Audit Criticizes L.A. District’s Computer Unit

In the latest and most extensive review of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s troubled computer division, a management audit obtained Friday by The Times strongly condemns a culture of fear and finger-pointing that it says has crippled the entire district.

So mismanaged is the system that when auditors asked for a list of major technology projects and the administrators responsible for them, they learned that no such list existed. Such failure of accountability permeates “down to the lower levels and fosters an environment of complacency, finger pointing and low productivity,” the audit said.

Auditors had been asked by the district to look at the district’s management of technology, but found that solutions are impossible without broader reforms.

“Years of political infighting has exacerbated the miscommunication and mistrust among the district’s senior management resulting in a disparate and fractured organization,” Arthur Andersen & Co. wrote.

The audit suggested that this defensive atmosphere--unchecked by the superintendent--has suffocated development of technological solutions to the district’s myriad problems, harming both students and employees.

Sources said the $300,000 study was ordered by Supt. Sid Thompson as ammunition to fire his technology chief, Assistant Supt. John Nagata. On Friday, Thompson denied that was the case, but acknowledged that he had delayed Nagata’s annual evaluation pending results of the audit.

“I see nothing here that says get rid of him,” Thompson said.

Although the document criticized Nagata’s management as too “authoritarian and control-oriented,” it also appeared to take a jab at Thompson’s reluctance to take stronger action before the audit was commissioned. It criticized top district officials for their “apparent distaste or inability to hold individuals accountable for their performance, particularly at the senior management level.”

Thompson acknowledged that there are problems, but denied they are as pervasive as the auditors stated. Nonetheless, he agreed with the audit’s call for streamlining the overall management structure, particularly in the technology division.

Through a spokeswoman, Nagata declined to comment.

The audit will receive its first public airing at a district Audit Committee hearing Thursday, when Thompson said decisions will begin to be made about how to respond. The bulk of the responsibility will fall to Deputy Supt. Ruben Zacarias, who is to take over the top job when Thompson retires at the end of June. He did not return repeated calls Friday.

The district’s fitful steps toward the technology age have been probed at least four times in five years, beginning with a 1993 district audit by Arthur Andersen that focused on the important role of computers in a well-run bureaucracy. In a review by another firm last year, auditors reported that systems and training were so inadequate that employees were still “physically cutting and pasting information,” increasing the workload and the risk of error.

The newest Andersen audit maintained that technology division workers are poorly trained and ill-treated. It also questioned overtime controls, in a division where overtime costs rose nearly ninefold in the last five years, and suggests ways to improve the security of more than $1 million in spare parts with such simple measures as closing alarmed doors that are routinely propped open.

Its most damning criticism of the division came from those who rely on its work--employees at district headquarters and at schools. In a survey returned by 800 users, the audit found that none were satisfied with the service they received, only 22% said they trusted the technology division, and just 17% agreed that the division “exhibits the highest ethical standards in dealing with me.”

Least happy were school employees who rely on computers for information about everything from student records to budget information. Some of the lowest ratings were given to the student information system.

Part of the problem, according to the audit, is that there is no in-depth technology plan for district staff to follow, leaving computerization efforts to “drift aimlessly and be subject to the changing priorities of various factions within the district.” From the surveys plus interviews with nearly 100 staff members, auditors said they came to believe that priorities were set based on “personal influence and preference,” rather than a coordinated plan.

They urged creation of such a plan and outlined a program under which the users themselves would set the goals for the future.

As an example of the crazy quilt that emerges without a plan, the audit detailed the continued reliance on five different computer “platforms”--ranging from IBM mainframes to Hewlitt Packard computers--a complication it said thwarts efforts to share information among district divisions.

As Zacarias’ ascension to superintendent nears, the consultant seized the opportunity to expand its original advice to streamline district management. Currently, the superintendent and deputy have more than 17 people reporting to them. Auditors recommended cutting that to as few as four deputies--with expertise in their areas--who would report to the superintendent.

So far, Zacarias has been vague about his restructuring plans, talking of hiring a business czar to take some of the pressure off the superintendent, but also of having 27 cluster leaders report to him.

In addition, the audit criticized the school board and other top district managers for not taking the time to fully understand the district’s technology efforts in order to set goals and budgets, and hold people responsible for them.

To begin to address that, it recommended establishing a technology review committee that would combine outside industry experts with district staff to oversee the execution of the plan.