You could well be correct, but in that case it's an opportunity to take a hard look at how adequately the "system" used by that agency is actually working, and

You could well be correct, but in that case it's an opportunity to take a hard look at how adequately the "system" used by that agency is actually working, and possibly make revisions where indicated or necessary. Trust me, I know there are Oregon state agencies that have suboptimal software systems. Even though Oregon is a low population state, it still runs a large number of systems, and among them are others that are bound to be marginal. It's silly to be idealistic, nonetheless it's denying the obvious to miss the chance to "do it right", to develop and apply the rigorous process alluded to in several comments above. A plan for the long haul, integrating and unifying systems, and reducing "reinvention of wheels" where appropriate, and organizing truly knowledgeable oversight of the state's data management would go a long way to prevent recurrence of recent mistakes, have systems that work better, and cost the public less. No one has to tell me it isn't going to happen, Oregon is where I live, and logic doesn't stop me from wishing that it would.