Information Resources Cabinet

Minutes from the August 18, 1997 Meeting

Members Present:

Lieutenant Governor Kim Robak
Dorest Harvey, GDE Systems
Al Abramson, Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Allan Abbott, Dept. of Roads
Don Leuenberger, Health & Human Services
Jim Van Horn, University of Nebraska
Carrol Krause, State Colleges
David Powers, Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education
Berri Balka, Dept. of Revenue
Fernando Lecuona, Dept. of Labor
Col. Ron Tussing, Nebraska State Patrol
Doug Christensen, Dept. of Education

Others Present:

Rod Armstrong, State Information Technology Coordinator
Steve Henderson, DAS Central Data Processing
Emmanuel Olaes, HHS Finance & Support
Michael Calvert, Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Kathy Tenopir, Legislative Fiscal Office
Lyn Heaton, DAS Budget
Dave Wagaman, DAS Budget
Carna Pfeil, Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education
Jim Pritchard, DAS Central Data Processing
Jim McGee, HHS Finance & Support
Linda Salac, HHS Finance & Support
Roger Day, Dept. of Labor
Bob Shanahan, Dept. of Labor
Tom Conroy, DAS Central Data Processing
Jim Ohmberger, DAS Central Data Processing
Howard Boardman, HHS Finance & Support
Jeff Elliott, HHS Finance & Support
Gerry Oligmueller, State Budget Administrator
Dick Brown, Ass't. Clerk of the Legislature
Steve Schafer, DAS Intergovernmental Data Services

The meeting was called to order by Lt. Governor Robak at approximately 1:30 p.m.

IRC Structure Report

Steve Schafer presented a report on a proposed IRC structure and responsibilities, including relationship to a Chief Information Officer.

Don Leuenberger asked if the IRC would be involved in the entire budget process, or simply on a project-by-project basis, under the proposal. Dorest Harvey suggested that the IRC's responsibilities should be broad, not limited to specific projects.

Carrol Krause inquired as to the purpose of several "ex-officio" members in the proposal. Steve Schafer responded that the intent is to include directors of several agencies by virtue of their office and not themselves as individuals.

The cabinet discussed how broad the IRC's purview should be. Lt. Governor Robak indicated her view that the IRC should be principally concerned with state government issues. For example, the University and other representatives of higher education may not have interest in specific state government issues, and therefore should have its own group. The same could be said for community interests and K-12 education.

Steve Schafer pointed out that each of these groups of interests could constitute a "domain" as characterized in the proposal. David Powers indicated that while much of higher education could be considered a separate domain, the administrative side of higher education may be more closely aligned with the operation of state government. Administrative issues are separate from classroom and curricular issues.

The cabinet deferred action on the proposal pending a subsequent presentation on the role and responsibilities of a Chief Information Officer.

Chief Information Officer

Don Leuenberger presented proposed statutory language for a Chief Information Officer (link to report). The proposal would tie the CIO directly to the Governor, and give the CIO operational responsibility for two current DAS divisions (Central Data Processing and Communications).

Lt. Governor Robak asked if assigning operational responsibility, as well as policy and planning, to the CIO would be overwhelming. Don Leuenberger responded that the production functions should be managed by the CIO but could be delegated to deputies.

Carrol Krause said that the current situation does not provide for broad policy considerations. Lt. Governor Robak suggested that two things are missing. First is an assessment of the current environment, second is the ability to plan for the future. Don Leuenberger pointed out that authority to act on these two items currently exists in statute but is not exercised.

Jim Van Horn asked if consideration had been given to having the CIO report to the IRC. Don Leuenberger responded that it was not really considered. Jim suggested that there could be advantages to such an arrangement.

Lt. Governor Robak restated her concern about overload if the CIO is given operational responsibilities, that perhaps CDP and DOC should remain within DAS with some reporting arrangement to the CIO. Don Leuenberger suggested that perhaps the administrators of CDP and DOC could be merged. Al Abramson asked if the Lt. Governor was arguing against a free-standing technology agency. Lt. Governor Robak responded that her primary concern was overload, but that it would also be difficult to sell the concept of a new agency to the Governor and Legislature. Carrol Krause indicated he was not interested in having the CIO report to the DAS Director.

Don Leuenberger said there is no easy way to separate policy and operations without losing accountability. Steve Schafer pointed out that there are many technology operations existing in agencies outside DAS. He suggested that all operational responsibilities should be merged under the CIO, or else the CIO should not be burdened with DAS technology operations.

Dorest Harvey commented that Joyce Wrenn, the CIO for Union Pacific and IRC member, is a member of the UP Senior Staff but does not have direct responsibility for technology operations in UP business units. He suggested that the CIO should influence other agencies, but not be handed direct responsibility.

Steve Schafer pointed out that the scope of DAS operational authority is not that great. Lt. Governor Robak said that the statutory authority for DAS is much stronger than is currently exercised. David Powers said that what is needed is a visionary, not someone who is protective of the status quo and tends to tinker with the details of institutional thinking. He further stated that a great deal of statutory detail is not desirable.

Don Leuenberger asked who would be accountable under such a scenario. David Powers responded that the Governor and IRC would be accountable. Don Leuenberger asked where disagreements between the CIO and DAS would be resolved. Berri Balka said that the direct line of reporting to the Governor would lead to dispute resolution by the Governor or Chief of Staff.

Ron Tussing said that statutes are needed for continuity between administrations. CDP and DOC can remain statutorily under DAS, but with the knowledge that they cannot act independently from the CIO and IRC. Don Leuenberger said that it boils down to who allocates the money, and that the CIO needs to be tied into the budget/expenditure process.

Lt. Governor Robak stated what she believed to be the current consensus:

• The CIO reports directly to the Governor;
• There should be a connection between policy and operations;
• DAS (CDP and DOC) should continue to be responsible for operations but should not set direction;
• The CIO should enforce policy decisions, and should have the ability to redirect resources and carry out financing plans.

Steve Schafer pointed out that the original draft of his report showed a strong CIO, with the IRC subordinate. Lt. Governor Robak said the role of the CIO as currently envisioned would involve establishing goals and parameters. In other words, the CIO would ask "why."

Jim Van Horn inquired as to where money to fund the CIO would come from. Lt. Governor Robak responded that she expected the office to be financed by general funds. Jim Van Horn said that the effectiveness of the CIO depends on having a budget and the ability to redirect resources.

Lt. Governor Robak said that the effectiveness of a CIO depends on authority and access to the Governor. She stated her intent to work with the business community to seek an interim CIO to conduct a needs assessment, develop a plan of action that would include time lines and budget proposals.

Carrol Krause asked about the relationship between the CIO and IRC. David Powers pointed out that technology is a tool, not an end in itself. Agency directors, including those who are members of the IRC, need to be held accountable. It was his view that the IRC is the "customer," and that the CIO staffs and coordinates the work of the IRC.

Al Abramson asked if models from other states were reviewed. Rod Armstrong responded that models from other states were reviewed, and that a variety of models similar to Nebraska's IRC are in place. He also indicated that relationships between coordinating bodies and the CIO varied considerably. A summary of models from other states has been prepared.

Allan Abbot suggested that the responsibilities of the IRC need to be defined first. Doing so should clarify what the responsibilities of a CIO should be. Don Leuenberger said that business needs drive technology, and the agency directors are responsibility and accountable for achieving business goals. Jim Van Horn pointed out that it is difficult to define business or corporate goals in the public sector. Carrol Krause said that the IRC has the power and authority to develop policy to guide state government in making major technology investment decisions.

Doug Christensen asked if the IRC is going to coordinate just infrastructure, or if the charge will be broader. He expressed concern about having another group to go through in pursuing new initiatives. Don Leuenberger expressed his view that the IRC will set priorities, as well as identify and resolve investment issues. He drew a comparison with the capital construction process.

Lt. Governor Robak expressed her view that the IRC should be responsible for long-range planning and ensuring connectivity among systems. She suggested that the discussion of the IRC role and responsibilities be continued at the next meeting. Dorest Harvey suggested that George Lindamood, former CIO for the state of Washington, be invited back to assist in the discussion. Lt. Governor Robak also suggested that John Kost, former CIO for the state of Michigan, might also be a possibility.

Electronic Mail Report

Tom Conroy presented the report of the Task Force charged with recommending options for an electronic mail policy. The group concluded that additional study is needed to provide more firm cost estimates and risk analysis. The group also recommended dismissing the options of upgrading OV/VM as the enterprise-wide standard, as well as establishing one single package as the enterprise-wide standard. The group requested additional time to study the issue, with a final report due at the November IRC meeting.

Lt. Governor Robak expressed concern about further delays, and asked what information would be available later that is not available now. She also asked how long it would take to implement a decision, and whether the IRC has the technical expertise to evaluate the options. Tom Conroy responded that the IRC will not be asked to make a technical decision, but rather a business decision. He also said that the Task Force is not comfortable with the current analysis as a basis for a sound business decision.

Jim Van Horn asked why the option of a single package was dismissed. Carrol Krause suggested that the single package option be added to the analysis to be presented in November. Tom Conroy suggested that the dynamics for the single-package decision made by the University were somewhat different from those in state government, but he agreed to add it to the group's analysis.

Lt. Governor Robak asked that a preliminary report be provided prior to November.

HHS Human Resources System

Don Leuenberger reported that HHS is planning to move forward with a Request for Proposals for a human resources system. He invited other agencies to consider participating. Lt. Governor Robak asked Rod Armstrong to inform Bob Luth of DAS Accounting of this development, and ask him to review the potential applicability of the vendor selected by the University of Nebraska to state government as a whole.

Other Business

Given the length of discussion on earlier items, the remaining agenda items were deferred until the next IRC meeting.

Next Meeting

The next IRC meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 9th from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at a location to be announced.

meeting minutes