Has any agency of the Federal Government allowed an independet 3rd party to assess their y2k remediation status? If not why not? If so what percentage of agencies have taken this course for their entire project?

If you were John Koskinen would you have each agencies project reports and charts hanging in your office or would you just want them to give you the bare minimum of information.

Have the American people received honest, straight forwad status reports from .gov and corporations?

If not why not?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999

Answers

Ray,

Question: does the GAO qualify as an independent 3rd party assessor? I think they've done a pretty good job so far with their assessments of FAA, DoD, etc.

Also, remember the great celebration just before Christmas, in which Mr. Clinton announced that SSA was "100% certified compliant." Some friends of mine tried to find out who did the certification, but were unsuccessful. Seems to me that the best way to deal with our concerns would be to put the whole darn assessment report on the Internet.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), April 06, 1999.

Ed,

Don't know if the GAO would qualify. Does anyone believe that the GAO would publicly report that the IRS would no longer be able to process tax returns or that SSA would not be able to send out checks.

There is probably a limit as to how much BAD news they would report. By using %s we really do not know the internals.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

I can't answer your question directly but I can give you a little background. The DoD does not conduct much IT work itself. Most (I'd venture 90%) of IT work is contracted out. Because of this, many "independent" organizations are brought in (as well as DoD project managers) to verify the contractors work. These independent organizations can be consultants or "non-profit" types such as MITRE. The DoD invented the term IV&V. DoD is know for following processes, so the same holds for Y2K.

The folks in the lower ranks are speaking the truth. How it gets translated up the chain is pure speculation. But the number one rule is never lie to your boss. The consequences are not worth the risk.

Ed, that's the GAO's job and it's done in all areas not just Y2K.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

"The folks in the lower ranks are speaking the truth. How it gets translated up the chain is pure speculation. But the number one rule is never lie to your boss. The consequences are not worth the risk. "

Maria, what are the consequences for an agency that LIE's to the public?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

That's the whole point Ray. I don't believe they lie.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

"That's the whole point Ray. I don't believe they lie.

Maria, let us make the rash assumption that they did or will lie, what then would be the consequences for the folks responsible?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria: You don't believe your government (bureacrats, politicians, low or high) would lie to you? You probably still believe that all that happened between Bill and Monica was saying "Good Morning" in the hallways as they passed each other. Or that you are subject to and liable for the income tax. Or that Roosevelt didn't manipulate the Japanese so that we could enter WWII. Or that Waco was about preventing child abuse. You are a frickin' idiot.

-- A (A@AisA.com), April 06, 1999.

Well, isn't this fun. Apparently, that "lying" FAA is doing IV&V:

Jane Garvey Testimony

In accordance with the GAO's guidelines, outlined in their document "Year 2000 Computing Crises: An Assessment Guide," our validation process includes an independent verification and validation review by an outside contractor, SAIC, who, in effect, triple-checks our work. Validation also includes comprehensive NAS end-to-end tests, which test the interrelationships of systems and whether individual fixes of components will work together as a whole. These end-to-end tests are ongoing at our Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which can simulate any of the FAA's Air Traffic Control Centers.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 06, 1999.

I don't believe they are lying about Y2K. Sorry A, I thought the subject was Y2K. (And BTW you're a f*@?ing idiot too)

I said "pure speculation" and meant to add "on your part". You seem to pick apart the words to no avail and speculate about how they could be lying about Y2K.

What are the consequences? Down at the worker level, firing. Up the chain, transfer to a really nasty job (Minot comes to mind). At Koskinen level, firing. To the public on 1/1/00, maybe a few more problems but not to the level that some would believe. I don't believe in TEOTWAWKI.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria commented:

"What are the consequences? Down at the worker level, firing. Up the chain, transfer to a really nasty job (Minot comes to mind). At Koskinen level, firing. To the public on 1/1/00, maybe a few more problems but not to the level that some would believe. I don't believe in TEOTWAWKI. "

"Transfer to a really nasty job" ... Why not firing? ... and in the case y2k if serious problems do arise .... crimimal proceedings would be in order.

We now live in a society where accountability and responsibility are DELEGATED to others.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

The Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General has issued at least two y2k reports. June 1998 and December 1998. Both reports were mentioned/linked on this forum. Both reports indicated that there were numerous false statements made by various DoD commands concerning y2k remediation status. Go to the DoD IG web site and read for your self. Both reports were also written about in the Washington Post and NY Times.

The USDA, Office of Inspector General also issued a similar report last year. The report indicates false statements within the USDA concerning y2k remediation. The U.S. Post Office IG issued a report this year indicating that the Post Ofice was way behind in y2k effort.

Every major U.S. Government agency has an Inspector General. The IGs report directly to Congress. They are tasked to investiagte/audit waste, fraud, and abuse, no lack of work :~). In December 1997 they were ordered to monitor their department's y2k efforts.

The IGs and the GAO come closest to serving as a 3rd party to monitor y2k remediation status for the U.S. Government. Most,if not all,have web sites and regularly post their findings/reports.

The GAO and several of the IGs clearly indicate that we are running out of time and some of the departments are making false statements concerning y2k remediation.

Read the reports and weep.

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), April 06, 1999.

Ray you are a charmer. You have no clue how business or gov works do you? Have you ever had a job? Do you understand roles and responsibilities in any organization?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 1999.

Hoffmeister snip from Jane Garvey Testimony on March 15, 1999.

"In accordance with the GAO's guidelines, outlined in their document "Year 2000 Computing Crises: An Assessment Guide," our validation process includes an independent verification and validation review by an outside contractor, SAIC, who, in effect, triple-checks our work. Validation also includes comprehensive NAS end-to-end tests, which test the interrelationships of systems and whether individual fixes of components will work together as a whole. These end-to-end tests are ongoing at our Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which can simulate any of the FAA's Air Traffic Control Centers."

Hoffmeister, I am NOT talking about validation and verification of the work that the FAA as done. I am talking about an independent audit of what the FAA HAS NOT done.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Maria,

I must be getting close so to speak.

Yes Maria, I have worked for ....... you guessed it ....... the Federal Government.

That's where I first learned about the new definition of accountability and responsibility. And yes I worked as a contracted programmer.

Maria, you can defend .gov as much as you wan,t but facts are facts, the majority of Americans don't believe them and for good reason>

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Thanks Brother Rat for that VERY informative post. These are the kinds of contributions we need in order to make rational decisions about y2k.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Has Ray ever had a real job? He says so, but he could be lying. I know one thing - he can sure cut'n'paste with the best of'em!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 06, 1999.

One-stop shopping for Federal Government Inspectors General sites:

http://www.ignet.gov/ignet/internal/iglist.html

One problem though: clicking through, it appears in most cases, no new y2k info has been posted since last year (with some exceptions--most notably the Dept. of Treasury Y2K document that bears the publication date December 1999!).

Anyway--that's how you get there, even if you find no "there."

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

FM, that's quite an interesting observation. Thanks for the research. It looks like this may be an area to keep an eye on.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Here is a hot link to the .gov IG site:

IG Site

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.

Ray, you are most welcome, and thank YOU for the hot-link!

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

Ooops. 'Forgot one thing (and on this point, I know of what I speak): It says at the top of the IG page that inspectors general are presidential appointees, versus civil service employees.

So the question is: does anyone know which ones were appointed by the current administration?

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 06, 1999.

Government agency claims from 1998...

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,13653,00.html

[snip]

Liar's Poker

Afternoon Line

FROM THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NETLY NEWS

What's a harried federal bureaucrat to do when faced with impossible Y2K repair deadlines? Answer: Fib. At least that's what the government's own auditors charged yesterday at a Congressional hearing. "We have, in fact, found cases in which agencies' systems conversion status as reported [in quarterly updates] has been inaccurate," the General Accounting Office's Joel Willemssen told a House oversight subcommittee.

Case in point: The Agriculture Department incorrectly reported 15 systems as Y2K-OK. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service assured everyone three systems would be fine -- before it had finished testing them. Some agencies seem to be responding to increasing pressure to include positive figures in their quarterly reports.

The solution, according to Willemssen, is "independent verification," which the White House is considering but has not required. In its absence, some agencies have made highly dubious claims. The U.S. Postal Service, for instance, plans to spend over $500 million on Year 2000 debugging. It claims to be absolutely finished with its most vital systems in just three months -- but it's not even done figuring out if 21 of its 335 "mission critical" computer systems have problems.

Even the Social Security Administration, which has been reprogramming its computers for the last decade, isn't that optimistic. "This raises questions about whether the Postal Service's own target of this September is realistic," Willemssen said. Next they'll be suggesting that Priority Mail doesn't always get there in two days.

--By Declan McCullagh/Washington

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.

Thanks for the link to the IG web site.

For starters go to the DoD, Office of Inspector General - Audit page of FY1998 reports. Look at Report No. 98-147 "Year 2000 Certification of Mission-Critical DoD Information Tech. Systems".

www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/98147sum.htm

DoD managers falsified y2k certs! Intentional falsification of a material fact is a felony under the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 USC 1001 (false statement).

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), April 06, 1999.

Deano, which of the local trolls are you (Mutha, Y2K Pro, Norm, Chicken Little, Hoffmeister, etc.)???

-- wondering? (wondering@deanos.id), April 06, 1999.

Ray, the answer to your question is yes. I'm doing it right now and will continue until my contract expires in December.

-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), April 06, 1999.