING? WHAT DID YOU FIND THERE? YEAH, SO WE NOTICED THAT DEPARTMENTS ARE KIND OF, FOR THE MOST PART, COMFORTABLE ROBIN WAS SAYING WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO REPORT IT TO THE HIGHER MANAGEMENT.
WE FOUND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE DEPARTMENTS WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT THERE WAS ALSO LOTS OF DIFFERENT VARIATIONS AND KIND OF HOW THEY DO IT, WHAT FORMS THEY USED TO DO IT, LIKE WHAT THE PROCESS IS, HOW, WHEN, LIKE, WHEN THEY DO IT.
SO THIS IS A VERY, SO THEY'RE KIND OF, THEY ALL REPORT TO HIGHER MANAGEMENT, BUT THERE'S VARIATION IN HOW IT'S DONE BASICALLY.
SO THERE'S NOT ONE SET WAY THAT IT'S BEING PERFORMED.
AND LASTLY, DID YOU FIND, DID YOU FIND ANY KIND OF DOCUMENTATION IN HOUSE THAT SHOWS THAT THE EMPLOYEE, WHATEVER THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE IN THAT DEPARTMENT THAT, THAT EMPLOYEE IN FACT DID REPORT BACK AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A SORT OF, UH, AUDIT TRAIL AND REVIEW TRAIL TO DOCUMENT THAT, THAT, THAT CONTACT AND THAT, THAT WAS, THAT LOOP WAS CLOUD.
WELL, WHILE WE WERE DOING TESTING, WE FOUND THAT I'M CONSCIOUS LOOKING THROUGH THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE.
WE NOTED THAT CAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S LIKE SOME BLUE FORMS THAT THEY USE OR WHAT'S IT.
BLUE CARDS THAT THEY USE THAT SOME DEPARTMENTS USE.
AND WE NOTICED THAT IN SOME CLAIMS, LIKE SCANNED IN THE, LIKE IN THE CLAIM DOCUMENTATION WAS THAT BLUE CARD, LIKE THE ONES THAT DEPARTMENTS LEFT FOR THE EMPLOYEES
[00:45:01]
THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THEY HAD CONTACT WITH THE EMPLOYEE THAT GAVE HIM THE CAR, LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO.AND THAT, THAT, THAT WHOLE THING WAS DONE CORRECTLY.
SO WE NOTICED SOME CLAIMS THAT WE HAPPENED TO HAPPEN TO SEE.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO JUMP IN WITH COUNCILWOMAN MORRIS? HANDS UP.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU JUST WANT US TO BREAK IN AND TALK AND YEAH.
THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
I CAN ONLY SEE THE SCREEN SHARE IN YOU.
UM, WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN AND, AND BASICALLY UNDERSCORE WHAT YOU SAID.
I, I THINK WE NEED A POLICY FOR THIS.
UM, HAVING IT BE HAPHAZARD AND, AND WHAT, WHAT BJ SAID ABOUT, UH, AN EMPLOYEE CAUSING ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE TO A CITIZEN OR THEIR PROPERTY, AND THEN JUST DRIVING AWAY TO REPORT IT TO THEIR SUPERVISOR IS UNACCEPTABLE.
UM, IF WE HAVE, IF WE HAVE A POLICY ABOUT IT SAYING, HERE'S A CARD HERE, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT YOU DO EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THEN THAT PROTECTS OUR EMPLOYEES.
AND IT ALSO PROTECTS THE CITIZENS.
AND THE OTHER THING WITH, UM, NOT INVITING CLAIMS, UM, WE ARE NOT AN INSURANCE COMPANY.
WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS AND THERE IS AN AS YOU POINTED OUT, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
UM, SO WE, WE WANT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.
WE WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT, BUT WE'RE NOT IN THIS TO, UM, TO DODGE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT FULLY DID.
SO I WOULD BE STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL NEEDS TO TAKE IT ON OR HOWEVER WE NEED TO DO IT, GO AHEAD AND, AND MAKE A POLICY.
SO OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE A REAL CLEAR ROADMAP ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THESE SITUATIONS BECAUSE READING THROUGH THE AUDIT, UM, YEAH, WE WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
SO, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNCIL, THE PEOPLE ON THE CALL, I APOLOGIZE.
I FEEL IF WHAT I WAS SAYING MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE AND MISCONSTRUED, I FIRMLY AGREE I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC SERVANT FOR THE PAST DECADE AND A HALF.
WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY THE EFFECT OF THE CITIZENS OF ANY DAMAGE THAT WE CAUSED.
UM, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT A PRIVATE INSURANCE ENTITY.
WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD TO LIVE BY THERE'S LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND OUR ENROLLED REQUIREMENTS ARE MORAL PRIMACY ETHICS MANY TIMES ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT'S WRITTEN IN CODE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALEX WAS CLEAR AS TO WHAT HE WAS SAYING IN THE ACTUAL FINDING.
HAVING SAID THAT, UM, I DO WHAT HAPPENED TO HAVE THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF ALSO BEING A PRACTICING ATTORNEY FOR 15 YEARS.
SO I CAN ALSO TELL YOU AS WELL, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS TO YOUR QUESTION OR ADDITIONAL LEGAL HAZARD FROM US, NOT DILIGENTLY NOTIFYING THEM, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S POOR TASTE AND BAD FORM.
UM, SO I THINK WE SHOULD, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IMPLEMENTING A, AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS.
CAUSE I THINK ROBBIE ALREADY HAS A POLICY WHERE WE DO ON OUR DIRECTIVE.
IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED UP MAYBE A LITTLE BIT AND RE RE IMPLEMENTED.
SO, UM, TO THAT EXTENT, I PLAN TO BUILD OFF OF WHAT HE'S ALREADY STARTED AND MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE BECAUSE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, IT COMES TO FIND OUT THAT PEOPLE JUST HAVE FORGOTTEN.
THEY SIGNED A PAPER TO SAY, I'LL DO THIS A LONG TIME AGO.
THEY JUST HAVEN'T BEEN REMINDED THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS.
AND ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT STANDARDIZED.
IN FACT, THE AUDIT THAT I'VE DONE WITH SOME OF THE CLAIMS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE SO FAR, I HAVE NOTED THAT I'VE NOTED THAT WE HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH HOW WE DOCUMENT THE ACTUAL FILE TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN DIALOGUE BETWEEN US AND THE CITIZEN.
AND, UM, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I PLANNED ON ADDRESSING IMMEDIATELY.
SO THIS AUDIT WORKS RIGHT IN HAND WITH THAT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I HAVE THIS WRONG BOBBY, IF I'M ACTING, PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT, MIGHT HELP CLARIFY SOMETHING.
UH, IF YOU'LL NOTE THAT PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF OUR ACTIVITIES DURING THE DAY OR DURING THE, DURING THE WORK DAY WHEN PEOPLE WERE AT WORK.
AND SO PROBABLY I'D SAY AT LEAST 80% OF THE TIME WE GET A FENCE WITH A GARBAGE TRUCK OR RUN OVER SPRINKLER HAD, THERE'S NO ONE THERE TO CONTACT.
SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE MINOR INCIDENTS WHERE WE LEAVE A NOTE AND SAY, YES, WE DID SOMETHING.
GIVE US A CALL AND YOU TALK ABOUT, OKAY, THANK YOU.
[00:50:04]
THANK YOU.UH, UM, I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS, WHETHER THAT'S AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL OR THE STAFF LEVEL, JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CLEAR POLICY THAT, THAT THERE IS NOTIFICATION, YOU KNOW, I TRUSTED STAFF CAN, CAN WORK THROUGH THAT TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT PUTTING THE BURDEN ON FOR LINE EMPLOYEES VERSUS SUPERVISORS.
THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY TO, TO KIND OF BRIDGE THAT GAP IN, IN SOME WAY, I'LL KIND OF LEAVE IT TO YOU ALMOST, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE REPORTED OUT, WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK COUNSEL IF THEY PREFER TO KIND OF WEIGH IN ON WHAT THE POLICY SHOULD BE, BUT OTHERWISE I'D BE INCLINED TO SAY WE LEAVE IT JUST TO STAFF.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS, UH, ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO JUMP IN WITH ALEXA? YEAH.
SO GO TO FIND TEAM NUMBER FOUR, CLAIM DOCUMENTATION.
SO WE LOOKED AT A SAMPLE OF 66 CLAIMS AND NOTED THAT 9% OF THE CLAIMS WERE MISSING DOCUMENTATION, SUCH AS PHOTOS, DEPARTMENTAL VERIFICATION, OR PARTY DOCUMENTATION, INVOICES, OR STATEMENTS.
WE SOME POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THIS ARE, IS A PERSON MANAGEMENT IS NOT CONSISTENTLY OBTAINING, ATTACHING OR REVIEWING ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTATION ON THE SOFTWARE THAT JUST FINISH.
IT DOES NOT EASEL CHECKLIST THAT COULD ASSIST OR ENSURE ALL RATHER DOCUMENTATION WAS INCLUDED FOR CLAIMS. AND THAT MANAGEMENT'S CURRENT POLICY IS NOT ADDRESSED GUIDANCE FOR WHEN TO CONTACT DEPARTMENTS, TO CONFIRM CLAIM DETAILS OF PAYMENTS IN OUR REPUTATION.
OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT RISK MANAGEMENT SHOULD ENHANCE THE CLAIMS PROCESS.
ALL CLEANS CONTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A CHECKLIST TO VERIFY ALL NECESSARY CLAIM INFORMATION IS OBTAINED AND ATTACHED IN THE CLAIMS SOFTWARE PRIOR TO CLOSING CLAIMS. AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS MAY VARY BY CLAIM TYPES AND TO UPTAKE THE RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIM TO UPDATE THE RISK MANAGERS LIABILITY CLAIM PROCEDURE, TO INCLUDE OR REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCUMENTING DEPARTMENTAL VERIFICATION AND COMMUNICATION CREW MANAGEMENT CONCURRED WITH THIS AND THEIR ACTION PLAN IS THAT WE WILL EXPLORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BROAD FILE CHECKLIST AND THAT WE CAN ACQUIRE DEPARTMENT VERIFICATION ON ALL CLAIMS AS MANY CLAIMS TIED TO A DEPARTMENT.
IN SOME CASES, THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT AGREE WITH OUR DECISION TO PAY A CLAIM AND MOST CLAIMS. DO YOU HAVE AN EMAIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE ARE PAYING A CLAIM, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE QUESTIONS LET'S GO AHEAD AND KEEP MOVING, FINDING NUMBER FIVE CLAIM REPORTING.
SO WE NOTED THAT RISK MANAGEMENT DOES NOT GENERATE AND COMMUNICATE A COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT TO CITY ADMINISTRATION TO INFORM ABOUT CRITICAL FACTORS AS TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMS PROCESS.
NOW IT'S BEEN FOR CLAIMS TYPES, CLAIMS PROCESSED NUMBER OF CLAIMS PROCESSED PER DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE CLAIM APPROVAL VERSUS DENIAL RATIO.
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYEE.
IN ADDITION, RISK MANAGEMENT DOES NOT GENERATE AND COMMUNICATE QUARTERLY DASHBOARD REPORTS TO DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT TO INFORM THEM ABOUT CRITICAL FACTORS, SUCH AS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMS PROCESS, TOTAL NUMBERS FOR CLAIMS THAISA CLAIMS PROCESS, THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER EMPLOYEE, AND SOME OF THESE POTENTIAL CLAUSES ARE THAT RISK MANAGEMENT.
CURRENT POLICY IS NOT JUST GUIDANCE FOR A ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY REPORT.
AND IT'S A RISK MANAGEMENT LIABILITY CLAIM PROCEDURE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
OUR COMMENDATION WAS THAT CHRIS MATRON SHOULD ADD A REPORTING REQUIREMENT TO THE RISK MANAGEMENT LIABILITY CLAIM PROCEDURE TO REQUIRE THE ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY DASHBOARD REPORTS ARE GENERATED AND COMMUNICATED TO CITY AND EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS AND TO GENERATE AND COMMUNICATE THE ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY DASHED REPORTS TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENTS CONCURRED AND THEIR ACTION PLAN IS THAT THEY AGREE WITH THIS WITH ANY OF THIS REPORTING TOOL.
AND THEN DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED TOWARDS THIS FOR SOME TIME LIMITED STAFF RESOURCES HAVE NOT ALLOWED A COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT FOR STAGING WE'LL EXPLORE OUTSOURCING DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR REPORTING TOOL.
SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS?
[00:55:01]
OKAY.SO FINDING SIX, JESSE'S GOING TO COVER SIX THROUGH 10.
SO, UM, FINDING SIX WAS RELATED TO CLAIM APPROVAL.
UH, SO IF A CLAIM IS GREATER THAN 10,000, BUT LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND, UH, IT NEEDS TO GO BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THOSE THAT ARE GREATER THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND GO BEFORE A COUNCIL.
AND WE NOTED THAT FOR NINE OF 12, THERE WASN'T DOCUMENTATION OF THE APPROVAL IN THE FILE.
NOW THERE WERE NOTES ABOUT IT, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING FROM THE, UH, COMMITTEES SUCH AS, UM, MINUTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION, UH, AND WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THAT THESE WERE APPROVED BY REVIEWING THE NOTES OR SPEAKING WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF.
SO, UM, THE CAUSE IS JUST THAT, UH, IT'S A DECISION NOT TO RETAIN THE CLAIMS COMMITTEE DOCUMENTATION IN THE FILE BECAUSE AMOUNTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST AND THAT'S SOMETHING, UH, ADMINISTRATION THINKS IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO HAVE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
UM, SO, AND ALSO CLAIMS POLICY DOES NOT HAVE GUIDANCE FOR RETAINING APPROVALS OVER $10,000.
UM, SO, SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO AMEND THE CLAIM PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCUMENTING APPROVALS FOR CLAIMS, INCLUDING THOSE GREATER THAN 10,000 AND PAIN.
EVAN OBTAIN EVIDENCE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WAS WITHIN A RANGE APPROVED.
SO, UH, IF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WAS SAY $16,600, I BELIEVE THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF SAY BETWEEN 10,000 AND 40,000.
SO THAT WAY, UH, THE CITY'S INTERESTS WOULD STILL BE PROTECTED, UM, AND, UH, MANAGEMENT CONCURRED WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION AND AGREED TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES.
UH, AND THAT PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN REVISED TO OBTAIN EMAIL CONFIRMATION FROM THE TERM LIKE I'D MENTIONED FROM THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE RANGE.
UM, SO FOR FINDING NUMBER SEVEN CONCERNED, UH, CLAIMS THAT WERE DENIED.
SO, UH, THE ICPM, WHICH IS THE INSURANCE CLAIMS AND PROGRAM MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING AND DETERMINING CLAIMS ELIGIBILITY.
SO IF THAT INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO DENY A CLAIM AND THERE IS, THERE'S NO REVIEW AFTER THAT POINT BY MANAGEMENT OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE CITY, UM, W WE DIDN'T NOTE ANY ERRORS IN HIS DECISIONS, BUT, UH, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AS A JET HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, 41% OF ALL CLAIMS ARE, UH, ULTIMATELY DENIED BY THE CITY.
AND WE NOTED THAT THE CAUSE CAUSE WAS THAT THERE ARE LIMITED RESOURCES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW, AND THAT CURRENCY POLICY, CURRENT POLICY DOES NOT HAVE GUIDANCE FOR, UH, HOW TO REVIEW A DENIED CLAIM.
UM, SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO AMEND THE PROCESS, TO INCLUDE THE REVIEW OF A SAMPLE OF THE DENIED CLAIMS BY THE DIRECTOR, AND THEN UPDATE THE LIABILITY CLAIM PROCEDURE TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE.
AND WE WANTED TO ADD THAT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE JUST BY THE DIRECTOR.
IT COULD BE BY ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER, AND IT COULD BE A PERIODIC REVIEW, UH, MAYBE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT OR EVERY CLAIM THAT WAS DENIED.
UM, SO MANAGEMENT DIDN'T CONCUR AND THE CRUX OF THAT WAS THAT THERE WASN'T REALLY A FINANCIAL IMPACT, BUT, UH, I JUST KIND OF BELIEVES FROM A CONTROL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THINGS LIKE CHECKS AND BALANCES AND, AND JUST ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DONE IN A FAIR MANNER AND ALL CITIZENS WHO FILE A CLAIM OR ARE TREATED EQUALLY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I COMMENT? YES, PLEASE.
UM, IN, IN REVIEWING THIS EARLIER, I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I, WHEN I GOT TO THE RESPONSE SAYING WE KNOW OF NO OTHER ACTIVITY REQUIRING REVIEW AND APPROVAL TO NOT PASS ANY FUNDS TRENDS, I WAS A LITTLE APPALLED, UM, BECAUSE IT'S JUST AS MR. HALE JUST SAID, THIS IS ABOUT CUSTOMER SERVICE.
THIS IS ABOUT, WE ARE NOT A PRIVATE ENTITY WHOSE PRIMARY THING IS ALWAYS PROTECTING OURSELVES.
WE ARE LOOKING OUT FOR, FOR PEOPLE AND REVIEWING HAVING A, AN ORDERLY PROCESS TO REVIEW DENIALS.
UM, I SEE IT'S ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CLAIM PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE THE REVIEW OF A SAMPLE OF AT LEAST A SAMPLE OF DENIED CLAIMS. THAT'S A SAFEGUARD.
UM, IT'S A SAFEGUARD FOR OUR REPUTATION AS A CITY THAT WE ARE NOT UNFAIR, AND IT'S A SAFEGUARD FOR CITIZENS THINGS HAPPEN.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, PUT INTO ACTION IN THIS CASE STRONGLY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY PLEASE.
[01:00:01]
WITH COUNCILWOMAN LORIS.UH, I APOLOGIZE ROBBIE, A LITTLE BIT IN CONFLICT WITH THE RESPONSE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.
I ACTUALLY HAVE ALREADY BEGUN SPOT CHECKING OUR DENIALS, UH, FROM THE IPMC, UM, BECAUSE I, I, WELL, I JUST HAPPENED TO CONCUR.
I THINK IT, I THINK EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE HAVE FOUND NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT JUST TO ENSURE THIS CONSISTENCY THERE IS, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S REPUTATIONAL RISK INVOLVED, AND WE ALL REALLY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO I HAPPEN TO AGREE, UH, AND I WILL, IF, IF POSSIBLE, UH, JED, I'D LIKE TO AMEND THIS ANSWER TO SAY THAT, UH, WE DO OCCUR THAT SOME ROUTINE REVEALS OF DENIALS OCCURRED.
UM, LIKE, LIKE JESSE WAS SAYING, IT CAN BE PERIODIC EVERY MORNING.
THERE IS A RESOURCE CHALLENGE WITH THAT, BUT DOING SOME, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IS APPROPRIATE.
AND I PROBABLY DONE MORE THAN I WOULD DO ON A NORMAL BASIS, EXCEPT FOR HONESTLY, I'M JUST LEARNING MY STAFF AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW CONSISTENT THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE DENIALS.
SO I WANT TO, I'M TRYING TO EVALUATE IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
SO I'M QUITE CERTAIN, UM, THAT I'M DOING WAY MORE THAN, UH, ROBBIE WOULD'VE EVEN HAD THE TIME TO DO IT QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MUCH LARGER PLATE IN THAT IDEA.
SO I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE WAY I'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO BREATHE INTO THE STRUCTURE.
AND THAT THERE RESOURCE WISE, WE COULDN'T REVIEW EVERYONE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO PERIODICALLY JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOME STABILITY AND CONSISTENCY BE THERE.
WE'LL SEND YOU THE DRAFT REPORT AND YOU CAN, I MEAN, THE SPONSORS AND BEFORE IT GOES TO THE FULL COUNCIL, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, YES, PLEASE.
UM, MY QUESTION IS ONLY DENOUNCED.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT STAINS AS FOR, SO, YOU KNOW, PEER INDUSTRY, WHETHER IT'S, I KNOW 41% ON HIS FACE IS, IS 41%.
DO WE HAVE A, A, UM, COMPLAINTS, UH, CRITERIA ON WHICH WE MAKE DETERMINATIONS FOR, UH, FOR, UH, PULA DENIALS.
AND I RAISED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IF, UH, IF CITIZENS, UH, IF CITIZEN, Y UH, FILES A CLAIM AND IT IS APPROVED, ACCEPTED, AND CITIZEN X THREE MONTHS LATER FOLLOWS A SIMILAR CLAIM, AND THAT CLAIM IS DENIED AND WE GET AN OPEN RECORDS OR, OR A REQUEST FROM A LEGAL ENTITY SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DID YOU BASE THAT DENIAL ON? DO WE HAVE A STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE OR TEMPLATE WHERE WE CAN DOCUMENT HOW THAT DETERMINATION WAS REACHED, OR IS THAT DECISION, UM, DISCRETIONARY ON THE PART OF THE REVIEW? SURE.
UM, THROUGH THE CHAIR OF A COUNSELOR AT WILLIAMS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY FACT SPECIFIC SCENARIO BECAUSE LITERALLY ONE CHANGE OF A PARTICULAR FACTUAL, FACTUAL, IT COULD AFFECT WHETHER WE ARE RELIABLE AND WHETHER WE ARE NOT, OR EVEN WHETHER THERE'S AN APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY, MAYBE WE'RE PARTIALLY LIABLE.
SO IT IS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING TO ESTABLISH IF YOU WOULD A STANDARDIZED TEMPLATE OF, OR A CHECKLIST FORM FOR EVEN THE SAME TYPE OF INCIDENT.
UM, SO NO, THERE IS NO, UM, MENU ITEM THAT ITEMIZATION AS TO WHETHER WE'RE LIVE OR NOT, BECAUSE IT REALLY DEPENDS A LOT ON WHAT HAPPENED, AND IT CAN BE THE EXACT SAME INCIDENT, BUT TWO DIFFERENT FACTS THAT ONE FACT CHANGES IT FOR LIABLE.
ONE CHANGES IT FROM NOT LIABLE.
UM, SO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS THAT NO, WE DO NOT HAVE THAT, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD TRY TO MAINTAIN SOME CONSISTENCY, OBVIOUSLY, AS IT RELATES TO OUR RESPONSE.
HENCE MY STATEMENT EARLIER AS A COUNSEL, ON MY MORRIS'S POINT, REVIEWING SOME OF THESE DENIALS PERIODICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UM, MAINTAINING THAT STANDARD IN THE COMMUNITY.
I THANK YOU FOR, THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE.
AND I, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, BUT LET ME PUT THE QUESTION THIS WAY.
IF I RACED, IF I WERE THAT'S ONE OF THE SESSIONS AND I RAISED A QUESTION, UM, AS FAR AS DOCUMENTATION, AS A PART OF THE, UH, REACHING THE DECISION AND REVIEWING THE CASE.
AND, UH, AND I, I SEE THE FILE.
IS THERE A DOCUMENTATION IN THE FILE? THEY CLEARLY CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO ME HOW THE DECISION WAS RAISED REGARDING THE NOW APPROVAL IS IN ANY FORM.
IS THERE, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE FILE ON THE PART
[01:05:01]
OF THE DECISION-MAKER THAT, THAT, UH, DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT THE DECISION THAT WAS FINALLY DERIVED AT? IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE FILE THAT DOES THAT YES, SIR.THROUGH THE CHAT OF COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, THERE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE DOCUMENTATION IN THE OF NOTATION BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GO ON TO OUR LOGIC BEHIND THE LIABILITY ASPECT.
AND THAT'S A PART OF EVERY FILE.
IN FACT, IF IT'S NOT IN THE FILE, THEN I'M GOING TO BE REQUIRING IT IN THE FILE.
BECAUSE AGAIN, UM, PARTICULARLY ON OUR APPROVALS BEFORE I LET A CHECK GO THROUGH, I'M REALLY EVALUATING THE CLAIM FILE BECAUSE ALL RIGHT, NOW ALL CHECKS ARE COMING THROUGH WITH MY APPROVAL.
SO I'M REVIEWING EVERY LINE ITEM TO ENSURE THERE IS A INVOICE.
THERE IS A DOCUMENTATION THERE'S PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, AND LEGALLY THE LIABILITY IS SOUND, UM, AGAIN, ON THE DENIAL ASPECT, THAT'D BE A SPOT CHECK, BUT NONETHELESS, YES, SIR.
THAT WILL ABSOLUTELY BE IN THE FILE.
NOW, WHETHER SOMEONE AGREES WITH OUR DECISION IS COMPLETELY UP FOR DEBATE.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT A DISCUSSION.
OF COURSE, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE THAT THAT'S NOT MY POINT, BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE.
UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU WILL BE EITHER ON A SAMPLE BASIS OR ARE ROUTINELY REVIEWING, UH, DETERMINATIONS REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OR DENIAL.
WE HAVE A SYSTEMS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.
AND I THINK WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT MOVING FORWARD THAT THOSE ARE YOUR PLANS TO HAVE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES.
BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW, I MAY LOOK AT A SET OF FACTS AND REACH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DETERMINATION THAT, THAT THEN YOU, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY DECISION WENT BY THE CITY OF GHANA.
SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN PLACE, PARTICULARLY ON IT COME CASES THAT MAY BE RATHER FUZZY OR COMPLEX OR CONTROVERSIAL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THAT, THAT WE HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT WE HAVE A, UH, A, AT LEAST A, A HIGHER STEP, ONE STEP REVIEW OF THAT.
SO THAT WE, UM, UM, JUST ANOTHER SET OF EYES ON, UH, TO REVIEW THOSE, UH, THOSE CASES.
AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, I WANT HIM TO SIT AND REVIEW.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A MICROMANAGEMENT APPROACH, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCE TO ENSURE THAT WE, WE WANT THAT WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION.