Although the big date is just 10 months away, experts still have mixed opinions as to how well the federal agencies have been dealing with the now infamous year 2000 computer bug. Monday, Rep. Steven Horn (R-Calif.) who heads the House subcommittee on government management, information and technology issued the federal agencies he had been monitoring a "C+" on their handling of the so-called Y2K problem. Horn issues reports on the agencies' Y2K prevention every quarter - last November he gave them a "D."
Primarily older computers and software could malfunction on Jan. 1, 2000 because programmers only entered two numbers to indicate years in order to save time and disk space - the year 1994 would have been entered in as "94" for example. The result will be that when the year 2000 begins, some computers may think that it is actually 1900. Such a mistake could produce anything from annoying miscalculations to complete system crashes.
President Clinton has given most federal agencies until March 31 to become year 2000 compliant. Horn agreed with John Koskinen, chair of the president's Year 2000 Council, who said that about 90 percent of the federal computer systems should be able to meet the deadline but remained concerned that some critical agencies, such as transportation and defense will not be prepared by Jan. 1.
Experts' conflicting assessments of the federal government's preparedness for a problem as large and immediate as the Y2K bug is disconcerting. At this point, any government or institution that stands to suffer Y2K related problems should be sparing no expense to correct its problems. Many organizations only began to think about how to prevent millennial woes recently, although computer experts have always known about the problem.
The procrastination of several state and local governments is even more upsetting. The administration of California Gov. Gray Davis can give no clear picture of the state's readiness against Y2K and only began addressing the Y2K problem last week. A report issued last week by state auditor Kurt Sjoberg stated that only four of the 20 most important computer systems for the state were completely protected against Y2K. Sjoberg's report also found that the California Department of Water Resources had no plans to even test the computer that schedules water delivery, citing financial and time constraints.
Sens. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) warned that the Y2K problem could be "one of the most serious and potentially devastating events this nation has ever encountered," in a report scheduled for release this week. The doomsayers may be wrong, but the amount of uncertainty surrounding the situation has spawned other problems. The federal reserve intends to print more cash in the event that people will withdraw their savings en-masse from banks in fear that financial records will be lost on account of the problem.
The federal government's assurances of Y2K compliance are far from comforting. With so many qualified experts voicing such strong concern over the problem, it is no time for governments to worry about costs. Governments at the federal, state and local levels must work diligently to correct the problem until the fears of a vast majority of alarmists have been allayed. Even if optimists are right, both the public and politicians must be satisfied with Y2K preparedness in order to avoid potential disasters like millions rushing to close their bank accounts. The government cannot afford to gamble on the year 2000 problem.
02-25-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |