If the state cannot get the input correct, should we believe the information therein is secured?7-2-2010 Vermont:
MONTPELIER — A blistering audit of the state's sex offender registry found many errors, some of them significant, in the program.
Some of the mistakes uncovered in the report by the office of State Auditor Tom Salmon were fairly mundane. But the audit also found cases in which sex offenders who should have been on the registry were not included, and cases in which someone was included when they should not have been.
“We are in agreement with the auditor's findings. We all knew and understood during the legislative session that an outside audit would be helpful,” said Thomas Tremblay, the commissioner of public safety. “We want to make sure we get it right. This audit has already been helpful in creating a plan so we can move forward.”
Few familiar with the system, which includes both a publicly accessible Internet portion and the larger state listing which includes more offenders, were surprised that it contained mistakes.
However, several state officials or people familiar with state law said they were very surprised by the number of potentially significant problems with the list.
“I was surprised at the number of significant errors,” said State Sen. Richard Sears, the Bennington Democrat who, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, oversaw the drafting of the laws expanding the registry in recent years.
State Rep. William Lippert, the Hinesburg Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, agreed with his Senate counterpart that more needs to be done before offenders' home addresses are listed.
“I appreciate the work of the auditor's staff in producing a thorough report. I am glad we made the decision to ask for an audit of the reliability of the registry information before adding addresses,” Lippert said. “I don't think anyone, with a 79 percent critical or significant error rate in the statistical sample as well as other errors, would consider this a favorable audit.”
“I think it is important that there be a follow-up audit to give us a level of confidence prior to posting addresses on the registry,” Lippert concluded.
The audit may have a practical effect as well. Legislation required that a favorable audit of the system be performed before addresses of sex offenders would be included on the internet registry.
Sears said, for his part, he does not consider the audit a favorable one.
“Certainly this audit in my view is not favorable,” Sears said. The audit was only released Wednesday afternoon and it is not entirely clear yet if state government will move forward on including offender addresses, but Sears said he thinks to do so would risk a possible court fight over the matter.
“I suspect they are at the same place, which is that we need to get it right,” he said of the administration.
The audit looked at 57 individual cases in depth. Of those cases 16 offenders' record had errors rated as cricital, defined as the most serious mistakes, such as not including offenders who should have been on the list, and 29 more of those 57 records had significant errors.
The auditors also used computers to review all 2,633 sex offender records in the Vermont system. Among those records, 15 offenders were registered after they should have been off the registry under law. Another 12 had been removed prematurely, including one record which was removed three years early.
Allen Gilbert of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont said it should not be a surprise to anyone that there are mistakes in the sex offender registry.
“In fact, I'm surprised the auditor didn't find more errors. Not only did the people in charge of the registry make errors, but they didn't correct them when they were pointed out,” Gilbert said. “The ACLU sued the Department of Public Safety in October of last year over a set of errors involving an individual who shouldn't have been listed on the registry. When he pointed out the errors and asked they be corrected, the department ignored him.”
And Gilbert pointed to a 2005 legislative study committee on the issue which concluded in part “there is insufficient evidence to determine whether posting information about registered sex offenders on the internet is a valuable and effective public safety tool” but added that the public wanted such an Internet registry.
“It is dangerous to do something you are not sure is a good idea and whose reliability you can't guarantee,” Gilbert said.
Salmon said the state officials who oversee the system worked well with the auditors and want to improve the system.
“There is not a lack of effort by the state,” he said.
“Overall the audit found that the established controls were largely manual and were not always documented or applied consistently,” according to the report.
If the state makes the changes and improvements it has proposed he believes the errors found in the audit will be corrected, Salmon said. The audit recommended reviewing key pieces of offenders' records in the system, such as discharge dates and lifetime registration flags.
Tremblay said if the system does not include an offender when it should, or it if incorrectly includes someone, it must be corrected.
“Any error either way is a problem,” he said. “I am disappointed with the fact that there are errors. That being said we knew there would be.”
The state has a responsibility to those Vermonters relying on the information in the system and to offenders, he said.
Sears said that although the mistakes are worrisome it is worth noting how unusual such a review of a state sex offender system is.
“I don't know of any other state that has done this kind of performance audit of their registry,” he said. “This may start a trend.” ..Source.. Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau
No comments:
Post a Comment