This item needs to be returned back for modification, because it is totally inappropriate that Superintendent who is leaving organization is suggesting large organizational chart change which will cause huge damage to organization IT Security. Superintendent, or whoever suggested remove position of Director, IT Security from the chart obviously have no idea on the load behind IT Security team and on the risk which will be presented to organization in the event if such important expertise will be removed from organization. This is basically equivalent of cutting a tree on which you are seating. This is completely unprofessional suggestion and Superintendent which is leaving will not be responsible for damage this will cause. But Board members if they will approve this chart in a way it is will be definitely responsible for results. In case if another ransomware will hit organization nobody will be able to keep their seats after such not professional decision. So, I am suggesting to do homework on this item and for now return it back for review for new Superintendent. In such case if this item will return back to the Board it will be clearly new Superintendent responsibility, not someone who is leaving organization. Things should improve organization - not damage it big time, which is clearly the case here. Best Regards.
This item needs to be returned for additional review, because clearly whoever suggested this org chart has no understanding of IT Security and probably had bad visibility of what IT Security division is doing and handling on a daily basis. You cannot just remove the Director of IT Security which has 15 plus years of IT security experience. This person build and maintaining ALL existing IT security practices for particular organization. This is similar to pulling a few dozens of large bricks from foundation of the building. This would be a disaster - huge business risk factor. Which Business Risk officer even approved such changes for the Board? Annual compensation level of $130,000 for the highly rated cyber security specialists is nothing on today's market - this is the lowest compensation level I have ever seen in this industry. Person who suggested this doesn't understand what he is talking about and clearly demonstrated a lack of expertise in the IT Security field. This org chart should be re-done at this aspect. Just return it back to workshop - you don't want to sign something you don't have clear vision on.
By the way, not renewing a contract without strong disciplinary reason for someone in retirement age after 20+ years in organization by any lawyer would be clearly classified as discrimination by age factor. Board members don't want to be responsible for any of these - just return it for additional discussion to workshop and spend reasonable time to understand what damage for organization was suggested in this org chart. Thank you for your attention.
Proposed change to the Organizational Chart is eliminating the current position Director, Information Technology (IT) Security and making everyone who used to report to that position to report now to Director, Infrastructure Service.
Such a change leaves the current Director, IT Security with only 6 weeks for knowledge transfer. Such a small amount of time for such a large knowledge transfer will absolutely lead to severe business risk including concern to successfully start next school year.
Current Director, IT Security has over 30 years of experience working at the District with the last 10-15 years managing District's IT Security. All existing policies and procedures are probably personally written/modified by this highly experienced individual. It will be impossible to transfer such a large amount of knowledge within a 6-month time frame to the Director, Infrastructure Service who has never been deeply involved in IT Security practices before. We are talking about hundreds of documents and many ongoing projects which need to be discussed in detail.
To be done correctly such a large change is required from 6 to 9 months for knowledge transfer. So, it is extremely important for the District to minimize business risk in such important topic as IT Security by add addition position on the chart - Assistant Director, IT Security, which will be fully dedicated to the role of transferring knowledge between the person who is currently holding role of Director, IT Security and Director, Infrastructure Service.
Person who is currently holding the position of Director, IT Security needs to be offered to participate in this transition even if in the new Assistant Director role District will needs to keep the same compensation level as the person has on the current Director role. These are minor expenses in comparison to the huge business risk we have here.
This item needs to be returned back for modification, because it is totally inappropriate that Superintendent who is leaving organization is suggesting large organizational chart change which will cause huge damage to organization IT Security. Superintendent, or whoever suggested remove position of Director, IT Security from the chart obviously have no idea on the load behind IT Security team and on the risk which will be presented to organization in the event if such important expertise will be removed from organization. This is basically equivalent of cutting a tree on which you are seating. This is completely unprofessional suggestion and Superintendent which is leaving will not be responsible for damage this will cause. But Board members if they will approve this chart in a way it is will be definitely responsible for results. In case if another ransomware will hit organization nobody will be able to keep their seats after such not professional decision. So, I am suggesting to do homework on this item and for now return it back for review for new Superintendent. In such case if this item will return back to the Board it will be clearly new Superintendent responsibility, not someone who is leaving organization. Things should improve organization - not damage it big time, which is clearly the case here. Best Regards.
This item needs to be returned for additional review, because clearly whoever suggested this org chart has no understanding of IT Security and probably had bad visibility of what IT Security division is doing and handling on a daily basis. You cannot just remove the Director of IT Security which has 15 plus years of IT security experience. This person build and maintaining ALL existing IT security practices for particular organization. This is similar to pulling a few dozens of large bricks from foundation of the building. This would be a disaster - huge business risk factor. Which Business Risk officer even approved such changes for the Board? Annual compensation level of $130,000 for the highly rated cyber security specialists is nothing on today's market - this is the lowest compensation level I have ever seen in this industry. Person who suggested this doesn't understand what he is talking about and clearly demonstrated a lack of expertise in the IT Security field. This org chart should be re-done at this aspect. Just return it back to workshop - you don't want to sign something you don't have clear vision on.
By the way, not renewing a contract without strong disciplinary reason for someone in retirement age after 20+ years in organization by any lawyer would be clearly classified as discrimination by age factor. Board members don't want to be responsible for any of these - just return it for additional discussion to workshop and spend reasonable time to understand what damage for organization was suggested in this org chart. Thank you for your attention.
Proposed change to the Organizational Chart is eliminating the current position Director, Information Technology (IT) Security and making everyone who used to report to that position to report now to Director, Infrastructure Service.
Such a change leaves the current Director, IT Security with only 6 weeks for knowledge transfer. Such a small amount of time for such a large knowledge transfer will absolutely lead to severe business risk including concern to successfully start next school year.
Current Director, IT Security has over 30 years of experience working at the District with the last 10-15 years managing District's IT Security. All existing policies and procedures are probably personally written/modified by this highly experienced individual. It will be impossible to transfer such a large amount of knowledge within a 6-month time frame to the Director, Infrastructure Service who has never been deeply involved in IT Security practices before. We are talking about hundreds of documents and many ongoing projects which need to be discussed in detail.
To be done correctly such a large change is required from 6 to 9 months for knowledge transfer. So, it is extremely important for the District to minimize business risk in such important topic as IT Security by add addition position on the chart - Assistant Director, IT Security, which will be fully dedicated to the role of transferring knowledge between the person who is currently holding role of Director, IT Security and Director, Infrastructure Service.
Person who is currently holding the position of Director, IT Security needs to be offered to participate in this transition even if in the new Assistant Director role District will needs to keep the same compensation level as the person has on the current Director role. These are minor expenses in comparison to the huge business risk we have here.