Limiting access to sensitive electronic databases

Limiting access to sensitive electronic databases 

Source: Office of New York State’s Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Concerned with access to sensitive materials contained in an electronic database, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli's auditors found that employees in six upstate New York school districts had inappropriate computer access to sensitive student data and were able to change student grades and attendance records without proper authorization.*

The Comptroller said that “Student academic and personal information must be protected by school districts. Each of the districts identified in this audit should take the simple and immediate steps necessary to improve their controls over personal, private and sensitive information. In the meantime, I have directed my audit division to expand the scope of this audit and begin examining school districts from every region of the state.”

The school districts reviewed were: Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Central School District, Indian River Central School District, Lowville Academy and Central School District, Madison Central School District, Poland Central School District and Westhill Central School District.

DiNapoli’s audit revealed that several school computer system users in each district had access to functions that were beyond their job duties or outside the scope of their responsibility. Auditors found that users in multiple school districts, including outside vendors, were able to make grade changes without proper documentation or authorization.

Auditors also found:

Four of the six districts had features within their computer system that allowed users to assume the identity or the account of other users as well as inherit increased rights or permissions;

Two districts continued to use accounts of former employees in order to make changes to more than 200 attendance records;

One district allowed generic users to view student individualized education programs; and

Only one district, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown, reviewed non-instructional staff user rights to ensure they were appropriate.

DiNapoli recommended each school district take immediate steps* to:

> Establish written policies and procedures for student information system administration including a formal authorization process to add, deactivate or change user accounts and rights and procedures for monitoring user access;

> Ensure that individuals are assigned only those access rights needed to perform their job duties;

> Evaluate user rights and permissions currently assigned to each student information system user, including outside employees and vendors, and ensure that rights are updated as needed to properly restrict access;

> Restrict the ability to make grade changes and ensure that documentation is retained to show who authorized the grade change and the reason for the change;

> Remove all unknown/generic or shared student information system accounts and deactivate the accounts of any users who are no longer employed; and

> Periodically review available audit logs for unusual or inappropriate activity.

The letters sent by the Comptroller’s office to each school district have been posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/swr/2014/accesscontrols/global.htm 

School district officials generally agreed with the audit, but some provided clarification on their policies and identified improvements they have already made. Their responses are included in the final report posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/swr/2014/accesscontrols/global.pdf

* See an audit released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.on August 19, 2014.

** These guidelines could be relevant and could be considered by other government departments and agencies in order to review their existing procedures and establishing a formal authorization process to add, deactivate or change user accounts and procedures for monitoring user access to agency computer systems electronically to the extent that they are not already in place.

.

.
.

Tampering with a public record

Tampering with a public record

OATH Index No. 1297/14

The employer alleged that its project manager, without authorization, altered two work orders signed by his supervisor. He then e-mailed the orders to the contractor despite the fact that they had not be signed by the supervisor.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Alessandra F. Zorgniotti found that the employee had  knowingly made false entries on a written statement of a public servant, and that he had tampered with a public record.

Judge Zorgniotti also found that the employee had emailed the altered documents to the contractor without copying his supervisor as directed.

The penalty the ALJ recommended, termination of the individual, was adopted by the appointing authority.
.

Threatening to use administrative authority

Threatening to use administrative authority

In an Associated Press news item dated August 16, 2014 by Paul J. Weber and Will Weissert concerning the indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry by a grand jury for allegedly “abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for state prosecutors investigating public corruption” the article states that “No one disputes that Perry is allowed to veto measures approved by the Legislature, including part or all of the state budget. But [a] government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint accusing the governor of coercion because he threatened to use his veto before actually doing so in an attempt to pressure [Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Rosemary] Lehmberg to quit.”

As to the allegation of coercion by a public officer, is it coercion for an appointing authority to threaten an employee with disciplinary action if he or she does not immediately submit his or her resignation from his or her position?

In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, the employee was told that if he did not submit his resignation immediately he would be served with disciplinary charges. A few days later Rychlick asked to withdraw the resignation* claiming that he had been "forced" to submit it. When his request was denied, Rychlick sued, claiming his resignation had been obtained under duress and thus was void.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Rychlick’s claim of coercion, pointing out that threatening to do what the appointing authority had a right to do – in this instance filing disciplinary charges -- did not constitute coercion so as to make Rychlick’s resignation involuntary.

In contrast to having been threatened with disciplinary action if he or she did not submit the resignation demanded by the appointing authority, from time to time an employee will allege that resignation submitted was not voluntary but, in fact, constituted a “constructive dismissal.” In order to maintain an action for constructive dismissal, however, the plaintiff must show that his or her employer deliberately made working conditions so intolerable that he or she was forced into submitting the resignation.

* The rules of the New York State Civil Service Commission, which apply to employees of the State as the employer, provide that "every resignation shall be in writing" [4 NYCRR 5.3(a)] while 4 NYCRR 5.3(c) provides that a resignation may not be withdrawn, canceled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority without the consent of the appointing authority. Many local civil service commissions and personnel officers have adopted similar rules concerning resignations of employees subject to their respective jurisdictions.