Convergys Questions and Answers

Q. WHAT WORK IS CONVERGYS PERFORMING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
A. In August 2002, the State of Florida entered into a multi-year contract with Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. ("Convergys") to handle the State's personnel functions that were previously undertaken by state agencies. This work by Convergys has been known as the "People First!" project.

Q. WHAT ARE THE RECENT CONCERNS INVOLVING CONVERGYS' PERSONNEL WORK?
A. There have been allegations regarding the security of personnel records belonging to individuals employed by the State of Florida, such as the unauthorized or unintentional disclosure of such employees' personal information. One result of that could be that if information fell into the wrong hands, it could possibly lead to identity theft.

Q. HOW HAVE THESE ALLEGATIONS SURFACED?
A. Beginning in March 2005, a "false-claim" lawsuit was filed by two former employees of a Convergys subcontractor who alleged that a Convergys subcontractor allowed confidential personnel data to be sent oversees for digital indexing (the "off shore case"). Since then, additional issues have been raised through an investigation by the Department of Management Services, and another recently filed "false claim" lawsuit, which alleges that the security of state employee personnel information has been violated when Convergys' employees inappropriately accessed the information (the "internal security case"). In particular, in the internal security case, there are claims that certain Convergys' employees were randomly viewing personnel records of state employees, including senior state officials such as Governor Jeb Bush, "Attorney General Charlie Crist, Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, as well as other state employees.

Q. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THESE CASES?
A. They are currently proceeding through the legal system. Relators' (individuals bringing the lawsuit) counsel in both cases have sought the participation of the Attorney General to assist their efforts.

Q. IS THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PARTICIPATING IN THESE LAWSUITS?
A. The Office of the Attorney General made the decision not to participate in the off shore case for several reasons. However, this office has closely monitored the activity in that case, has met with the parties, is currently investigating the allegations, and could, if good cause is found by the court, participate at a later date. As to the recent internal security case, the Office of the Attorney General has reviewed and analyzed the voluminous material collected in the various investigations, and is investigating the claims. A decision whether to participate in that case has not yet been made. Thus, the possibility of future intervention has not been ruled out in that case.

Q. WOULD IT BE UNUSUAL FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN CASES SUCH AS THESE?
A. Not at all. Dozens of whistle blower/false claims cases are filed and forwarded to the Attorney General each year. Based on the volume of these cases, the Attorney General needs to be selective about the cases he chooses to participate in.

Q. HOW DO YOU ANSWER THOSE WHO THINK THAT THIS MATTER IS NOT BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY?
A. By pointing to the facts. As stated, the Attorney General is continuing to closely follow the off shore case, and discuss the matter with the parties, while examining the allegations in its investigation of the internal security case. Future participation in one or both of those cases is a possibility if this office's participation is determined to be necessary to protect the interests of the State of Florida.

Q. SOME OF THE FORMER EMPLOYEES BRINGING SUIT HAVE EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION THROUGH THE MEDIA THAT ATTORNEYS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAVE NOT CONTACTED THEM. WHY HAS THIS NOT OCCURRED?
A. Such contact was not thought to be necessary up to this point in the off shore case. On the other hand, contact can occur in the future and will likely occur as part of the overall investigation of the internal security case.

Q. WHAT HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DONE TO HELP STATE EMPLOYEES IN THIS MATTER?
A. In January, senior staff of the Attorney General's Office met with the state employee union (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees or AFSCME) as well as with senior staff of the Department of Management Services to assess steps that can be taken to help protect state employees while the investigations proceeded.

The Attorney General's consultations yielded proactive steps that led on two occasions to direct notification of state employees by DMS of security concerns and ways for employees to protect themselves from the crime of identity theft. A third letter to affected state employees, detailing additional resources made available to each employee, was provided by mail the week of March 27, 2006.

Many of these steps were undertaken prior to any public finding that work had been performed outside the continental United States. Notification of state employees is required when a "breach" as defined in Chapter 817, Florida Statutes (a law passed in 2005 and actively supported by the Attorney General), has been determined. In this case, since personnel records were not taken by hackers, a "breach" as defined by the statute had not occurred. However, in an abundance of caution, DMS readily agreed to notify state employees of the situation anyway. AFSCME publicly thanked the Attorney General for his efforts on behalf of state employees.

Q. IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION?
A. Yes, to the extent of his authority and in conjunction with other investigations. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement also conducted a criminal investigation in the internal security case. It should be recognized that in January 2006, the Attorney General made a commitment to State employees through AFSCME that he would increase oversight into this matter.

Q. WHAT HAS THE STATE DONE UP TO NOW TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS?
A. In March, 2006, DMS Secretary Tom Lewis told a Senate committee that despite previous assurances he had received to the contrary, "indexing" work involving state employee personnel files had been performed overseas by a Convergys' subcontractor. The off shoring of the indexing was "inappropriate" and Convergys has agreed to provide affected state employees with $50,000 in ID theft insurance, a free credit report, free credit report monitoring and other resources.

All state employees received instructions on how to obtain these additional benefits in a letter from DMS the week of March 27, 2006.

In addition, Secretary Lewis announced in a security update issued in December, 2005, that improvements to Convergys's internal security procedures were underway. These steps were designed to prevent occurrences similar to those of the Convergys' Jacksonville employee in 2004. Many were included in a DMS Inspector General's report and also suggested by the whistle blower in the internal security case. The investigation, in cooperation with DMS, continues.

Q. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN ASKED BY SOME STATE SENATORS TO CANCEL THE CONVERGYS CONTRACT OR ASSESS FINES. WHY HASN'T HE DONE THAT?
A. The Attorney General is not a party to the Convergys contract. The Department of Management Services signed the contract on behalf of the State of Florida.

Under the statute governing this type of situation, passed in 2005, fines can be assessed if those affected are not notified when a breach has been determined to have occurred. Despite the fact that the definition of "breach" had not been achieved, affected employees have been notified on three separate occasions.

Q. WHY HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOT FREQUENTLY SPOKEN OUT ON THESE CASES DURING THE PAST YEAR?
A. There can be no public discussion, nor public acknowledgment that such a false claims case has been filed while it is still under seal by the court. However, questions may be asked among involved parties and Attorney General personnel as part of the investigative fact finding and decision making process to determine whether or not to intervene.

The offshore case was unsealed a few months ago and newspaper articles began to appear, allowing for a more public discussion of the issues. The internal security case was unsealed on March 25, 2006, and only after the Attorney General asked a judge to take such action.

Q. HAVE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OCCURRED WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION?
A. At this time, there is no evidence of any criminal activity arising from the allegations in the false claims lawsuits that would warrant action by this office. The false claims lawsuits are civil actions.

Q. WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE TO STATE EMPLOYEES?
A. In the offshore case, no reports of identity theft have yet been reported nearly two years after the offshore work was halted. The Attorney General's investigation in the internal security case has not been completed.

Separately, however, a former Convergys employee has been sentenced for identity theft from a state employee.

In all circumstances, state employees should closely monitor all financial transactions as suggested in the employee notices which should help ensure that no further damage occurs. State employees, and all Floridians, should take advantage of resources available at Florida's Identity Theft Resource Center which can be found at http://myfloridalegal.com/identitytheft.