Text · page 5 of 14
oversight on his part that the five other devices were not added to the device list when the District obtained them. After our inquiry, the IT Director subsequently added the five devices to the IT device list. District officials use a different module in the device list application to track who IT equipment was assigned to (assignment list) and another application to manage and track the assignment of student computers. In addition, BOCES maintained a list of the devices the District leased from BOCES. Although the BOCES list of IT equipment was available and provided to the District, it was not an adequate record for inventory purposes because it did not include the name of the individual assigned the equipment, the equipment’s physical location, or equipment purchased from other vendors. The IT equipment in each of these lists should also be on the District’s device list. District officials also maintain lists of devices that are Board-approved to be disposed of or recycled. Devices disposed of or recycled should be removed from the device list. To further test the accuracy of the District’s device list, we compared lists generated from the District’s other IT equipment tracking applications and the BOCES-maintained list of leased equipment to the District’s IT device list and found numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies. Assignment List − The District’s assignment list showed 583 devices were assigned out to individuals. Seventeen devices were assigned to individuals but the devices were not recorded in the device list. While different tag numbers were used in the device list and assignment list for two items, four items were never input into the device list even though they were assigned out to individuals. The IT Director corrected these six records after we brought the discrepancies to his attention. The remaining 11 devices had been previously recycled and removed from the IT device tracking portion of the application. As a result of our inquiry, the IT Director corrected the assignment list. According to the IT Director, the device tracking portion and the assignment portion of the application are not linked; therefore, any variances between the two lists would not be automatically identified within the application. The IT Director did not perform comparisons between the device tracking list and the assignment list and was therefore unaware of the discrepancies. Student Computers − The list generated from the application used to manage student computers indicated that there were 1,089 student computers currently in-service. Of these, 249 were not on the District’s device list. We followed up with the IT Director and determined the following: l 107 were new and had been shipped to the District about 20 working days before we conducted our test. They had not yet been entered into the device list but were subsequently added. Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller 3