Complaints about a software used during a previous Union County officeholder’s term led two company officials to attend the most recent Quorum Court meeting in an attempt to both clarify and fix any issues.
At the Quorum Court meeting Thursday, new business began with a reprimand from Justice of the Peace Dean Storey, who said April’s meeting, which included several issues detailed about Apprentice Information Systems, devolved into being unprofessional.
“Being in business as I have been, I think it’s only fair that any time someone is going to be berated, that they have an opportunity to respond. It makes it difficult to really understand what’s happening if we don’t get both sides of it,” Storey said. “I’d like for us to take a moment and go over a few things … I did invite Apprentice.”
With that, Storey introduced Alan Jennings, general manager and president of Apprentice Information Systems, and Rodney Pless, Apprentice CFO. Apprentice is the company that owned the software the Union County Tax Collector’s Office switched to during the administration of Paula Beard.
Last month, Union County Tax Collector Karen Scott told the Quorum Court about several problems she has recently had with the Apprentice software, including an inability to access records and print them, missing hardware from when Apprentice was first installed and exempted taxes she couldn’t reconcile.
At the start of her term, Scott switched from the Apprentice system to the previously used IBM AS400 software. The switch was part of her platform when running against Beard for the position.
Jennings and Pless first handed out a fact sheet about their company that listed issues brought up at the previous Quorum Court meeting. They also included correspondence between Apprentice employees and Union County employees with rebuttals to the county’s arguments that they say shows Apprentice has acted correctly throughout the software switches.
JP Greg Harrison asked Jennings if he can enable printing documents from the Apprentice system still installed on Scott’s computer. Scott is currently unable to even view records in the Apprentice system, which includes vital tax records from 2017 and 2018.
“In the Tax Collector’s Office, we don’t have a contract currently. We’re certainly open to that,” Jennings said. “We would be happy to have that conversation. I’d like to dig in a little deeper on that.”
The Quorum Court switched gears after initially meeting Jennings and Pless, going on to other new business. However, another topic eventually brought them back to Apprentice.
John Thomas Shepherd, legal counsel for Union County, asked whether the data stored in the Apprentice system still belonged to the county, to which Jennings said yes.
“Your entity is merely the custodian and stores the records, so I guess I don’t understand, if those records remain the tax collector’s, why can she not use them? Why should she only be limited to viewing them?” Shepherd asked.
Jennings said in short, the answer lay in the distinction between the data and Apprentice code. While the county does own the data, Jennings said, they do not have a license for the Apprentice software, meaning their access must be limited in order to protect Apprentice’s source code.
“The challenge becomes how do we make sure that you guys have the data, so that it’s usable in a positive way,” Jennings said. “Basically, you’re paying for the software as a service. … But we stand ready to help.”
When Scott first began the process of changing over from the Apprentice software back to the IBM AS400 system, the county signed a software licensing agreement with Apprentice allowing them view-only access through January and February.
The contract expired at the end of February, at which point Scott’s access to various reports and the ability to print ended. Since then, a technical problem has also restricted her access to view records.
“That information belongs to the county, but it appears that its being held hostage by Apprentice, because we can’t even see it, and we certainly can’t print it. If it’s ours, why can’t we print it,” Loftin said.
Jennings continually insisted that he was open to a conversation about how to solve the county’s problems. He said a contract must be in place before Apprentice can do any hardware or software work for the county in order to protect the company from liability and to honor their insurance obligations.
“In short, the contract was canceled, so you were paying us to use the software, and no longer pay us to use the software,” Jennings said.
Loftin maintained that since the data belongs to the county, they should at least have access to all data stored in the Apprentice system, with the ability to use it as they please.
“What does it cost Apprentice for her to print that information? If she wanted to print the information in that system, what does it cost Apprentice for her to do that?” Loftin said. “Why do I have to have a contract with you to operate a printer down here in this courthouse … when it’s the county’s information?”
Jennings said when the county decided to move away from Apprentice, they were offered a data file containing all data stored with the company in any format, which he said the county declined.
Jennings said it is standard industry practice to charge for the cost of labor when doing technical work. Harrison said they must have done labor to remove the county’s access to the data; if the county owns the data, he said, the county should have access, regardless of whether a contract is in place with the software company.
Jennings offered for he and Pless to stay after the Quorum Court meeting to talk more in-depth with Loftin and any interested JPs about solutions to the problems in Scott’s office.
“Our legal counsel will be in here after this meeting. The collector, Scott (Hollis, information services manager for Union County), myself and any of you JPs that want to stick around, let’s see if we can get this hammered out,” Loftin said. “I’m not happy with you today, and I’m not happy that you’re holding that information hostage, and we will turn it over to legal counsel in a heartbeat.”
Solving the problem
Loftin, Jennings, Pless, Harrison, Storey, Scott and Hollis met again following the Quorum Court meeting in Scott’s office. Jennings discovered a technical problem with Scott’s computer that was barring her from view-only access, which he said should be an easy fix.
“Something’s going on in the network … This problem, what’s needed is a network engineering solution,” Jennings said. “It could be any number of things.”
Jennings said Apprentice could fix that technical issue pro bono, but that they would need a contract to do so because of the company’s bonded insurance.
Hollis told Jennings that the county wanted to move forward, but to do so, Scott would need to be able to view and print all data stored with Apprentice. Jennings said it was not fair to Apprentice for the county to use their services without payment.
“It feels like where you’re coming from is ‘we had a certain set of needs from Apprentice because we didn’t have another provider. Now we have another provider, but there’s still some subset of needs’ that y’all have on the Apprentice side,” Jennings said. “On a going forward basis, we’ll continue to have those needs.”
Hollis noted that other software companies still allow users to view and print documents without paying for a license (for example, Microsoft 360).
“We’re trying to find out why there are some discrepancies to find out what’s going on. … What you’re saying is to just open your software costs money,” Hollis said.
Jennings asked what Scott wasn’t able to do when the county still had a software agreement with Apprentice at the start of 2019. She said she was unable to access needed reports, images of checks, receipts and other vital documents that affect Union County residents’ tax bills.
Jennings said he was unaware that view-only mode restricted access to some data; he said the software has two modes, view-only and full access, and typically, when someone leaves Apprentice, they request a data file in order to transfer their data to their new system. Union County declined the data file during the software switch in January, he said.
Jennings offered three options to help remedy the county’s problem. The first was to make a data file containing all of the county’s data stored with Apprentice, free of charge, and format it to the AS400 systems specifications.
The second option was for Apprentice to draw up a contract to work on the technical issue preventing Scott from accessing view-only mode. Shepherd told Jennings to have the company’s attorney draw up the agreement and he would look it over. Jennings said this work could be done for free.
Jennings’ third option was an offer to work with Hollis to try to develop a third mode for the software that would allow access to view-only mode and printing. He said that solution would protect Apprentice’s source code while giving Scott the data she needs would be necessary.
The county decided to allow Jennings to draw up the contract to fix Scott’s technical issue. During that process, Apprentice will also create a data file to Scott’s specifications so that she may switch the data over to the AS400 system.
“If you send that file over here, as soon as we can get it loaded into this new system and get it where she can see what’s in there, then we’re through,” Loftin said. “As soon as you get us the complete file, we’ll do it as quickly as we can to get it into our system, and then when we get that to where she can look at it in our system, then we’re done.”
No date was specified for when the contract may be ready or the data file completed.
Caitlan Butler can be reached at 870-862-6611 or [email protected].