Auditors Say Computer Report Misled School Board : Management: County education staff overstated need for $8.6-million machine, report states. Officials deny wrongdoing.

SOUTHEAST AREA —  Top county education officials misled the Los Angeles County Board of Education by exaggerating the need to buy an $8.6-million computer system, county auditors have concluded.

Board members had approved the purchase in 1991 after senior staff members said a new computer was necessary.

“Misleading data was included in the board’s proposal” for the computer, auditors reported. “One board member stated that had the accurate information been distributed to the board, a more in-depth analysis and discussion would have been needed and a different decision may have been reached.” The board member was not identified.

The Los Angeles County Office of Education released the report last week after a state Public Records Act request from The Times. The office included a written response that disputed the critical portions of the audit.

“Based on its conclusion, the audit team either did not take sufficient time or lacked adequate expertise,” wrote attorney Eric Bathen, who represents the county education office. “Based on all of the information supplied to the board, the recommendation to purchase the (computer) can easily be supported.”

Auditors would have reached the same conclusion had they conducted a fair review of all the documentation supplied to them, Bathen stated in the response, which was addressed to the county’s auditor-controller.

The education office computer handles the payroll of every school district in the county except Los Angeles Unified, Long Beach Unified and Norwalk-La Mirada Unified.

Allegations of wrongdoing surrounding the computer’s purchase first surfaced publicly last year. Computer analyst Allen M. Weil said top administrators misled the Board of Education and asked him to provide doctored statistical information to demonstrate a need for a new computer.

Auditors submitted no opinion on Weil’s accusation that he was asked to provide doctored information. County education officials denied the charge. Auditors did find, however, that the Board of Education received “misleading data” that overstated the shortcomings of the old computer’s processor.

The processor is the part of the computer that performs commands and computations. When the processor is at 100% of capacity, the computer delays lower-priority jobs.

Auditors took issue with assertions that on the old computer “the average daily processor utilization was at 90%” and peaked “at 100% or more for periods of up to six hours” a day.

Using Weil’s data, auditors concluded that the average actually ranged from 54% to 72% over the last two years the old computer was used. Weil contended that the average was less than 60% at the time officials first informed the board that the processor was at 90% capacity.

The audit noted that officials responsible for the reports said they could not recall exactly where they obtained the figures for the proposal to the board. “They stated that the figures came from ‘Operations’ but could not locate the supporting documentation,” auditors wrote. “In addition, (they) admitted that ‘some of the statements could have been worded better.’ ”

The audit report does not name the three education office employees implicated by Weil, but they are named in materials Weil submitted to investigators. The three are Calvin Hall, assistant superintendent of business; Jay Stevens, director of networks and information services, and James Magill, assistant to Stevens. All have denied any wrongdoing.

Magill helped prepare computer reports. He reported to Stevens, who was directly responsible for the final text of reports to the board. Stevens submitted the text and its supporting data to Hall, his superior. Weil’s job included generating data used by the three.

In interviews prior to the release of the audit, Hall conceded that small portions of some board reports were potentially misleading because they incorrectly implied that the old computer was operating at full capacity every day.

In preparing the report, some clarifying information was omitted about how frequently the old computer was overtaxed, Hall said. “Evidently, when it got typed, it just got on the wrong way,” he said.

Stevens and Magill said the 100% capacity figure was not meant to be taken literally, as Weil claims.

“The essential argument was that we weren’t completing our payroll processing” during the time period available, Stevens said. “Our speed of processing and all things that relate to processing were not adequate or fast enough.”

Data processing is a main function of the county education office. The office also develops curriculum, oversees school district budgets and operates education programs for disabled children, wards of the juvenile court and other special groups.

Board of Education member Michaelene D. Wagner said she doesn’t believe she was intentionally misled about the computer purchase.

“It’s just that we were not fully advised,” Wagner said. “Staff attempted to streamline the information to make it easy for us to understand the need for a new computer.

“A little more information would have helped, but even with that, we probably would have made the same decision.”

Trustee Anne Nutter Bessette, who joined the seven-member board after the computer purchase, said she also doubts that administrators tried to deceive the board.

“I have been going back and forth on this thing,” Bessette said. “It is an extremely complex issue. You read the accusations and it sounds like there’s validity in the accusations. But after reviewing the last data from (administrators), I strongly felt they vindicated themselves.”

Board member Barbara G. Pieper said she also saw no evidence of intentional misleading and that she considered the matter closed.

County schools Supt. Stuart Gothold had requested the audit last year in hopes of settling persistent questions about the computer purchase. Ultimately, he defended his administrators and criticized the audit.

Auditors reached their conclusions without giving proper weight to the entire collection of background materials the staff had submitted to the board about the old and new computers, Gothold said.

“Whether the information was sufficient to help the board understand a complicated issue is always going to be subjective,” Gothold said. “There’s still a difference of opinion.”

A spokesman for the auditor said the investigation could not determine whether administrators intentionally misled the board. But the auditor’s office stands behind the report, said Michael Galindo, assistant auditor-controller.

Galindo said the audit was a fact-finding effort only and did not address whether administrators had acted improperly. Supt. Gothold has denied any wrongdoing on the part of administrators. He said he did not anticipate any further investigation.

The audit rejected some of Weil’s allegations. Weil, for example, had insisted that the computer vendor, Bull HN Information Systems Inc., had violated an agreement to make sure that equipment sold to the county continued to function properly. Auditors disagreed, concluding that Bull HN had performed adequately.

Weil said he viewed the audit as a partial vindication, but faulted auditors for not resolving contradictions between his assertions and those of administrators. In addition, he questioned whether auditors had the technical background to determine whether the computer vendor lived up to its contract.

The issues will likely continue to be debated in court. Weil, who was laid off in February, has sued the county, the county education office and top administrators for wrongful termination and harassment. The 62-year-old computer specialist claims he was let go as retaliation for being a whistle-blower.

Supt. Gothold denied the allegation. He said Weil was among a handful of employees laid off as part of efforts to trim $4 million from the department’s $334-million budget.

Hall, Stevens and Magill had earlier sued Weil for libel and slander, accusing him of conducting an irrational personal vendetta. Norwalk Superior Curt Judge James W. Edson dismissed their suit last month.

“Considering Mr. Weil’s statements were with regard to public officials in the performance of their duties, and involving public interest, these statements would appear to be entitled to the highest First Amendment protection,” Edson wrote.

“Criticism of a public official’s job performance is not outrageous conduct,” the judge concluded.