Cook County News Herald

Technology request sparks debate at county board




The relationship between the Cook County board and County Attorney Tim Scannell hit a rough patch on April 23, 2013 over a purchase request for three iPads. At issue was a question of whether commissioners were micromanaging and not trusting the judgment of the county attorney or being responsible in their role as commissioners by questioning the purchase.

The iPads would be used for accessing legal information in the courtroom and outside the courthouse, for scheduling, and for emailing. Law books have recently been made available for computer tablets. With iPads, County Attorney Scannell, Assistant County Attorney Molly Hicken, and Paralegal Jeanne Smith (a licensed attorney as well) could share legal information and coordinate scheduling through iCloud.

The total cost is expected to be less than $2,200. This would include the iPads and accessories such as protective cases, warranties, and software. “We have more than adequate money in the county attorney budget from forfeiture funds and from prosecution fees,” Scannell stated in a written request.

Attorney Scannell has been using an older iPad that was approved by the county board several years ago.

Commissioner Sue Hakes asked if the Information Systems (IS) Department had been consulted on the purchase to review any issues related to compatibility with the county’s computer system.

Scannell said the IS Department was aware of the purchase request but he did not believe IS Director

Danna MacKenzie’s approval was necessary. They would simply be adding iPads to the one already in the noffice. They would not be hooking the iPads up to the county’s computer system.

Hakes said she also thought the IS Department should be consulted regarding any potential privacy risks the requested equipment might involve. Scannell said they would not be putting confidential information on the iPads. They would be accessing the same things that others — including the commissioners—routinely access on their iPhones, such as email and public information on the county website. “There’s no security issue,” Scannell said.

With Board Chair Jan Hall absent, Vice-Chair Bruce

Martinson asked if someone wanted to make a motion one way or the other. No one made a motion.

“…It sounds like there’s some question of whether this needs to go somewhere else first,” Commissioner

Heidi Doo-Kirk said.

“In my mind it does,” said Commissioner Hakes. n “Really?” said Scannell.

“Standard practice that I follow,” Hakes said, “is that aanytime we buy something like that we just run it past nDanna’s department for the purchase and the second thing is, I’d like Danna to let us know that the security issue is not an issue, because that’s her job.”

“We deal with all kinds of secure information all the time,” Scannell said. l

The county attorney asked if his department would need to have the IS Department’s approval if they purchased another iPad down the road once these three were approved, a measure that would be similar to obtaining their approval at this point after already using an iPad in the Attorney’s Office for several years.

County policy requires board approval for purchases over $500. “I’m not just going to jump through a bunch of ridiculous bureaucratic hoops when I could have done this just under the $500 limit anyway,” Scannell said. “There’s way too much bureaucracy and micromanaging. It gets to be ridiculous. …I didn’t realize it was going to cause this level of drama.” He withdrew his request, saying that he would not need board approval if he considered each component as a separate purchase.

Commissioner Gary Gamble indicated he would prefer to have their questions answered so that they could approve the purchase in good conscience. “I think this is actually circumventing process,” he said,

“which in the long run isn’t in our best interest.” f “Did you want to have a one-dollar limit on capital purchases,” Scannell said, “or what were you looking for?” He said the funds to purchase the iPads are entirely under his authority to use. “I thought I would inform you. Little did I know that I would have a

Turkish war on my hands.”

Commissioner Hakes said she thought their approval was needed because the equipment would be purchased together. She said the Highway Department could avoid asking for board approval for a grader by buying it bolt by bolt. She said she didn’t know why asking MacKenzie to review the purchase would be such a big deal. “I don’t think it’s micromanaging,” she said.

“It clearly is,” said Attorney Scannell.

Having MacKenzie review the purchase would be wise to avoid any potential security issues,

Commissioner Hakes said.

“My office?” Scannell said. “You’re kidding me, right? You’ve got to be kidding me on that.”

A flurry of words ensued, during which Board Vice-

Chair Bruce Martinson pounded his gavel, called for order, and moved on to the next agenda item.

The question of hiring an administrator

Later in the meeting, the board discussed how they would be handling the retirement of Personnel Director/Board Secretary Janet Simonen and whether they would want to hire a county administrator.

Commissioners Gamble and Martinson agreed to work with Personnel Director Janet Simonen on survey questions for department heads regarding the possibility of creating that position.

Commissioner Sue Hakes said they could consider hiring an interim administrator if necessary since Simonen will be retiring in August or they could hire an outside firm to help them develop a job description and recruit applicants. She said she thought the board should rely on others with expertise to develop a job description to present to the board for its consideration and suggested having the Personnel Committee work on it. Commissioner Martinson said it’s usually the supervisors who create the job descriptions for the employees in their departments, and the commissioners would be the supervisors of an administrator.

Gamble envisioned that one of the responsibilities of an administrator would be to provide the board with information. He noted, however, that if commissioners asked questions of an administrator after being provided with information, they might be perceived as micromanaging.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.