BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1498|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1498
Author: Buchanan (D)
Amended: 6/28/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SUBJECT : State technology
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill proposes to modify the Governors
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 2012 (GRP 2) so that the
Director of Technology reports directly to the Governor on
issues relating to information technology. This bill
declares the intent of the Legislature that a plan for
transitioning information technology procurement authority
from the Department of General Services (DGS) to the
Department of Technology (DOT) be developed by the
administration. Specifically, this measure: (1) provides
that if GRP 2 becomes effective on July 3, 2012, the
Director of Technology shall report directly to the
Governor on issues relating to information technology when
the plan becomes operative on July 1, 2013; (2) declares
legislative intent that a plan must be developed by the
Governor's Office, as specified, for transitioning
information technology procurement authority from DGS to
DOT; (3) also this bill declares legislative intent that
any planning process for transferring the procurement
authority to DOT include consideration of stakeholder input
CONTINUED
AB 1498
Page
2
from relevant groups, including but not limited to, the
Milton Marks "Little Hoover Commission," the Legislature,
the Department of Finance, DGS and DOT, and (4) stipulates
that items #2 and #3 above shall become operative only if
GRP 2 becomes effective.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Governor's Reorganization
Plan No. 1 of 2009 (GRP 1), transferred all the duties,
functions, employees, property, and related funding of the
Division of Telecommunications in the Department of General
Services (DGS) to the Office of the State Chief Information
Officer (OCIO). The plan also renamed and transferred the
Department of Technology Services in the State and Consumer
Services Agency (CSA) to the Office of the Department of
Technology Services within the OCIO, renamed the Department
of Technology Services Revolving Fund the Technology
Services Revolving Fund, and made conforming changes. The
plan also abolished the Office of Information Security and
Privacy Protection, and instead created the Office of
Information Security within the OCIO, and the Office of
Privacy Protection within the CSA, with a division of the
duties, personnel, property, and funding of the Office of
Information Security and Privacy Protection between the two
offices. The plan also transferred duties relating to the
state's procurement of information technology from the
Department of Finance, the DGS, and the Department of
Information Technology to the OCIO.
Existing law provides that there is in state government the
California Technology Agency, which duties include
establishing and enforcing state information technology
strategic plans, policies, standards, and enterprise
architecture. The agency is governed by the Secretary of
California Technology.
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to
delegate to the Governor the authority to assign and
reorganize functions among executive branch officers,
agencies and their employees. The Governor's authority to
reorganize does not extend to other constitutional offices
(California Constitution, Article V, Section 6). Existing
law specifies the process for reorganization and places
limits on that authority.
CONTINUED
AB 1498
Page
3
Additionally, existing law specifies the purposes of the
Governor's reorganization authority, in the form of a GRP
is to enable the Governor to promote improved strategies
for: executing the law; managing state government; reducing
expenditures; increasing efficiency; improving coordination
among agencies and functions; reducing the number of
agencies; and, eliminating duplication and overlap among
agencies.
Background
Governor's Reorganization Plan Process: As stipulated in
Government Code Section 12080 et seq, the Governor is
required to submit any reorganization plan to the Milton
Marks Commission on California State Government
Organization and Economy (Little Hoover Commission) at
least 30 days prior to submitting the plan to the
Legislature. The Little Hoover Commission's role in the
reorganization process is only advisory - it reviews and
submits a report to the Governor and the Legislature within
30 days of the Plan being submitted to the Legislature.
Existing law also provides that any GRP becomes law after
60 days unless either House of the Legislature adopts a
resolution rejecting the proposal.
Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 2012: GRP 2
(introduced May 3, 2012) would create three new agencies by
relocating departments in three existing agencies with the
goal of grouping like functions more closely together,
reducing the number of agencies from 12 to 10 overall. It
also would make a series of other moves including
establishing the Government Operations Agency, which would
house the Office of Administrative Law, the Public
Employees' Retirement System, the State Teachers'
Retirement System, the State Personnel Board, the
California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board,
the Department of General Services, the Department of Human
Resources, and the Franchise Tax Board.
Additionally, the Government Operations Agency would house
the Department of Technology, which would include the
Office of Information Security and the Office of Technology
Services. The current Secretary of California Technology
would be transitioned into the Director of Technology.
CONTINUED
AB 1498
Page
4
On May 22, 2012, the Little Hoover Commission released its
report of GRP 2 and recommended that the Plan be allowed to
go into effect. The deadline for a Legislative resolution
affirmatively disapproving GRP 2 is July 2, 2012. If the
Legislature takes no action, GRP 2 becomes effective on
July 3, 2012 and operative on July 1, 2013.
Joint Hearing of GRP 2: On May 23, 2012, the Senate
Committee on Governmental Organization and the Senate
Governance and Finance Committee held a joint informational
hearing to review the plan in its entirety.
With respect to the Governor's proposed placement of the
state's information technology services within the new
Government Operations Agency, the Little Hoover Commission
expressed support and stated "the proposed Government
Operations Agency is a logical place for the state's
information technology services to reside." The Little
Hoover Commission also noted that although the
administration has made it clear that the new director of
the Department of Technology would remain the state Chief
Information Officer (CIO), the Commission was recommending
that the Legislature address this issue by establishing a
direct line of reporting to the Governor on matters related
to the director's role as CIO.
Purpose of AB 1498: This measure incorporates the Little
Hoover Commission's recommendation relative to the need for
establishing a direct line of reporting to the Governor by
the director of the Department of Information Technology.
History: The Department of Information Technology (DOIT)
was created by SB 1 (Alquist) of 1995 (Chapter 508) for the
purpose of planning and overseeing the state's uses of
information technology (IT). It was created as an
independent state department that reported directly to the
Governor rather than a cabinet level agency. The DOIT was
responsible for ensuring that appropriate plans, policies,
and procedures are in place to assure successful
implementation of IT projects. DOIT struggled to meet its
statutory mandates and the statutory provisions pertaining
to DOIT became inoperative on July 1, 2002, when the
Legislature refused to extend the sunset.
CONTINUED
AB 1498
Page
5
GRP 2 of 2005, established the Department of Technology
Services (DTS) within the State and Consumer Services
Agency, as a reorganized entity comprised of the former
Stephen P. Teale Data Center, the California Health and
Human Services Agency Data Center, and the
Telecommunications Division of the Department of General
Services. DTS was charged with responsibility for the
planning, acquisition, and administration of state
technology and telecommunications systems.
In 2006, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed SB
834 (Figueroa) which established the OCIO. SB 834 made the
State CIO a member of the Governor's cabinet, with the
position appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate
confirmation. SB 834 also codified the responsibilities of
the State CIO, making the State CIO the nominal leader for
the Executive Branch's IT program.
The 2007-2008 Budget and related legislation (SB 90 -
Committee on Budget, Chapter 183 of 2007) substantially
expanded on SB 834 and provided an appropriation to
establish the OCIO.
In May of 2009, the Governor's Reorganization Plan No.1
(GRP 1) was allowed to move forward by the Legislature,
formally creating the OCIO as an Agency to consolidate
statewide information technology functions under, and to
consolidate software contracts, office automation tools,
data centers, servers, and storage. The OCIO also has
authority over IT procurement policy and enterprise IT
management. Since the implementation of GRP 1, the
Legislature has continued to expand the role and
responsibilities of the OCIO. In July of 2009, as part of
the special session budget package, the Legislature
required the OCIO to review and make recommendations to the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee regarding large IT
projects (including the California Case Management System)
at the Judicial Council.
AB 2408 (Smyth) Chapter 404, Statutes of 2010 was the
vehicle that codified the Governor's Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 2009 which consolidated state information
technology functions under the Office of the State Chief
Information Officer and changed the name of the Office to
CONTINUED
AB 1498
Page
6
the California Technology Agency.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
DLW:d 7/2/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED