U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–152 PDF 2001

ENTERPRISE-WIDE STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING

INFORMATION RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY:

LEARNING FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND

PROCUREMENT POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 3, 2001

Serial No. 107–4

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

——— ———

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

STEPHEN HORN, California

DOUG OSE, California

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

VICTORIA PROCTOR, Professional Staff Member

JAMES DECHENE, Clerk

TREY HENDERSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 3, 2001 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Evans, Donald, chief information officer, Public Technology, Inc., accompanied by Bobby Arnold ............................................................................... 96

Gerhards, Charles F., Deputy Secretary for Information Technology, Governor’s Office of Administration, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .......... 55

McClure, Dave, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,

U.S. General Accounting Office ................................................................... 12

Molchany, David J., chief information officer, Fairfax County, VA ............. 63

Upson, Donald W., Secretary of Technology, Commonwealth of Virginia ... 46

Valicenti, Aldona K., president, National Association of State Information

Resource Executives [NASIRE], and chief information officer, Governor’s Office for Technology, Commonwealth of Kentucky ...................... 32

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 5

Evans, Donald, chief information officer, Public Technology, Inc., accompanied by Bobby Arnold, prepared statement of ........................................ 98

Gerhards, Charles F., Deputy Secretary for Information Technology, Governor’s Office of Administration, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 57

McClure, Dave, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,

U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ............................ 15

Molchany, David J., chief information officer, Fairfax County, VA, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 65

Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 10

Upson, Donald W., Secretary of Technology, Commonwealth of Virginia,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 48

Valicenti, Aldona K., president, National Association of State Information

Resource Executives [NASIRE], and chief information officer, Governor’s Office for Technology, Commonwealth of Kentucky, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 34

(1)

ENTERPRISE-WIDE STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING INFORMATION RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY: LEARNING FROM STATE AND

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT

POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis III

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Thomas Davis of Virginia, Turner,

Horn, and Jo Ann Davis of Virginia.

Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; Victoria Proctor,

professional staff member; James DeChene, clerk; Trey Henderson,

minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy’s legislative

hearing exploring the strategies that State and local governments

have considered and implemented to centralize the management of

their information resources.

Before I continue, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the

record. Without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

Last year, the then Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology chaired by Mr. Horn held a hearing

that looked at the merits of establishing a Federal CIO after both

I and my colleague, Mr. Turner, each introduced separate legislation to accomplish that goal.

That discussion, chaired by our colleague, Mr. Horn, examined

the current state of information resources management in the Federal Government including the use of information technology management principles.

There is no question that information is now driving our economy, our workplace, our classrooms, and our culture. The quintessential symbol of the information age, the Internet, has profoundly impacted just about every corner of the globe, and, although computer technology has been around for decades, the

2

interconnectivity of our information systems and our communications networks has grown exponentially since the early 1990’s.

Clearly, this maturing medium that is the Internet is redefining

the relationship between citizens, between businesses, between

consumers and businesses, and, not the least of which, between

governments and citizens and government.

There is a new expectation in the way that businesses operate.

It is now almost unimaginable that an enterprise can succeed without establishing an Internet presence and, in many cases, an electronic method of generating revenue.

Unlike government, we have seen the private sector lead the way

in seizing the benefits of electronic commerce, new technologies,

and, most importantly, the management of these tools to achieve

profitable outcomes. In fact, when you talk to citizens today, they

think of the private sector, they think of being able to go to an

ATM and sticking in a card and getting out cash, or going and buying gasoline by sticking a card in and not even getting a receipt.

But when you think of government what do you think of? You

think of chads. You think of the old technologies and the old way

of doing things.

Today we are examining the question of how you bring the Federal Government truly into the information age as a result of the

benefits that information technology has rendered and Government’s ability to manage its information resources.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Gartner Group estimated that through

2020 IT will bring a transformation to government and governing

more radically than any changes since the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Fortunately, State and local governments are working hard to

meet the challenges of transforming their governance approach

from a paper-based, stovepipe strategy to an integrated, enterprisewide management system designed to efficiently improve public

service delivery to citizens. But those challenges are varied and

many. They involve bringing together strong executive leadership

and all vested interests to modernize financial, labor, information

technology, and capital management systems. While the information technology is one component, it is ubiquitous, and therefore

critical to government’s ability to achieve efficiencies and deliver

services, especially its ability to meet the expectations of electronic

government.

That same Gartner Group report also predicted that through

2004 more than 50 percent of e-government projects worldwide will

fail to deliver the service levels its citizens and businesses require.

Further, it is estimated that by 2005 OECD governments will provide new means for citizens to participate in activities such as rule

and regulation-making, the development of legislation, and judicial

action that would affect their own governance.

Many of these complex issues have been or are being tackled by

State and local governments, and this is our focus during the next

few hours.

In releasing its February 2001, States Management Report Card,

the Government Performance Project noted that over the 2-year period since it issued its first report card, that a surprising momentum has taken place. Those States that have achieved little in the

3

way of management modernization in 1999 were now committed to

technological innovation. The project found that States were generally moving in the right direction with management systems improvement, and that States that manage well perform well.

Most States have created chief information officers or their functional equivalent, and that position is oftentimes a Cabinet-level

post responsible for overseeing and coordinating all information

technology and IRM in the State. Some States—like California,

Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico—have one officer or commission assigned responsibility for carrying out these functions, while

others may rely on two or more divisions to perform those duties.

Similarly, there are counties and cities across the Nation that have

centralized IRM and/or information technology practices in a chief

information officer.

It is my concern—and I would like to take the liberty of saying

that it is also Mr. Turner’s concern—that the Federal Government

is failing to effectively manage its information resources, particularly with regard to the use of technology. For government to manage and perform better, it must integrate information resource

management as an integral and valuable component to the success

of its mission. Good governance is impossible if those resources are

simply seen as a support function that can be isolated in their implementation and oversight.

It is for these reasons that Mr. Turner and I have each shown

support of creation of a Federal CIO as a separate entity within the

Executive Office of the President. Mr. Turner’s bill would have created an Office of Information Technology and the CIO would have

acted as a special assistant to the President. That office would have

been responsible for providing analysis, leadership, and advice to

the President and Federal departments and agencies on Government’s use of information technology.

My legislation, the Federal Information Policy Act of 2000, would

have consolidated and centralized all IRM powers currently held by

OMB in a new Office of Information Policy and also created an Office of Information Security and Technical Protection reporting to

the CIO.

But today our hearing is an attempt to gather information from

our witnesses about what types of management strategies are

being utilized, what factors were considered by each entity in establishing a chief information officer or similar office, how do they

address the enterprise-wide issues that have traditionally been

dealt with agency-by-agency, and what are the challenges they

face. In addition, we’ll identify the primary differences between a

State and local approach and a Federal approach to more-centralized IT management and what lessons learned at the State and

local levels may be applied at the Federal level.

The subcommittee will hear testimony from Dave McClure, the

Director of Information Technology Management Issues for the

General Accounting Office; Aldona Valicenti, NASIRE’s executive

president, as well as Kentucky’s CIO; my good friend, Don Upson,

the Secretary of Technology for the Commonwealth of Virginia;

4

Charles Gerhards, the Deputy Secretary of Technology for the

State of Pennsylvania; David Molchany, the CIO of my home county, Fairfax; and Don Evans, the CIO for Public Technology, Inc.

and former CIO of Montgomery County, MD.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]

5

6

7

8

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I would now yield to Congressman Turner for his opening statement.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to see all of our

witnesses here today. I know we all respect what the States are

doing in the area of information technology. You’ve made much

progress. We always like to say the States are the incubator of

ideas, and I think in IT that has clearly been the case.

We all know that information technology is revolutionizing both

the private and the public sector’s means of providing services to

the general public. E-government is making it possible for citizens

to access their government in a way they have never been able to

do before, in many cases without leaving their homes. And the success of digital applications has rendered the old forms of government and management obsolete.

We now know that the effective and innovative use of IT requires

a level of leadership and focus that goes beyond what many of us

thought IT to be in the early days when we were worried about

what type of computer system to purchase for our various respective governments.

In order to meet the management challenge, both the public and

the private sector have created positions called ‘‘chief information

officers,’’ or the functional equivalent of that. This position has enabled there to be a central authority which is usually charged with

coordinating, funding, and managing all digital information policies. Currently, individual Federal agencies have CIOs, but the

Federal Government, as a whole, does not.

During the last Congress, the Subcommittee on Government

Management, Information, and Technology, chaired by Chairman

Horn—Steve Horn of California, who is also on this committee and

here today—revealed that, while the role of the CIOs in the Federal Government has greatly expanded due to the year 2000 computer problem, computer security attacks, and other reasons, the

success of the agency CIOs has been uneven, at best.

Moreover, because of a lack of central authority and funding,

there is little agency coordination in establishing cross-cutting digital government applications. It appears that the Federal Government’s IT policy is like a ship without a rudder, moving all over

the place with no direction from the top.

In an effort to address these challenges, last session Chairman

Davis and I both introduced separate bills that would have created

a Federal CIO. Time ran out before we could move forward, but I

know that we both share a commitment to that idea and we hope

to pursue it.

Despite the Federal Government’s failure to institute a Government-wide CIO, many States and localities have done so and have

been leaders in the area. While the Congress continues to debate

the need for a Federal CIO—where it would be located in the Federal Government, how it would be funded, what degree of authority

it should have—I believe we can learn a lot about the CIO position

and model IT practices by listening to our State and local governments share their experiences.

We are very fortunate that you have taken the time to meet with

us today. We appreciate your being here. And I want to commend

9

the chairman on his leadership and his foresight in pursuing this

very important issue for the Federal Government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Turner, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

10

11

12

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Any opening statements? Mrs. Davis. Mr.

Horn.

Mr. HORN. I’d just say to the chairman that this is an excellent

group of witnesses. I’ve gone through most of them, and we will get

a lot of knowledge from the States, and this time the States are

ahead of the Federal Government and we need to catch up.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

I now call our panel of witnesses to testify: Dave McClure,

Aldona Valicenti, Don Upson, Charles Gerhards, Dave Molchany,

and Don Evans.

As you know, it is the policy of this committee that all witnesses

be sworn before you testify. Would you please rise and raise your

right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much. You may be seated.

To afford sufficient time for questions, please try to limit yourselves to no more than 5 minutes for the statement. We’ll have a— there’s kind of a colored box down there. When it turns orange, you

have a minute left, and when it turns red your 5 minutes are up,

and just try to move to summary.

This has been read and pruned by Members and staff, so we kind

of know what we want to ask you, but we want you to accent what

you want to accent in your 5 minutes.

Mr. McClure, we’ll start with you and move straight on down the

line. Thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF DAVE MCCLURE, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. MCCLURE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here. Good morning to you and members of the subcommittee. I am

pleased to be here to discuss the role of the Federal chief information officer and to also share some of the things we have learned

about State and local government and their implementation of best

practices in CIO organizations.

As you mentioned in your opening statement, information technology is, indeed, embedded and the electronic government approach is being taken at all levels of government. We have at

present over 1,400 e-government initiatives underway in the Federal Government of varying size and type. Unfortunately, as this

subcommittee is well aware, the track record in the Federal arena

is mixed. While we do see success, we also see too many instances

where investments in technology produce questionable results and

not clear improvements in agency performance. This is the reason

we have been producing our high-risk series—to let the Congress

know those specific projects that warrant congressional oversight

and certainly attention on the part of the agencies. Also, we have

been putting out a performance and accountability series that was

just reissued that in January—where we outline seven IT management challenges which are critical, we believe, for the Federal Government’s IT performance to improve. They cover such things as information security management, better use of information, dissemination and collection technologies, pursuing investment and capital

13

planning practices, and developing IT human capital within the

agencies.

For these kinds of challenges to be effectively addressed, we have

consistently endorsed the idea of a Federal CIO. The Federal IT

management framework would be strengthened by having a Federal CIO because increasingly the problems such as those that I

just mentioned are multi-dimensional in nature and they cut across

numerous departments and agencies. These problems are blurred

by our traditional government lines.

We think that these Government-wide issues really need a catalyst to provide substantive leadership, full-time attention, consistent direction, priority setting for a growing arena of issues, and ensuring that IT is being used in the Federal Government to produce

the most consistent results and addressing the Government’s highest priorities and making sure that these decisions are not made

in isolation of those priorities.

There is no consensus, Mr. Chairman, on the need for a Federal

CIO. I think we’ve mentioned in the past, even the Federal CIOs,

themselves, have been surveyed about this, and the responses were

mixed. What we do see is a growing support for this idea since last

fall. Several studies have come out since that time proposing a Federal CIO, including the Council for Excellence in Government, the

President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, the

Gartner Group, and others, which indicate there is growing support

for the need for a Federal CIO position.

However, without a clear understanding of the roles, the responsibility, and the authority that we expect this individual to have,

it is difficult to really truly gauge the support or opposition to a

Federal CIO, and it is on those issues of authority, role, and responsibility that we should focus our attention.

Today you have several people here from State and local government that are going to provide excellent examples of how State

CIO models and local government CIO models have been put in

place. There is no golden bullet or silver bullet. Each CIO has been

placed into the context of the organization mission, and for that

reason CIOs really have to function within different contexts, depending upon the service or the mission that the organization is delivering.

Let me leave you with six prominent fundamental principles that

must be in place for a CIO to be used effectively. It is based upon

a report that we issued in February called ‘‘Maximizing the Success

of Chief Information Officers’’ that is based upon our case study research of prominent private sector and several State CIO organizations. These don’t represent the full array nor the best and the

brightest among CIOs in the private and public sector world, but

the study offers some excellent examples of things that they are actually doing. They all are transferrable to the Federal CIO issue.

Let me quickly mention these six things.

The first is that the role of IT in creating value must be embraced by other executives. CIOs don’t do solo acts. They must

have the support of top-level executives and they must be partners

in applying technology to achieve fundamental improvements in operations and mission delivery. Federal CIOs can really help in this

14

regard by playing a prominent role in setting the agenda and expectations for IT in the Federal Government.

Second, the CIO must be positioned for success. The roles, the responsibility, the accountability for a CIO must be established, and

they must be given executive-level authority. Almost half of the

State CIOs report to Governors, and that is a very important and

growing trend that we are seeing at the State and local level. We

would expect the Federal CIO to also have a high reporting relationship to a high official.

Third, CIO organizations must be credible. They must deliver results, and this is an important distinction that we would expect the

Federal CIO to be tagged with—accountability for producing better

results and moving the governmentwide IT agenda forward.

Fourth, CIOs must measure success and demonstrate results.

They have to show the effectiveness of IT with compelling data.

And this is something, again, we would expect the Federal CIO to

pay attention to. In the performance and accountability framework

that we have established in the Federal Government, we want to

see investments in the Federal arena producing actual performance

improvements in mission delivery.

Fifth, IT must focus on meeting business needs, not just satisfying IT needs, closely aligning itself with the central purpose of the

organization.

And, last, we’ve seen all successful CIOs devote attention to IT

human capital. In high-performance organizations we find developed strategies to assess IT skills, recruit, train, and retain workers in this very competitive environment. We would see a Federal

CIO playing a very prominent role, working with OMB and OPM

in addressing the IT work force management challenges in the Federal Government.

These six critical factors—and I think some of the lessons that

we will learn from our discussions with the CIOs this morning— should be the center of discussion about a Federal CIO position.

With that, I’ll stop. Thank you for your time this morning, Mr.

Chairman. I look forward to answering questions and entering into

a dialog.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Valicenti, go ahead. Thank you very

much for being with us.

STATEMENT OF ALDONA K. VALICENTI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE INFORMATION RESOURCE

EXECUTIVES [NASIRE], AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER,

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR TECHNOLOGY, COMMONWEALTH

OF KENTUCKY

Ms. VALICENTI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee. It

is a real pleasure to be here to speak on behalf of some of the

issues that have been addressed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and also some of the issues that we are addressing now from

NASIRE, the national organization of the States.

I’ll tell you a very brief story. I was specifically recruited into the

Commonwealth of Kentucky to establish a cabinet-level CIO position—no ‘‘but’s,’’ ‘‘and’s,’’ or anything else. That was the mission.

I had never worked in State government before. I had never

worked in government before. The primary objective was to really

establish that position, as we have already heard this morning, at

a very high level, to give it the visibility, to give it the ability to

operate at a very high level to achieve the business goals of the

Commonwealth.

And Governor Patton did that for a couple of reasons. He did

that because he had started a major re-engineering effort to re-engineer processes across State government. It became clear that

many of those processes needed to be enabled with new systems,

new information systems, and a new way of doing business. The

only way to achieve that was to put someone in place who had the

ability to look across the enterprise, not from an individual cabinet

or agency perspective, but to look at what was good for the Commonwealth, and that was the main reason to create a cabinet-level

position—someone who would sit at the table, who would have the

objective of the enterprise in mind, and then put a structure in

place of support from a systems perspective.

What we did is, over that period of time—and I have been there

3 years now—we actually have identified, I think, some critical

learnings, and I would like to share them with you because they

will echo what you have already heard.

First of all, executive leadership and commitment is absolutely

necessary, not only the commitment to establish the position, but

also to allow it to present the leadership that is necessary to put

the systems in place that will serve the citizens long-term.

The will to invest in information technology, not only from an effectiveness perspective, but also from an efficiency perspective.

Most States today, as you have already seen by the headlines, are

probably going to have some issues with revenue generation. It is

no different than a private sector business. We have to look at efficiencies on how to drive that across the State.

The focus on applications—that’s where the true value is, not

just on the purchase of the hardware and the infrastructure, but

on applications that deliver true services to the State.

The willingness and the will to explore multiple organizational

models—I will tell you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, having

lived through multiple centralization/decentralization efforts in the

33

private sector, neither one of them works for a very long time— they tend to swing the pendulum back and forth—but to look for

organizational models that can sustain the investment and the

focus to business objectives.

And probably the last one and maybe the most important one, to

provide true metrics on what is delivered from an information system perspective, to measure what we do, and that is why it is so

important, some of the issues that are coming forward in terms

how the States are rated—extremely important to the effort.

Let me now focus on NASIRE and what the States are doing. I

am its current president. And what you see up on the wall there

is the graphic, which I think is very, very clear that most of the

States are investing in creating a CIO position either reporting directly to the Governor or reporting through some other department

or a board. In fact, there’s only one State up there which is sort

of under construction or under development, and that is Hawaii.

From the conversations that we have at the CIO round table, it

is very clear that all the CIOs are committed to deliver on the Governor’s objectives, and to do that in such a way that long-term the

investment dollars really makes sense. That has been driven by the

Internet today more than anything else, because what governments

are doing—and State governments are doing very specifically—is

taking a very citizen-centric view on how to deliver customer service. That will continue. The Internet has basically driven that as

an objective for us. Consequently, we need to take a very citizencentric view. The only way to do that is to make someone in charge

of the systems that support that.

Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Valicenti follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Secretary Upson, thanks for being here.

Mr. UPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Upson is a former staffer on the full

committee here before he went into private sector and then into

State government, so welcome back.

STATEMENT OF DONALD W. UPSON, SECRETARY OF

TECHNOLOGY, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Mr. UPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a special privilege

to be before this committee, and also before you. As you know, I’m

a great fan of the work you’ve done on this committee, and you

know exactly what technology can mean to government from your

background.

Congresswoman Davis, we missed you on the Science and Technology Committee this year in Richmond, but we’re awfully glad

you are on this subcommittee and in the Congress, as well. It is

a pleasure to be here.

I’d like to explore the issue a bit, Mr. Chairman, why are States

putting in place cabinet-level CIOs, and I would suggest that it’s

not just about government services or on line or any of those

things; that it’s really I think governments today feel a sense of

competition, to a degree unprecedented in history, one with another, and somehow believe—correctly, I think—that technology is

critically linked to the economic viability of their communities,

their citizens, and certainly their States.

I would like to quote Cisco president, John Chambers, who says, ‘‘The future does not belong to the big over the small, but the fast

over the slow.’’ And I would also suggest that whether a CIO gets established at

the Federal level is a question of time and not whether it occurs.

again, I would commend that fast over the slow analogy.

But why did we create one in Virginia and what did we do that’s

different? As you said, Mr. Chairman, I worked on this committee

on three or four laws that attempted to elevate technology in government, and none of them worked that well, and it’s because it

was very difficult for people like you, or cabinet secretaries, or certainly the President just didn’t seem to care much about how fast

the computers were or how broad the bands were. They were concerned about what those things were connected to.

So what we attempted in Virginia was to build a law that focused as much on management as it did on technology. What do

we do with the computers and the networks? What do they connect

to, and what are we trying to accomplish?

We first tried to define ‘‘electronic government,’’ and we recognized very quickly that it wasn’t just about what the State did, but

it was, more importantly, about what counties and local government did. And so we built an office that I’m privileged to hold, Governor Gilmore put in place and has supported throughout its tenure. My office has direct management control over procurement

and everything else, approval over major systems at the State

level, but also comes with a statutory council of technology executives from every major department, all three branches of our State

government, but critically three key representatives from local government. I’m very pleased that my colleague, David Molchany, is

47

here because he sits on that council. We meet, by statute, monthly

and we explore issues together and we learn things. In fact, I

would emphasize that—that we’re all learning. We haven’t—none

of us had computers on our desks 20 years ago, and less than 10

years ago there was no electronic government.

But we talk about citizen access begins at the local level, and

that’s where transactions need to occur and that’s where the empowerment needs to occur, in our vision, in terms of the State. We

have a statutory structure in place that feeds to that.

States, we do a mix of systemic things. We do some citizen services and we have systemic relationships with education, transportation, but really we’re sort of passing down the implementation of

that to a more local level.

Now, the Federal Government, I would suggest, works on two

levels—a little bit of citizen interaction, but not much. It is really

interdepartmental process where agencies and departments will

tend to protect their turf, and intergovernmental processes, which

together we spend $94 billion on technology to somehow manage

those processes.

Unless there is a senior executive that can bring together senior

executives in other departments, you’re never going to get through

and break through the bureaucracy and the processes that need to

break through to create a competitive economy and to empower our

citizens. That’s why we think it is critical to have a State executive

in our government, and at the questions we can go into a host of

things that I think we’ve tried—that we’ve accomplished.

But I’d like to just leave you with that thought. It’s about interdepartmental and intergovernmental relationships, and as you

build a statute you might want to think about that council of executives not just from the Federal level, but maybe include one or

two from State government and local government, and perhaps private sector interests, perhaps, where it is appropriate. But recognize that electronic government, if it is really going to be successful, has to cross all levels of government.

Virginia is participating with—actually, leading a pilot project

with the Federal Government on something called ‘‘government

without boundaries,’’ and we have interest at the Federal level now

to port its applications to the most local environment, our community.

That would conclude my remarks.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upson follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Gerhards, thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. GERHARDS, DEPUTY SECRETARY

FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. GERHARDS. Chairman Davis and distinguished members of

the subcommittee, I am the chief information officer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity to

share some of our experience managing enterprise-wide technology

projects in Pennsylvania.

Let me begin by explaining that the management of technology

initiatives in Pennsylvania has changed dramatically during the

past 6 years. Before Governor Tom Ridge took office in 1995, few

State agencies worked together to coordinate technology projects.

Many of our technology investments were duplicated across organizations, and, unfortunately, opportunities to leverage the Commonwealth’s considerable buying power many times went unrealized.

That all changed in 1995. Governor Ridge has made technology

a centerpiece of his administration. He appointed the Commonwealth’s first chief information officer in 1995. He also established

the Office for Information Technology, which is managed by the

CIO.

As CIO, I report to the Secretary of Administration. The Secretary reports directly to Governor Ridge, and is also a member of

the Governor’s senior staff.

During the past 6 years, under Governor Ridge’s leadership,

Pennsylvania has gained a national reputation as an emerging

high-tech leader. We have dramatically changed people’s perceptions of Pennsylvania, which formerly had been viewed as a lumbering rust-belt State, and we’ve also accomplished major technology deployments within State government that simply were not

possible during previous administrations.

Our success springs in great part from the Governor’s vision to

establish a centralized Office for Information Technology led by a

CIO with the authority and empowerment to effectively lead enterprise-wide technology initiatives.

Let me give you a few real-world examples. Pennsylvania has

been the first State to consolidate and out-source all of our agency

data centers on an enterprise scale. Previously, we had 16 separate

data centers that existed, all within a few miles radius of the State

capital. Today those data centers have been consolidated and are

being operated by a private sector vendor.

Another example is a project known as ‘‘Commonwealth Connect.’’ The Governor recognized that our agencies were using multiple e-mail systems and desktop software, from word processing to

spreadsheets. This resulted in significant loss of employee productivity. So at the Governor’s direction we now are moving all of our

40,000 personal computers—and it is growing—to one single e-mail

system and a single suite of desktop software, and we’ve done a

number of studies that will show that this standardization will

save millions of dollars annually.

Finally, let me mention our nationally recognized Justice Network. When Governor Ridge came to office, our criminal justice

agencies could not easily share electronic files on criminals and

56

criminal suspects. Today, our new Justice Network provides a secure system for criminal justice professionals to share data files,

and by taking this enterprise approach this system has helped to

identify major felons, including murderers and rapists. In fact, the

FBI recently used our system in order to identify some felons, some

bank robbers.

Having worked in State government for more than 30 years, I

can tell you that efforts had been made under previous administrations to accomplish enterprise initiatives, and, frankly, very few of

those succeeded. And the big question is why? And the major reason is that we lacked a central organization that had authority and

empowerment to properly manage many of these strategic and enterprise-wide projects. The organizational changes that Governor

Ridge introduced have made a significant difference.

Over a period of 6 years we’ve had opportunities to refine our approach in managing these enterprise technology initiatives. I’d like

to briefly share some of the lessons learned, and perhaps the foremost of those lessons is the first—our firsthand experience in seeing the value of strong executive leadership, and I believe many of

the panelists have stressed that. Without the leadership, you don’t

have the empowerment, and without the empowerment there is little chance that you’re going to have an enterprise approach to government.

We’ve seen great advantages and benefits of rewarding and recognizing those State agencies that seize opportunities to work together. Likewise, we recognize that occasionally we need to introduce disincentives for those agencies that don’t care to work or

they want to work independently.

I believe our success in Pennsylvania demonstrates the importance of having a CIO in place to seize the many opportunities to

make government at all levels operate more effectively.

That concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and share some of our experience, and I would

be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerhards follows:]

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. David, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. MOLCHANY, CHIEF INFORMATION

OFFICER, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA

Mr. MOLCHANY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Davis and

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to

speak this morning and represent local government.

In fiscal year 1994, Fairfax County’s Board of Supervisors created a private sector Information Technology Advisory Group

[ITAG], to work with county staff to study the use and management of information technology in the Fairfax County government.

The ITAG recommendations created the Department of Information

Technology [DIT], from five separate IT-related departments; created the chief information officer to oversee DIT and technology

county-wide and made the CIO responsible for IT planning countywide and the expenditure of major IT project funds; made the chief

information officer a direct report of the county executive, our CEO;

ensured that IT is treated as an investment, with consistent funding; created a funding mechanism to train IT workers and ensure

skills were refreshed; and created an annual IT plan written to

highlight IT directions, projects, and budgets.

ITAG also recognized that larger county departments would still

need to retain some IT staff. DIT would serve as a consultant, mentor, or project partner for these departments. Department IT standards, planning, and budgeting would follow the direction of the

CIO.

The role of the CIO has broadened since it was created. In addition to county-wide IT responsibilities, the CIO is now directly responsible for nearly 1,200 information-related employees in DIT, in

the Fairfax County Library, cable television, consumer protection,

and document services.

To assist the CIO, two groups have been created, which serve as

his boards of directors. The Senior IT Steering Committee is an internal group which provides the CIO connection to departmental IT

viewpoints. The IT Policy Advisory Committee [ITPAC], includes 15

private sector members appointed by the Board of Supervisors and

provides the CIO an external, unbiased viewpoint.

As part of annual budgeting, the county has a formal process for

agencies to submit projects to be funded as part of the overall county IT investment plan, which is administered by the CIO. The

county has a formal project manager certification program, which

ensures both business and technology project managers are properly trained to manage our IT investments consistently countywide.

The elements that created a successful CIO position in Fairfax

County include: the CIO reports directly to the county executive,

our CEO, which empowers the position; input is obtained from the

CIO’s private sector and internal boards of directors, which is key;

planning and review of technology investment is done county-wide.

There’s a focus on standards, cooperation, collaboration, and integration, and formal project management principles have been

adopted county-wide.

Challenges in creating the CIO position included the merging of

five separate IT departments, gaining buy-in for a CIO responsible

64

for county IT across all departments. The solution was team-building, collaboration, cooperation, and outreach by the CIO, himself.

The Fairfax County e-government program has brought DIT and

county departments a new way to reach our customers, and it has

brought DIT and the departments closer together. Our e-government program has benefited from the county-wide viewpoint of the

CIO. We work together to present a single county image and message, as directed by the board of supervisors and ensured by the

CIO.

E-government in Fairfax means providing 24-hour citizen-centered government. The county’s award-winning e-government program offers multi-channel service delivery through the use of interactive voice response, 24 multimedia kiosks, the county Website,

our libraries, and cable TV. We provide payments and other interactive services, as well as access to information through our multiple e-government technologies.

Although the first focus of e-government in Fairfax is the citizens

or businesses, we also employ technology to create an efficient and

effective internal government.

Some of our internal investments have included: new e-mail technology, an internal Intranet for employee access to county services,

customer relationship management software, and systems investments for many of our departments.

Our IT investments also include cooperative ventures. We have

done cooperative projects with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and

also participate in the GSA’s government without boundaries

project, which has a goal of seamless access across all levels of government to information and services via the Web.

In conclusion, the CIO model in Fairfax can be adapted to a Federal model. The Fairfax CIO’s role is to work across the enterprise.

The CIO provides vision, goals, and a rallying point for achieving

goals. The CIO is also a marketer and a motivator who shows what

benefits are possible through IT.

The Federal CIO will need to be at the right level in the Government to be empowered and to empower agency CIOs. The Federal

CIO will also have a board of directors, the Federal CIO Council.

The Federal CIO and the CIO Council will need to create a process

for oversight of enterprise-wide IT. The Federal CIO will need to

reach out beyond the Federal Government to hear the needs of constituents, businesses, States, and local governments. And I echo

Don Upson’s call for a council that includes local, State, and Federal Government to advise the CIO.

Creating a strong CIO that can empower and foster collaboration

between all levels of government can create a government without

boundaries and IT programs and e-government that makes sense

to everyone.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Molchany follows:]

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Evans, last but not least.

STATEMENT OF DONALD EVANS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY BOBBY

ARNOLD

Mr. EVANS. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Donald Evans, and I am here with

my colleague, Bobby Arnold, who manages the CIOs at local government across the country. It is our privilege to meet with you

today and to offer testimony on this important issue.

Public Technology is a not-for-profit organization with a mission

of, as rapidly as possible, delivering the benefits of technology to

local government. Public Technology, during 30 years of concentrated focus on technology for local government, has earned the

reputation as the premier knowledge company regarding technology matters in the local government space for citizen counties.

Public Technology is also the technology arm for the National

League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the

International Cities/Counties Management Association.

Some of the attributes that make PTI rather unique are it not

only makes recommendations to local government, but it also installs solutions in the local government space. We work closely on

a daily basis with the leading edge local governments, from the

largest—the New Yorks, Philadelphia, Dallases, the San Franciscos, the Fairfax VAs, and Montgomery Counties—to the small—the

Urbandale, IAs; the Rockville, MDs. It also is active in international technology issues. We think that these factors provide us

with a unique overview for best practice approaches to technology.

PTI considers proper management of technology as a serious and

significant opportunity for realizing enterprise benefits. The benefits include enhanced service delivery, adequate return on investment and assets, timely implementation, cost reduction through

the elimination of duplication of effort and aggregations, and others.

Having adequate infrastructure we have found as well as an appropriate governance structure to be essential for the benefits I’ve

just mentioned. In fact, we have conducted two national surveys—

one in April 2000, one in January 2001, that show the importance

of infrastructure. That’s listed in attachment one, tab one of our

packet.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we base our

testimony on the 30 years of focused involvement with the local

government and the expertise on multiple environments—Federal,

the private sector, local, regional, State, and intergovernmental.

That synopsis is in attachment two.

Public Technology, again, is intensely involved with local governments of all sizes, with varying information technology management models. Our experience has rendered several important findings.

One, collaboration among stakeholders is an essential tool, but is

often overworked and confused as a substitute for structure and accountability.

Two, political will is necessary to make any governance model

function properly.

97

Consolidation of functions designated as enterprise reduce cost.

Fourth, consolidation of budgets for enterprise functions improves return on investment and return on asset.

Fifth, IT models where the CIO has a seat at the CEO or board

room table accomplish enterprise goals faster.

Six, the IT function does well when it is commingled or placed

under the budgeting function.

A think tank, the CXO Advisory Group, has listed several articles referencing the Federal CIO, and I point the committee to that

in attachment three. I’d also like to point that the Web, I think,

and the year 2000 examples at the Federal level would be deemed

as Federal CIO mandates or actions and I think are noteworthy for

the benefits that were achieved.

In tab four you have there the model of what might be described

as the Department of State’s IT model. I think that it is very, very

interesting in how it is set up, and also it does meet the ClingerCohen Act, but I think that that model, that you see the separation

between the technical readiness evaluation that the CIO would perform aside from the business return on investment that the budgeting function is quite telling.

I would be happy to answer your questions. Again, we thank you

for being here.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We are going to proceed to questions. Let

me start. We’ll do 5 minutes a round to start, and alternate back

and forth.

Mr. McClure, let me just ask you—you opened up—how would

you assess OMB’s role and performance in providing Federal IT

leadership and oversight?

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, since the passage of ClingerCohen I think OMB has taken an aggressive role in trying to provide better policy and guidance to the Federal agencies. There is

a litany of guidance that has come out of OMB in the last 5 years.

In that regard, they are performing a critical role that was envisioned for them under that important Clinger-Cohen Act.

I think in the Office of Management and Budget in the separation between budget and management, concentration on financial

management and information management, sometimes, as Don just

referred to, gets so commingled that there is inadequate attention

being focused on some of the highest-priority IT issues. That’s

where I think we see a Federal CIO being able to provide constancy, constant attention and purpose and direction to some of

these issues that require it, as was illustrated by the Y2K example.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me ask each of you State folks—Ms.

Valicenti, Mr. Upson, Mr. Gerhards—how are you held accountable

at your position? It seems to me you are coming in, you are a new

position, there’s always going to be resistance in terms of other

agencies, in terms of what you are doing. How much clout are you

given, and how are you held accountable?

Ms. VALICENTI. In my case, in the State of Kentucky actually I

have a tremendous amount of clout, which is driven through several policy and budgetary issues. From a policy perspective, I head

the Committee on Standards and Architecture, which is extremely

important, because I would suggest to you that is as important, if

not important than budgetary oversight. Initial planning of systems that would eventually speak to each other, exchange data, is

paramount to what we do in the future.

Budgetary oversight for prioritization of projects, especially ones

that would have an enterprise impact, is also something that I do

across the Commonwealth. I think that is—both of those responsibilities are necessary to really deliver on the enterprise vision.

There was one other issue I think that was brought up that I

would suggest to you is probably as important as any others, and

that is the oversight of the information technology discipline, as

well. That is extremely critical today. We still have a shortage of

information technology people. We will never be able to turn that

over to a total public/private partnership, although that is the direction. That’s also a very important part of my office.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Upson.

Mr. UPSON. Mr. Chairman, I was asked the other day at a conference: what are our performance metrics, how are we measured,

which gets to the heart of your question. And the fact that there

is a position now that reports to the Governor that’s responsible for

technology, we don’t have to set our own metrics. We are measured

by everybody. There are more measurements out there—one of

them, U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans, does it down here at

the end. There are more people measuring what we do. And I guarVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Oct 15, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75152.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
116

antee you, we are very proud of consistently coming up now in the

top five or so, but if we fall below that, every week at the cabinet

meeting I’ll hear about it.

And I was very proud that we got an A-in technology management, one of only a few States, which going to school my parents

were delighted when I brought that home. And the Governor said,

‘‘Why didn’t we get an A?’’ So the accountability is there in terms

of measurements.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just say I was in law school with

the Governor. When he gives you any trouble about an A, I’ll share

some stories with you. [Laughter.]

Mr. UPSON. I’ll take that back next Monday.

So I think the accountability is built in because people are

watching what all of us do, and we are exploring issues, bringing

together different levels of government, putting together systems

that communicate, cutting costs.

I am also accountable to the budget process, to two different committees. Congresswoman Davis served on the Science and Technology Committee, which actually is the authorizing committee for

my office. So I’m not only accountable to the legislature, to the

Governor, but to the legislature on a regular basis. And I think

that’s important to have as part of the statute when right now who

is responsible for technology management. If you had a hearing,

I’m not sure who you would call. Why don’t we know what the top

data bases are in government? Why don’t we know how they are

secured? Why don’t we know whether we should buy or lease computers? Why don’t we know even what we have? And I’m not sure

you could call anyone right now. So I think creating the office puts

in place the accountability that I think you are looking for.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. GERHARDS. I have to obviously agree with Don. Governor

Ridge is very much results oriented, and he routinely reads all of

the national surveys that are done ranking States, and our grades

have continually improved, and I am sure if that didn’t happen

that I am ultimately accountable then to either making the improvement or stepping aside.

I’m lucky that the Governor has given me a lot of empowerment

to make change, in two ways. One is the empowerment of just

change, itself, and that is, if I need him or his senior staff to move

mountains, all I need to do is to ask. And, second, I work very, very

closely with our budget office.

What I have found in my experience is the funding, the budget,

is the best lever both for incenting agencies and staffs to do what

you need done, or using as a disincentive—that is, removing the

funding, either in part or all—as a way of getting their attention.

So I feel at the State level that we are empowered. I think we

are accountable. Again, many, many folks are doing independent

evaluations of our performance, not to mention that internally we

have many legislative committees and other types of committees

that routinely take each of our major initiatives and then critique

those.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. Turner.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

117

Mr. McClure, you’ve spent countless hours working on this issue

within your office, as well as with me, Mr. Davis, and others, and

I think that most of us up here are convinced that we need a Federal CIO for a variety of reasons, but I’d like to ask you if you could

basically share with us your perceptions of what the major impediments are to us accomplishing that goal. What hurdles do we have

to overcome? What problem areas do we have to resolve in order

to achieve this objective that we have all, at least on this committee, have worked on it and have concluded that it is a good idea?

Where do you see our problem areas, things we have to overcome

in order to get this done?

Mr. MCCLURE. I think really the issue is being real clear about

what you want this individual to do, and that goes back to the comment that I think you’ve heard consistently from the panel. Until

the roles and the responsibility and authority of this office are

clearly understood by the community, I think there will be differences of opinion about the value that it can bring.

The CIOs themselves in the Federal Government are not welcoming additional oversight and micro-management from a Federal

CIO. What they would welcome is a champion for the types of technology projects that they believe could be implemented to achieve

more efficient and productive results, perhaps across agency lines.

So I think establishing the accountability, the role, the responsibility of this position is paramount to overcome any reluctance or

obstruction to it.

In addition, I think that the position has got to be held accountable for results. If you create this position and then are not explicit

about what it is the individual is going to produce and be held accountable for, then again it will be a hollow position.

Listen to what Don Upson just said. He is held accountable. He

has performance metrics that he responds to and demonstrates

that he is adding value to the State government. You would expect

the Federal CIOs to do this, but on cross-cutting projects, on common infrastructure investments that maybe the Federal Government wants to invest in across agency lines. I think those are the

kinds of things that you would want to make sure that this individual is reporting on—progress and charting progress, so that it is,

again, not just a position that is talking and not producing.

Mr. TURNER. So the two areas of concern you shared is that there

are concerns coming from the agencies about the role of the Federal

CIO, and they want that clearly defined and understood, and you

also believe that there needs to be accountability for the Federal

CIO, which obviously will give them credibility over time.

In terms of the opposition of some of the agencies, what types of

concerns do you hear and how do you weigh the legitimacy of those

concerns?

Obviously, there’s always a tendency to protect one’s own turf,

and I’m trying to sort out here what type of issues do we really

have to come down to in order to deal with the agencies? And I include in that the concerns that will come from OMB that has some

responsibilities in this area currently.

As you know, in the bills that I produced and Mr. Davis produced

last year, I was somewhat deferring to OMB at the time. I think

Mr. Davis’ bill was more comprehensive, and perhaps centralized

118

some of those roles to a stronger degree than I was doing in my

bill. I’m interested—and our sensitivities may now reverse, since

the change in administration, but we both had a similar objective

in mind. We were trying to reach a desired goal and to do it in a

way that was politically achievable.

So what do you see as the legitimate concerns flowing from OMB

and/or the other agencies?

Mr. MCCLURE. I’ll try to respond. I remember at the end of the

hearing last year I was asked which of your two bills that I favored, and I hope you don’t ask me that again. That was a very

difficult question in front of both of you to say I preferred one bill

over the other.

Let me see if I can answer the agency concerns. I think it does

boil down to, even for the Federal CIOs, to understand what this

Federal CIO will do different or similar to their responsibilities.

Again, the issue is one of fear of micro-management, fear of enforcement of policy and guidance without understanding the practicality of the pressure to deliver results. Will this person be a partner or an overseer? I think those are generally concerns that you

get.

However, as I mentioned, I think many of the Federal CIOs welcome a champion for some of the issues that they are struggling

with across agency lines, and I think they also are very encouraged

by having a champion that can be a priority setter for the Federal

Government because of the many long list of IT priorities that the

Federal Government has.

From an OMB perspective, I think the central issue is one of separating budget control for IT from management and direction, and

there’s a firm belief within the Office of Management and Budget

that if you separate the budget lever and budget oversight from

these management issues, including IT, that it is very difficult to

exercise oversight in the Federal environment.

This goes back to just a question of an implementation model.

Certainly, OMB can continue to provide, as it did in both of your

proposals, a budget oversight role, but that can be done in concert

with a person that does not necessarily reside within that office.

There’s a partnership that would have to be established and a clear

understanding of roles.

But, again, the problem is that there’s a lot of focus on structure

and defining the organizational box as to where this person is

going to sit, and less of a dialog about what it is we want this individual and the Office of the Federal CIO to achieve. What is the

problem that we are trying to solve? I think it is articulated many

times over what some of the issues are that we’d like this individual to focus on, but I think the more that can be addressed and

discussed the better these issues would be resolved.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up. I think Ms. Valicenti has

a comment she might like to add.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Go ahead.

Ms. VALICENTI. I’d like to offer some perspective from a State

level. I would think that many of the concerns are very similar to

what a State concern is, and I can talk to you first-hand of that

experience. There is a concern that you will add another level of

119

oversight; that decisions will take a much longer time to make than

before; that people are going to ‘‘micro manage’’; that you’re going

to stop whatever progress a project has and you will put another

layer in there. But I will tell you that much of that may not be well

thought out sometimes; that really the point is that the champion

point is a very, very important point—the ability to champion

projects that have the enterprise view, projects that need to take

first priority, help with individual projects.

Many agencies come to us now and say, ‘‘Look, I’ve got a project

that needs your input and oversight,’’ and if you have some review

of that it is much easier to get it through the budget process. I

would suggest to you that the same is applicable for the Federal

Government.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. UPSON. Mr. Chairman, could I have one other comment on

that?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Mr. UPSON. Just on the biggest impediment, I really think it is

something different. I think it is the fact that the secretaries, the

OMB Director, the President, and maybe many of your colleagues

don’t think it is important. I think sometimes they view the CIO

as the person that fixes computers and faxes, and do we need another person advising us at that level, really? And sometimes I

think what’s in a name. I like the position ‘‘technology and management.’’ I think it is a little more understood.

But I think if the President and the Secretaries, the people that

you want—even the Clinger-Cohen Act was envisioned that those

Assistant Secretaries report to the cabinet officer. I’m not sure

there is a department in government where that occurs today.

So I think the biggest impediment is buy-in at the senior executive level that you’re trying to reach. I mean, I think the Federal

CIOs would welcome it. I just think that’s the wrong audience for

this bill. I think they get empowered by this bill, but right now I

think they are not empowered, which is the point of it, and I think

it is getting to the executives to understand exactly what is involved with this $94 billion.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Did you have something to add, as well, Mr. Molchany?

Mr. MOLCHANY. I think one thing to add to that is the whole

sense of empowerment. In talking to CIOs at the agency level in

the Federal Government, they don’t feel empowered, even in their

own agencies, many times.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes.

Mr. MOLCHANY. And I think that a person that is empowered to

make technology happen, to be a champion, to be an innovator,

who can also empower those CIOs in their individual agencies to

make a difference and have some clout is something that’s needed.

One of the roles that I take on at the county government is literally to work with the project sponsors and agencies and make

their own directors understand how important their projects are

and why they should be supporting them and why they should be

a part of them and why we need to put resources to this, why we

need to actually put budget funds to their projects.

120

That sense of empowerment really is not there for the CIOs you

put in agencies. In talking to many of them, they don’t even have

the types of powers that I have at a local government. They really

don’t have a say in how the business runs. As a deputy county executive at Fairfax County, I not only am able to empower the people in the departments who use technology to make a difference

technology-wide, but I also am empowered to be part of running

the business, and I think that’s something that’s really missing for

the agency CIOs.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

The gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks

to each one of you for coming here to testify before us today.

This question is for Mr. Evans. Do you believe that the creation

of a position of Federal CIO would help or hinder local government

IT in any way?

Mr. EVANS. For local government, to help?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Right.

Mr. EVANS. I think it will certainly be of a tremendous help, and

I might add I think that, whatever the cost is for setting up the

Federal CIO, it would be quickly regained in terms of the returns

of investment that the Federal, as well as State and local government, would benefit. So cost should not be an issue. The benefits

would be tremendous in terms of a much sooner three-tiered or

seamless government being implemented, and I think an economy

of scale that we would just love to have.

I would just like to add that local government—Fairfax County,

Montgomery County, just two examples—are larger than many

State governments, and so I think that there is a tremendous

wealth of how has the problem been solved at the local level.

Mr. MOLCHANY. Can I just add one point?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Mr. MOLCHANY. I’d just add one point. I think we would certainly

welcome a Federal CIO. In just looking at the model in Virginia,

where I have a Secretary of Technology to work with, I have been

able to have Fairfax County cooperate a lot better with the projects

going on at the State level, and actually in some cases eliminate

duplication, where if something is much better done by the State

government or actually much better handled by us as a part of one

of their programs, it has been very helpful to have a Secretary to

work with. I would welcome having a CIO at the national level to

also do the same with.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And this would be—I guess anybody can

jump into it. How have you handled the security problems?

Mr. EVANS. I’d like to start. After looking at many of the governments across the country, I think the security issue—it depends on

what kind of security you’re talking about. If you’re talking about

telecommunications, network protocol, that’s one issue. If you’re

talking about the kinds of securities that would reside at national

secrets—NSA, CIA—I think that those kinds of functions I would

say are not part of the Federal CIO. Those would be specialized

kinds of systems, as one might view, say, air traffic control, as an

operational system that is not in the mainstream of computing general office automation, horizontal systems, so we would take that

121

out by setting up centers of competency—for an example, the

Washington Metropolitan Councils of Government—I think Fairfax

is for project management, Montgomery County was for strategic

planning.

So you could vest, for an example, a department or agency to

take over the lead for security, whether it be networking or some

other function.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Anybody else want to jump in on that?

Ms. VALICENTI. Congresswoman Davis, I think security is one of

those issues that needs attention at all levels, because our security

is really dependent upon the weakest link. We are all interrelated.

I think that we would need to distinguish what level of security we

want for what applications and what systems.

But the general kind of security right now that we all enjoy and

intend to enjoy is in many cases driven by policies at a local level,

sometimes at a State level, and then at a Federal level. That is a

conversation that all of us need to have together, because that is

probably a set of very basic principles that applies to all of us in

order to do that.

That right now is facilitated by certain conversations and conferences, etc., but probably would be better driven if we had a conversation at the appropriate level among all government.

I will tell you citizens do not distinguish what is government.

They don’t distinguish sometimes what is local, State, or Federal.

They talk about it as ‘‘government.’’ And, consequently, we need to

look at our citizens in that same way.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. MOLCHANY. Congresswoman?

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes?

Mr. MOLCHANY. Security issues, I think, also just to add to that

are hard enough to figure out when you have a group like we have,

which you are familiar with, our COTS Council. David sits on it.

We talk about it on a monthly basis, driving toward a level of collaboration and coordination that is critical if you are going to ever

secure and protect privacy and secure data bases.

Without collaboration, the ability to collaborate and coordinate,

it is going to be a giant mess forever, and without a functional office that can bring together the people for collaboration and coordination, you can just forget about it.

So I think it is a critical component, and once you’ve established

this office the Congress suddenly has someone they can—again, to

go back to Chairman Davis—be accountable.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Right.

Mr. MOLCHANY. So it is that collaboration and coordination that

comes into play with your question with this office. It’s hard

enough when you have it, but impossible without it.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So having the centralized figure would

help in the security——

Mr. MOLCHANY. You bring people together. That’s right.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOLCHANY. A perfect example of security and something

that probably should be centralized and worked across all levels of

governments is when you get into the area of digital signatures,

and basically in Virginia we’ve already decided that each locality

122

should not be handling that on their own. We should go at least

to the State and work with the State agency that would handle

that type of security for us.

When you look across the country—and exactly what Aldona

said—people don’t look at us as separate governments, they look at

us as—they look at themselves as customers to us, and they have

to have multiple ways to work with us through security. It is going

to be very confusing. So something that actually gave some leadership in that area would be quite helpful.

Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’ve been very impressed by the statements that you all have

made, and I just have a few questions here.

My questions go at the matter of the role of the President and

his staff or line. I think, if we are going to pass out the chief financial officer we’ve already done, chief information officer we’ve already done, inspector generals, we already done 20 or more years

ago, and we have to give the President, I think, the authority as

to which person should report to him or her, as the case may be.

And right now we’ve got to see a focus in what they call ‘‘Office

of Management and Budget.’’ The fact is, it has never been working

on management. The budget is overwhelming. That’s why. And

most of the people, the Presidents, regardless of party, look for

somebody that has financial background, accounting background,

not management usually. They don’t know the first thing about

management. And yet Congress has put four statutory agencies by

law into the Office of Management and Budget on all sorts of regulation, clearance, and this kind of thing, all of which are necessary

if the President is going to have control of the executive branch of

the Government.

Let’s take an example—and one of you mentioned it. On the Y2K

thing, that was going nowhere. Every person should have been—

and the President didn’t know what was going on that, and no

President did anything. So in April 1996, when we held the first

hearing on that, after that we wrote, with the ranking democrat on

my subcommittee, and said, ‘‘Mr. President, you’ve got to get somebody to run this show.’’ It took him 2 years before he faced up to

it.

In the meantime, Mr. Koskinen was Deputy Director of OMB for

management. Nothing was done on Y2K. He retired. The President—and this was a very good move—the President took Koskinen

out of retirement, said, ‘‘I’ll make you assistant to the President,

as well as any other functions,’’ and that’s exactly what you have

to have. And it is—the President needs that authority.

I don’t think Congress should push things in the situation unless

the President agrees, as some Presidents have different styles and

they need to know how to function on it.

And so Koskinen worked very well. He was assistant to the

President and he was chairman of the council, and so forth, so he

could pull all these people together. He could go around and talk

to the agency heads, the deputy Secretaries and all the rest, so that

was a plus because there was a direct line to the President and evVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Oct 15, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75152.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
123

erybody had to listen to him, as a result. And, besides, he was a

friend of the President, knew him before he was the President, and

so that certainly helped, and he did a fine job.

But on this situation I think any position within the Executive

Office of the President, the President should have the authority to

move that with which function is the most comfortable in terms of

technology, let’s say. If the President doesn’t care to think any

about it, he’s not going to want to have them beating on the door.

On the other hand, that function has to be done, and it is a very

valid function.

Some of the things, when we put the financial officers on the

books, what did they do in some of the agencies? They simply gave

it over to the Assistant Secretary for Management, which had been

put together in the Hoover Commission of 1948, 1949, and 1954,

and that just was going nowhere, very frankly, when they also

threw the chief financial officer and the chief information. Congress

wanted those people to report directly to the cabinet head, and we

didn’t seem to write the law carefully enough, and the result was

we didn’t get much done years on decent financial management or

on decent technical and computing.

So I just think we need to look at that, and I would like to know,

for those of you that have worked through more than one Governor,

I’d like to hear what your experience was.

And Governor Ridge, of course, was No. 1 in the Nation, and I

praised him in every press conference I had that he was way ahead

of everybody else. Governor Wilson started it with Mr. Flynn, in

terms of the chief of technology for the State of California and a

member of the cabinet, and it worked very well.

So I’d just be interested in where you think that position ought

to be within the Office of Management and Budget, because some

of us think that we ought to have an Office of Budget and an Office

of Management, with those two people reporting, but we can’t have

everybody reporting to the President. So do they report to the

President through the budget side, or do they report to the President through the management side? So I’d appreciate anything you

want to say on the subject.

Let’s just go right down the line. Mr. McClure.

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Horn, I think it goes right to the heart of the

question. I think there is interest in focusing on producing better

IT results in the Federal Government. The question is: how do we

ensure that is going to happen?

We do have a statutory office in OMB called OIRA that’s empowered with the responsibility to oversee information management

and policy and even oversight of agency IT budgets in the Federal

Government. You know as well as I do some of the inherent problems. That office is greatly under-staffed in comparison to the

workload that it is asked to do. The majority of the occupants focus

most of their time on the regulatory aspect of the office, looking at

paperwork reduction reviews, cost/benefit studies in relation to the

proposed rules, and less of the staff are actually focused on IT

issues.

I don’t think there’s any disagreement that there needs to be a

higher degree of executive attention within OMB or outside OMB

on IT, because of tremendous IT problems that we have in the FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Oct 15, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75152.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
124

eral Government that need to be addressed, but also the tremendous opportunities that we’re passing by, by not taking this enterprise-wide look at information technology.

It could work lots of ways. I think the States are prime examples

of where you have some reporting to Governors, some reporting to

boards, some doing some combinations. There’s no secret method of

success. But what is needed is some attention to this issue, and it

is analogous to the creation of CIOs in the private sector, some of

whom would argue they are dinosaurs and who have already been

subsumed back into the business side of the organization, and that

may very well be the case for the Federal Government. But right

now we need attention and focus and executive-level focus on what

these opportunities are that we’re missing and some priorities established for them. What are the key problem areas that we need

to address to make sure that we are producing better results?

Within our outside of OMB, I think that’s what we want to focus

on.

Ms. VALICENTI. Let me offer some comments in terms of where

I think the emphasis ought to be placed. I’m probably not well

schooled in terms of the organization of the Federal Government,

but having worked in the private sector it is very clear that the position has a lot of emphasis on the management side.

The budget side has always had emphasis because you always

have had to live within a certain budget within certain means. It’s

the management side that has gotten attention over the last few

years, and I would suggest to you that it is the management side

that is getting attention in State government, also.

It is very clear that some of the issues that Don Upson just articulated—getting acceptance by other management folks is very

important, that you are part of the decisionmaking process, that

you sit at the table, that what you have to say and the input that

you have becomes part of the overall strategy. For far too long,

technology has been viewed as the afterthought. ‘‘By the way,

here’s where we’re going to go and here’s how technology, at the

very end, is going to help us.’’ Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The technology perspective has to be integrated from the very beginning of when the strategy is done, so, consequently, I would

weigh in on the management side.

Mr. HORN. I might add that I have done that as a university

president for 18 years, where they sat at the table after my first

2 months and everybody knew that was the person that was going

to work with all of them in terms of the technology portions, and

it worked for 18 years, and I didn’t realize that I was putting a

CIO in my—I didn’t call him a CIO, but I got a business manager

out of his way, a vice president out of his way, and he was part

of my management group every Monday afternoon, and that ran

the university, basically, so I’ve done it and it worked well.

Mr. Upson.

Mr. UPSON. I would just only add, Congressman, that I think

that all those—the four offices that exist in the Department of

Management all were designed to elevate, as you said—I agree

with it—technology and management to a higher level, and I think

that a clear direction in establishing an executive in statute is important for this reason: absent that, there is no predictability. Y2K

125

was an example of bringing people together, but now it is gone, and

issues like security and others are out there. And the biggest question I got early on when the Governor created my office, first by

Executive order and before statute, was, as we started progressing—and I think David Molchany will agree with this—what happens after you leave? That was answered by the General Assembly

when they put it in statute. And, absent that predictability, the

level of cooperation and coordination and executive attention goes

down, and I think that’s the reason that Secretaries pay attention

is they think the White House is looking, in my mind, and the reason that people pay attention to me is they think the Governor listens to me, as he does. So I think that it is important to have that

continuity.

Mr. GERHARDS. From my perspective, I probably spend 90 percent of my time on cultural and program areas, probably 10 percent on technology issues and budget issues; therefore, I really

think the emphasis needs to be on management. But, regardless of

where you position a CIO, I think the important part of it is the

empowerment, having the senior-level empowerment. Without that,

again, I don’t think that you are going to have or achieve the results that you’re looking for.

You also need the high-level access, that when there are issues,

when there are cross-cutting difficult cultural issues to deal with,

that you have ready access to the senior executives who can, again,

move those mountains.

And just the last piece of that are adequate resources. Certainly,

having empowerment and having high-level access are all needed

and important, but unless this office or any CIO’s office has sufficient resources to carry out that mission, I think there’s going to

be a lot of lost opportunities.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Molchany, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. MOLCHANY. I think that the reason that our position has

been successful and I have been successful at Fairfax is because I

have the support of the Board of Supervisors and the county executive and the other deputies. The realization that they all feel IT is

important, that they basically look to me to make the IT decisions,

to plan it, to make sure it gets funded, etc., empowers me and it

empowers whoever works with me.

I think I would agree that the management side is what I do

most, making sure that we collaborate, making sure that people

work together, making sure that projects are on track and our

money is being spent wisely.

The one other key part that makes us successful is a very good

tie between myself and the CFO so that, as I am planning IT, I

am working with them to make sure it is within budget guidelines

and make sure that we have the money and make sure that we are

actually getting some return for what we are investing. Looking at

IT as the financial investment as well as a management opportunity is really what makes a difference.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Evans, any more to say on whether it ought to

be the management or the budget side?

Mr. EVANS. I would just simply say the management side, but I

would also like to say I think where the middle ground between

H.R. 4670 and 5024, if you could look at them as being the ends

126

of the compendium, is that, for those projects that would be

deemed enterprising, that those would be the ones elevated up to

the CIO, the Federal CIO for his oversight and his budget control.

Likewise, you heard my colleagues mention about the predictability or the unpredictableness of IT that Y2K was present. Now

it is not. Today it is security.

If you were to consider an authority or a mechanism similar to,

say, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the ability to task organize would be

a mechanism that I think would have the flexibility for the Federal

CIO having the resources that we know are needed but don’t know

exactly what but can be very, very responsive because it has the

authority at that moment in time, as Mr. Koskinen had.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I want to thank you very much for that

line of questions.

Mr. Turner.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Valicenti, I wanted to ask you to comment on a subject that

we had the pleasure of discussing with you in Mr. Davis’ office a

few weeks ago with Governor Gehring of Wyoming and Governor

Barnes of Georgia, and that’s the issue of what can the Federal

Government do to assist the States, and primarily to prevent the

Federal Government from hindering your efforts at the State level

to implement information technology through the regulations that

we may promulgate, and in our meeting a few weeks ago you

shared one very concrete example of a change that you would suggest the Federal Government make to help you at the State level,

and I wanted to give you the opportunity to share that with the

committee, as well as to share with us any other thoughts that you

may have on ways that we at the Federal level can do a better job

to assist you and, of course, to prevent the policies that we promulgate from hindering your efforts.

Ms. VALICENTI. Congressman Turner, thanks for the opportunity.

I think that there are several areas, and let me point to them.

Many of the initiatives that are now being addressed and have

been addressed by the Federal Government, in fact, do come to the

States for implementation. It has everything from the Workforce

Investment Act to the regulations that are now being—that are

coming on around HIPA, etc., are going to be up to the States to

implement. In many of those cases, there probably was not enough

dialog in some of those cases on how the States will implement.

And, by the way, I would suggest to you that this is another area

where a Federal CIO would have the foresight and would have the

ability then to work across government lines to do that.

I think the very specific topic that we addressed when we spoke

with you a few weeks ago was really to remove some of the barriers

around very specific funding—funding that is toward specific

projects. And I would suggest to you that we will probably provide

additional testimony for you over the next few months when we

have an opportunity to do that of more examples. But I would tell

you in some cases funding is so specific that it is for a program

area.

If you look at the States and how the States want to deliver services, they tend to deliver those services from a very holistic way.

127

We look at processes and we say, ‘‘What is the—a family in need

may need multiple things, may need some transition funding, may

need child care, may need educational opportunities. Today, many

of that funding comes for a specific project. So when we set up an

office to do a holistic view, to do a process view, we are, in fact,

stymied by that funding that goes to a specific program, and in

those cases we have to come and ask for dispensation—that, by the

way, we would like to set up one office that can serve a family for

multiple needs for multiple programs.

And if you look at the citizen as a customer, more and more of

the services at the local and the State level are probably going to

be delivered from that very holistic view. It is in those areas, Congressman Turner, that I think that you could help us.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Kind of a question for everybody, but I’d like to ask—let me start

with you, Ms. Valicenti—do you think there is currently an effective working relationship between the State and the Federal IT

communities? And if you have any examples of that, I’d like to hear

them.

Ms. VALICENTI. Congressman Davis, I think that we have a relationship right now which is based more on individual departments

and agencies. I think that we, by the way, have had a very good

relationship of interacting with the CIO Council, and we’ve done

that on a regular basis, and we want to share participation on that

council. But it is at a very specific point. It is not continuous. And

when I talk about delivering services from a government perspective, I think that is our opportunity to do that from a very initial

planned perspective.

I suggested to you a couple of areas. The Workforce Investment

Act was one area. I guess that HIPA is probably another example

where ultimately the States will require implementation. To have

that conversation early on with a focal point is probably most important. So we can certainly improve on what we’re doing.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I mean, it seems to me that when you’re

talking about State and local governments you want to interact

with your clientele, which are the customers or the voters, the citizens, but at the Federal level our biggest clients are really State

and local government, to a great extent.

Ms. VALICENTI. That is correct.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. It’s not the average guy out there who

is going to hook up to a kiosk, although that is not unimportant,

but it is not the major concern.

Mr. Upson, do you have any comments? I’ll go down the row.

Mr. UPSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I think the Federal CIO

Council is making attempts to work with State and local government. The truth is, though, when State and local government—

when David Molchany turns around from a meeting with the Federal people, he goes back and talks to the chairman of the Board

of Supervisors. I turn around and I talk to the Governor of Virginia. She talks to the Governor of Kentucky. Who do the Federal

CIOs go talk to?

128

So when we cut a deal, we know we can deliver, but when we

talk about reforming HIPA or A87 or consolidating these, the ridiculous process that my colleague here just described where all the

moneys have to be separated 20 different ways and ends up costing

more for all of us is—there isn’t the ability to change it. So we’ve

got that authority, and I think that’s why I think all of us endorse

your concept, because it’s great, they are well intended, but I’m not

sure they can execute to the extent we can.

Mr. GERHARDS. Our interaction primarily at the Federal CIO

level is agency by agency. And I think, as Aldona said, many of the

programs that are coming out now we would rather deal with them

in a holistic way, which means that we need to deal with multiple

CIOs at the Federal level in order to try to either seek exemptions

or seek their approval for some of their initiatives, and that becomes very, very problematic.

And I also want to just take a second and echo what was said

about inflexibility and funding. There are a number of opportunities, I believe, we would have in Pennsylvania, but we can’t take

advantage of those opportunities because, when we bring the State

agencies to the table, they say, ‘‘We can’t participate because Federal law or Federal regulation precludes our participation.’’ Some of that is perceived, but many times it is real, and I think

we are missing a significant opportunity again to deal with problems in a very strategic, holistic way instead of the very tactical

way that we are looking at problems at this point.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Mr. MOLCHANY. I would say our experience has been mixed.

Probably our biggest example is the GSA and working with the

Government without boundaries project. That has been outstanding. The people that we work with there are very creative. We have

been able to work with them, as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as our own people to come up with a concept, and

hopefully a demonstration in the late spring timeframe, very quickly.

The same agency, however, decided they were going to put kiosks

out over the United States. They put one in what they thought was

Falls Church, VA. It actually was Fairfax County, VA. They didn’t

realize the ZIP codes didn’t mean you were in one place or the

other. All of the information was for Falls Church. My chairman

of the board was going to go and cut the ribbon, because they did

figure out it was her that needed to do that. I had to go and look

at that kiosk and tell them at the 11th hour, ‘‘Change this. Change

this. Change this.’’ They buried all the Fairfax information on that

kiosk. You can actually pay taxes on that kiosk, but you could

never find out how to do it because they never worked with us. So

in one agency two separate programs—one that has been an outstanding, outstanding collaboration, and one, no matter how many

times I called from here to Texas to anywhere could I get anyone

to realize that the kiosk, A, didn’t have to exist, because I could

put one of mine there and actually collaborate with them to make

it a better implementation; or that they needed to actually call me

back because the kiosk was actually in my county not in the city

of Falls Church.

I’ve also spoken at the Information——

129

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I just have to tell you, as a resident of

Falls Church and chairman of this subcommittee which oversees

GSA, I don’t know why I wasn’t invited to the ribbon-cutting.

[Laughter.]

But that’s an issue for a different day. I thank you for alerting

us, though, to that.

Mr. MOLCHANY. That is an example of excellence and not so excellent in one agency.

I’ve also spoken at the Information Resource Management College at Ft. McNair several times on the role of a CIO, what does

a CIO do, for potential CIOs. I have been struck at how similar the

actual things that people do in IT and IT management in the Federal Government is to local government and State government. I

think there needs to be a lot more synergy there, and I think a

focal point at the Federal level could certainly bring some synergy.

The other thing is the CIOs are looking for some direction. They

are looking for someone to empower them. Many of them have said

the same thing and different programs have been involved with

them.

And then I would echo Aldona. We need our simplification of how

Federal moneys and programs end up at the local level. There is

no holistic approach. There are strange things, such as system of

record, which means something that is foreign to anyone that is in

IT. You know, if data is in a data base, it doesn’t matter how it

got there as long as it is right. Those types of things are so complex

that it is very hard to actually interact with programs, especially

at the local level where you have a person that may need multiple

pieces of the same program all done at once. So I would echo

Aldona that that is absolutely a critical issue.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Evans, do you want to comment on it?

Mr. EVANS. I think it has been said. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. All right. I’m not interested in ribbon

cuttings in Montgomery County, but Mrs. Morella might be.

[Laughter.]

Ms. VALICENTI. Congressman Davis, I want to just leave you

with a very graphic last example, and I failed to mention that earlier, but I have been told stories—and I did not personally see

this—but, in fact, we had an office where there were two programs

funded separately, two people sitting side-by-side with their own

individual personal computers but not being able to share a printer

because that printer had to be supported out of two separate programs. So two computers sitting side by side with two individual

printers because that printer could not be shared.

And I will tell you that is one small story, but I think that is

probably replicated hundreds of times.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And, as Mr. Turner and I have also

heard about stories like that, we’re trying to work with your group

and others to try to ensure that kind of thing doesn’t have to happen. It is hugely inefficient, but it just talks to the changes that

take place when you move from one model and one society into the

information society. We just have to change the laws accordingly.

Just one last question from my perspective, and I’ll start with

Mr. Upson, because I know what Don went through.

130

Don, when you went down to Richmond it was new for the State,

obviously. I think one of Governor Gilmore’s greatest accomplishments has been in the area of information technology. He has been

very, very proactive in those areas. What kind of resistance did you

meet from other State agencies? You’re a new kid on the block at

this point. No agency likes to give up authority and power over procurement and those kind of issues that obviously your position

raised. And I will ask everybody else to take it, because I think the

key is, if you can have somebody, whatever you call him, what’s

their clout going to be and what’s the resistance going to be from

the old line sectors that have been in power for a long time?

Mr. UPSON. That gets to the heart of construction of a statute.

In fact, I think that it is important to create the office, an office

that has the authority, but I think that same statute has to bring

together the stakeholders, and the biggest obstacle I have—it was

on August 26, 1998, when we first met and we had a 4-hour meeting scheduled, and the Governor was going to come 2 hours into

it, and we were supposed to discuss things until he got there, and

you could just see around the room everybody—nobody wanting to

talk like, you know, what are we going to be told what to do.

And I think the important point is to construct a statute somehow that lets the agencies know that this person is going to be

your agent, not your dictator, and is going to be representing the

collective views and provides a focus to go to the Congress, to go

to the executive, rather than be someone directing.

And our whole statute was created from the point of view that

the Internet drives power choice and control to the individual, and

if you believe that you have got to believe that central authorities

can’t tell people what to do very effectively unless you bring them

into the game.

I think the private sector management, in technology companies

especially, is different. It is diffused. It isn’t top-down. I use the

analogy it is more a soccer game than a football game, where, instead of the coach tells the quarterback tells the team every single

play, they’re all out on the field all at once and they’re all cooperating.

And so I think that—but it was that initial belief that government somehow, the central authority, new Governor for a short period of time is going to try to tell us what to do, and that’s what

I think. If we’ve changed anything, I think we’ve changed that.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Anyone else want to comment? Mr.

Gerhards.

Mr. GERHARDS. I think in Pennsylvania in 1995, when we went

to a CIO, our agencies were looking for some leadership. They also

were looking for a champion, because they had gone through some

tough budgetary times and they were looking for one voice that

could work with our budget office and champion the cause that

technology can provide a good return on investment, properly implemented.

We also tried to keep it in a collaborative mode. We try to do everything in a collaborative mode that we can and only get dictatorial when we need to. We try to also keep our focus at the enterprise level and not micro-manage, provide a lot of flexibility to the

131

agencies, and we do that through setting standards and general

policies.

I think it is also important early on, at least, to have some small

wins—to look for the low-hanging fruit. Nothing—success breeds

success, and a good way of building the team and having everyone

feel that they are an important part of the team is collectively identifying some of those opportunities and having success.

And I think what really drove it home in Pennsylvania was the

Y2K effort. Some folks were challenging the wisdom of having an

enterprise approach to Y2K, and I can tell you, after we were finished with Y2K, two of the agencies—I had them come to us and

say, ‘‘We would not have been successful, we could not have

achieved this, if each of us had to go out and procure our own vendors to help us do this, if each of us had to find the best techniques

to remediate the technology.’’ So I think all of those components together—and what I’m seeing

in Pennsylvania now is more interest in collaboration, because they

see it can work, and less interest in trying to maintain the traditional stovepipes that we had before 1995.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Any other comments on that?

Mr. MOLCHANY. I have one. I think that you have actually gone

beyond creating a CIO with that question to what type of person

would you need. You really need to have a person that actually

wants to collaborate, that realizes that they can’t be a dictator,

that realizes they have to have people work with them, and especially in a Federal model, where you may not have direct control

over budgets and departments, you have to make people want to

work with you. You have to make them realize that you have value

to them, that you are an added value, because if you aren’t you’ll

be ignored. So you literally have to be able to tie those departments

together and make a difference and really be a person that people

want to work with and really think there is some value.

Ms. VALICENTI. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to offer——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Go ahead, and then we’ll go to Mr.

Evans.

Ms. VALICENTI. Two thoughts.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Ms. VALICENTI. First of all, information technology has been an

enabler to everything that State government, in our case, does, but

everything that government does, and so if you can get that message across to, in my case, my peers, my cabinet-level officers, that

we’re there to help them.

Second, to distinguish what needs to be done at an enterprise

level and what not needs to be done at an enterprise level, but that

there is some control at the agency or at the department over the

things that have no enterprise perspective. I think if you can make

that—distinguish that early on in the program, that is it much

easier then to work.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Evans?

Mr. EVANS. Yes. I would just simply agree. To be very candid, as

we are currently installing enterprise information technology models in some of the largest jurisdictions currently, we see opposition

132

that may be mirrors from wait and see to outright sabotage, and

what we find is that, as was indicated, when the CIO does deliver,

agencies, departments realize that there is real benefit. I think the

recommendations that my colleagues make in terms of identifying

the roles and responsibilities will help clarify that, and also the

guiding principles that are associated with the collaboration that

David here mentions, as well. I think all of those things will eliminate them. But they are no different than any other project, the

kinds of people issues that you have.

This is a 10 percent technology problem and 90 percent people

problem.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you. Any of my colleagues want

to ask any other questions?

[No response.]

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. If not, let me just say before we close I

want to thank everyone for attending the hearing this morning. I

want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses and our Members for participating. I also want to thank the staff for organizing

this.

I think we’ve learned a lot, and I look forward to continuing our

work on these issues with my colleagues on the subcommittee.

I will now enter into the record the briefing memo distributed to

the subcommittee members.

We will hold the record open for 2 weeks from this date for those

who may want to forward submissions for possible inclusion.

These proceedings are closed.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

133

134

135

136

Æ