Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/13/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SSRC5 | |
| SB195 | |
| SB159 | |
| SB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SSCR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 195-STATE AGENCY PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
3:34:42 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
195 "An Act relating to the office of management and budget; and
providing for an effective date."
3:35:12 PM
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, District F, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor for SB 195, stated his office develops
performance-type legislation. In a previous Senate State Affairs
Committee hearing, SB 21 passed out of committee to create long-
term strategic operating plans and is currently in Senate
Finance. Both SB 21 and SB 195 work together to help close the
performance gap in legislative operations. He opined that the
state runs a multi-billion-dollar budget operation, but lacks a
coherent continuous improvement quality management plan. If the
Budget Act Reform were to pass, it would create four years of
strategic operating plans, updated every two years. SB 195 would
generate a more robust performance management process, and would
center on customer focus. He said when he worked in the
corporate sector in the 80s-90s, a customer focus was emphasized
through the awareness and identification of potential customers.
He applied the idea of engaging with everyone using a customer
focus, whether between colleagues or among everyday citizens.
Research on other state's uses of the performance concept has a
wide range of possibilities depending on funding. SB 195 aims to
drive definitions into the operations in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to enable a higher degree of
performance management. He read the three key provisions of SB
195 as found in the sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• Expand the statutory duties of the OMB director to
collect and analyze data on performance of agencies,
to advise the governor on matters of improvement of
business processes and increasing accountability, and
to publish regularly updated progress updates on a
website.
• Empower OMB to collaborate with state agencies to
enhance responsiveness, improve customer service
quality, and implement cost optimization strategies.
• Establish a framework for state agencies to cooperate
fully with the OMB, ensuring timely responses to
inquiries and the provision of necessary information
for performance evaluation and improvement.
3:40:05 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN added that the point of SB 195 is to
establish a performance improvement officer who is
dedicated to better state management and driving a
continuous improvement model. The framework SB 195 provides
would also assist the CEO that is elected every four years.
3:41:26 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if he considered creating a new
position to advise the governor rather than using the
existing framework within OMB.
3:42:01 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN replied it is a matter of cost and scope.
He said the state often struggles for funding, so the most
critical move forward is to take the first step. A more
robust position would reap benefits. He suggested the
committee could explore other avenues to address
performance improvement management.
3:42:50 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked for perspective on the issue that SB
195 would increase the responsibility of OMB directors
within the agency of the executive branch but not subject
the position to the legislative confirmation process. He
also asked how the OMB director tasked with collecting data
transcends administrations.
3:43:58 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN responded that an expansion was not
considered in light of fiscal constraints. However, SB 195
would refine roles and reshape the existing asset to drive
a better product.
3:44:55 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Senator James Kaufman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional
analysis for SB 195.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis for SB 201 Bill Version B
"An Act relating to the Office of Information
Technology; relating to information technology
projects undertaken by state agencies; and providing
for an effective date."
Section 1: Adds a new Article to AS 44.21 (State
Government ? Department of Administration)
New Section 44.21.600:
Creates the Office of Information Technology (OIT)
within the Department of Administration (DOA) and
names the director of the office as the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) of the state.
New Section 44.21.610: Duties of Office and Director
Duties of OIT:
• Develop and implement standardized Information
Technology (IT) project management processes.
• Manage IT projects using these processes.
• Ensure major IT projects meet time, budget, and
other requirements.
• Ensure minor IT projects follow established
processes.
• Establish procedures to reduce change requests.
CIO's responsibilities
• Review, approve or reject, and monitor state
agency IT projects undertaken by state agencies.
• May approve IT projects that conforms to
procedures and policies, do not duplicate
existing capabilities, conform to procurement
rules and policies, and for which sufficient
funds are available.
• Ensure IT project requirements are documented in
biennial IT plans.
• If biennial IT plans change, report new project
and funding requirements to OMB.
• May adopt regulations as deemed necessary.
New Section 44.21.620: Approval, suspension, and
cancellation of projects
• State agencies may not initiate IT projects
without approval from the CIO. A rejection must
be in writing with reasons specified.
• CIO may suspend or cancel IT projects that fail
to meet applicable quality standards.
• Agencies can request the review by the governor
within 15 business days if the CIO rejects,
suspends, or cancels a project. The governor has
30 days to respond with a decision to affirm,
reverse, modify, or remand the CIO's decision.
• Contracts with private entities must include
provisions for Vendor performance review,
suspension, or termination.
• The CIO may require performance bonds, penalties,
or other measures in case a project is over
budget or completed late.
• The CIO may also use realized cost savings as
performance incentives for vendors.
New Section 44.21.630: Project Management
• The CIO shall establish standardized
documentation requirements, project manager
standards, and performance measures for project
reporting.
• Project reports will be available on a publicly
accessible website.
• The CIO must establish a standardized project
management process including timelines, reporting
requirements, and post-completion monitoring.
• For "Major Information Technology Projects" the
CIO will designate a project manager from OIT.
o The project manager shall select qualified
personnel to participate in project
activities.
o The project manager shall provide reports
including business requirements, applicable
laws and regulations, project costs, issues,
training, project and actual completion
dates, and other relevant information.
• For "Major Information Technology Projects" the
CIO may require agencies to engage private
counsel or subject matter experts.
• For "Minor Information Technology Projects" the
relevant state agency shall provide a project
manager meeting CIO established standards
• A project management assistant from OIT will
advise on all "Minor Information Technology
Projects"
New Section 44.21.640: Standards for Purchases
The CIO shall establish standards for purchasing
hardware and software that are consistent with State
Procurement Code.
New Section 44.21.650: Definitions (Selected
Definitions Listed Below)
Change Request: A formal proposal requesting
deviations in the project processes, cost, scope, or
timeline.
Information Technology Project: An effort of defined
and limited duration that implements, effects a change
in, or addresses a risk to processes, services,
security, systems, records, human resources, or
architecture related to technology for the processing
and transmission of information IT Projects do not
include broadband projects managed by the office of
broadband
Major Information Technology Project: An information
technology project undertaken by a state agency that
has a total lifetime cost of ownership of $5 million
or more or an IT project that affects more than one
agency
Minor Information Technology Project: An information
technology project undertaken by a single state agency
that has a total lifetime cost of ownership of less
than $5 million
Section 2: Transition
The Department of Administration shall adopt necessary
regulations
Section 3: Effective Date of Beginning Regulatory Work
The Department of Administration may beginning
drafting regulations immediately
Section 4: Effective Date of Bill
All other sections of this bill take effect January 1,
2025
3:48:06 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN acknowledged challenges with recruiting,
retention, and meeting demands in OMB. He asked whether SB 195
would overwhelm OMB's current extensive list of duties.
3:48:47 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN responded that SB 195 would incorporate basic
structures that would not entail additional work. In
consideration of the budget, SB 195 was shaped to codify roles
and responsibilities, develop definitions to improve efficiency,
and add leverage to existing resources.
3:49:50 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if leaving out the frequency of plan roll
outs was intentional, since two years was mentioned in
discussion.
3:50:18 PM
MR. HARVEY replied that the mention of two years referenced to
other legislation carried by Senator Kaufman. SB 195 does not
have any requirements for submission of plans.
3:51:10 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI suggested that a representative from OMB
contribute their thoughts on SB 195.
3:51:32 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN agreed that participation from OMB would provide
value.
3:51:42 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 195 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0201A.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 201 Sponsor Statement Version B 1.26.24.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 201 Sectional Analysis version B 1.26.24.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 201 S(STA) OIT Presentation 2.13.24.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB0195A.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 Sponsor Statement Version B 2.12.24.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 Sectional Analysis Version B 2.12.24.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| 1.25.24 TB.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 159 |
| SB 201 Fiscal Note.Admin.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 195 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 201 - IT Organizations in High-Performing States.pdf |
SSTA 2/13/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |