After a long and often emotional hearing on a separate bill about same sex benefits, a characteristically brusque committee chair Darlene Fairley (D 32nd District) told the people who had stayed to testify on Senate Bill 5256 that she only wanted to hear from three of them due to the lateness of the hour.
At issue, the proposed elimination of the Washington State Department of Information Services (DIS). Fairley summarized the sponsor's motivation for closing DIS as "gathering up money for his social services" although committee staff said the benefits or costs of such a move were either "indeterminate" or "over $360,000" depending on how you read the as yet incomplete fiscal notes.
As for choosing only three people to testify off a long list of those who had signed in as "opposed" to the bill, Fairley acerbically concluded, "I know why you're opposed ... because you go away."
With that as his introduction, Interim DIS Director Jim Albert, appointed just over a month ago, reminded the flagging committee members of how his agency provided a wide range of technology goods and services to some 600 public entities in the state that would have to find replacement providers -- possibly at a higher cost. Albert said that one in five state residents receive services from or through DIS, whether that is a payroll or benefits check, electronic funds transfer or eligibility letters -- not to mention the 700,000 unique visitors who visited the state portal for information during the December storms.
With Albert's two minutes up, Department of Personnel CIO Steve Young itemized the DIS provided services on which his agency relied -- e-mail, security, secure file transfer and server hosting among them.
Washington Federation of Labor Lobbyist Alia Griffing was last up, saying simply that the Federation had 349 members at DIS and the reasons for the Federation's opposition were "self evident."
But by themselves, evidently not enough.
At issue, the proposed elimination of the Washington State Department of Information Services (DIS). Fairley summarized the sponsor's motivation for closing DIS as "gathering up money for his social services" although committee staff said the benefits or costs of such a move were either "indeterminate" or "over $360,000" depending on how you read the as yet incomplete fiscal notes.
As for choosing only three people to testify off a long list of those who had signed in as "opposed" to the bill, Fairley acerbically concluded, "I know why you're opposed ... because you go away."
With that as his introduction, Interim DIS Director Jim Albert, appointed just over a month ago, reminded the flagging committee members of how his agency provided a wide range of technology goods and services to some 600 public entities in the state that would have to find replacement providers -- possibly at a higher cost. Albert said that one in five state residents receive services from or through DIS, whether that is a payroll or benefits check, electronic funds transfer or eligibility letters -- not to mention the 700,000 unique visitors who visited the state portal for information during the December storms.
With Albert's two minutes up, Department of Personnel CIO Steve Young itemized the DIS provided services on which his agency relied -- e-mail, security, secure file transfer and server hosting among them.
Washington Federation of Labor Lobbyist Alia Griffing was last up, saying simply that the Federation had 349 members at DIS and the reasons for the Federation's opposition were "self evident."
But by themselves, evidently not enough.
I am a state employee in the information technology field, but not an employee of the Department of Information Services. I do not wish for DIS to go away, but I do wish for a less heavy-handed approach to IT procurement. A state agency must consult with DIS on certain purchases. DIS uses that required consultation to strong-arm agencies into buying goods and services from/through DIS. Why? Because they are a fee-for-service agency, and like everyone else, they are struggling for sufficient funding.
For most of the services I purchase, DIS charges my agency two to three times the market rate.
Centralizing services is supposed to save money. I don't believe that outcome has been achieved. The Achilles heel of centralizing services is it creates a massive single point of failure for the state enterprise. We've seen several significant interruptions in service over the past year or so. When IT services are managed at the agency level, such interruptions are confined to a single agency. When they are managed at a single nexus that touches most agencies, such interruptions affect many agencies, and produce much more significant interruptions in services to citizens.
I don't want DIS to disappear. I do want DIS to become a helpmate to agencies instead of a bully.