MINUTES OF THe MEETING OF THE
JOINT Subcommittee on GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
and the
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Seventy-First Session
April 30, 2001
The Joint Subcommittee on General Government of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Vonne S. Chowning at 8:25 a.m., on Monday, April 30, 2001, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning, Chairman
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. David R. Parks
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Joseph M. Neal Jr.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology
Kathy Ryan, Deputy Chief, Planning and Research Unit, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology
Shelly Person, Chief, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology
Joel Pinkerton, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Diane Jungwirth, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Dorothy Martin, Deputy Chief, Computing Unit, Communication and Computing Division, Department of Information Technology
Mark Blomstrom, Deputy Director, Communication and Computing Division, Department of Information Technology
Mrs. Chowning opened the hearing of budgets included in Closing List # 6 (Exhibit C).
INFORMATIONAL SERVICES
DoIT Director’s Office – Budget Page DoIT-1 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1373
M-100 Inflation and Per Unit Adjustment – Page DoIT-2
Jim Rodriguez, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, informed the committee the staff recommended two technical adjustments for the account. He explained one is related to the Department of Information Technology’s (DoIT) rent for buildings and grounds, which was revised to conform to the schedule sent out by the Buildings and Grounds Division (B&G). He said the net result will be a $3,162 reduction in fiscal year (FY) 2002 and a $3,129 reduction in FY 2003.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DoIT-4
Mr. Rodriguez reported staff also made the standard technical cost adjustments for personal computers (PC) in decision unit E-710, which will result in a reduction in costs of $455 in each year of the biennium.
Mr. Rodriguez said there is one issue remaining for the subcommittee’s consideration on the budget regarding decision unit E-275, which he explained is an addendum to The Executive Budget. He noted that during the previous subcommittee meeting there was a request for the department to go back and review its administrative and billing processes. He said the response from the department is set forth in the discussion regarding decision unit E-275 in the closing packet.
Mr. Rodriguez reported the proposal is indicated in a work chart (Exhibit D) he distributed to the members showing the structure of the new organization. He said the department proposes to separate its two primary accounting functions, which are accounts receivable and accounts payable. He said DoIT requests the reclassification of a Management Assistant III position that has been vacant for some time to an Administrative Services Officer (ASO) III. That position, he said, will administer one of the two primary functions, either accounts payable or accounts receivable. He said DoIT also proposes the reclassification of its current Chief Accountant position to an ASO III, a lateral change to a grade 41, so there will be no cost change.
Mr. Rodriguez recapped, saying the accounts payable and accounts receivable would be separated, and two managers would be created by reclassifying current positions. He reminded the subcommittee it had been an issue during the last legislative session when the department was having problems with billings. At that time a new dedicated position was provided to manage and control the new billing system, he said, and other resources were provided to implement the new billing structure. He indicated the department has continued to have problems, and this is the new proposal.
Mr. Rodriguez added there are issues on whether this will deal with the problems the department is facing, and the decision for the subcommittee is whether to accept the DoIT recommendations for additional resources, or come up with alternatives.
Mrs. Chowning noted the closing, as proposed, would add one more person, and she questioned whether the problem will have changed by the next session. She asked whether the department could give assurances that another position would not be requested at the next legislative session.
Terry Savage, Director, Department of Information Technology, responded the department reviewed each task to determine what needs to be done, and reviewed the overall recommendations to separate the functions. He admitted he could not give a guarantee, but said the changes should get the job done. He said he took into consideration the workloads and the time to accomplish them.
Mr. Savage acknowledged that a number of issues need to be addressed. He said the billing system is better than it was, but it still needs work. He stated he expects the addition of an ASO will enable the billing department to work well within the next biennium. He noted most of the other positions within the fiscal unit are substantially lower grades.
Mrs. Chowning pointed out the additional position will add approximately $98,000 and $96,000 to the budget over the biennium. Mr. Savage noted the figures include not only the new ASO, but also the contract with DMG-MAXIMUS to continue to audit the rate model and the overall operation. He said the expectation is that once DMG-MAXIMUS is finished and has helped DoIT resolve the existing fiscal issues, the department will be able to carry on and manage the process without DMG-MAXIMUS He indicated he anticipates that will occur during the coming biennium.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether that portion of the budget will go away after 2 years. Mr. Savage replied that is the expectation.
Senator O’Donnell commented he would be willing to give the proposal a try, but he cautioned it will require close monitoring to determine whether the new person will be able to perform the job.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-275 UNDER BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1373 FOR THE ADDITION OF AN ASO III POSITION, AND TO INCLUDE A LETTER OF INTENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, AND MS. LESLIE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE REMAINDER OF BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1373 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND INCLUDING THE ADJUSTMENT APPROVED FOR DECISION UNIT E-275.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, AND MS. LESLIE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Planning and Research - Budget Page DoIT-7 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1370
E-300 Maximize Internet & Technology – Page DoIT-10
Mr. Rodriguez reported staff made two technical adjustments to the budget account, one at the direction of the department. He said the department requested the funding associated with decision unit E-300 to implement the next phase of the Capability Maturity Model. He explained the department decided it is no longer a priority, so the funding has been deleted.
Mr. Rodriguez said the second adjustment is the standard PC cost adjustment made to decision unit E-710. He said that will result in a cost savings of $637 per year. He pointed out the cost savings associated with the deletion of the Capability Maturity Model is $545 in the first year and $51,570 in the second year of the biennium.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes - Page DoIT-8
Mr. Rodriguez commented decision unit M-200 requests an Information Systems Specialist IV position that will be dedicated to capacity planning. He explained the department currently does not have a position dedicated for the function, but staff agrees with the department that it is a critical function for their operations and computer facilities. Thus, he said, staff recommends approval of the position.
M-201 Demographics Caseload Changes - Page DoIT-9
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit M-201 is a DoIT request to address needs in the planning unit. He said the request is for two, grade 43, project manager positions to provide management and oversight of information technology projects. He stated the department indicated the importance of the function requires that dedicated positions provide reliable management oversight.
Mr. Rodriguez pointed out the department reports it has met or exceeded nearly all of its performance indicators, while having 1 planning position vacant for over a year. He said this included having three planning staff dedicated to duties other than those associated with project planning and management, like implementation of the Capability Maturity Model.
Mr. Rodriguez said the workload statistics provided by the department included very little backup information on the modeling assumptions used. He noted staff has not been able to verify the statistics or the outcomes and suggests there is room for improvement once the department is fully staffed with the three planning positions that were not there over the biennium. He suggested the subcommittee must decide whether to approve the positions based on current workload statistics provided by the department, or whether the subcommittee should wait to determine how well DoIT performs over the biennium.
Mrs. Chowning asked how Mr. Savage viewed the recommendation on decision unit E-201. She indicated there is a position that needs to be filled, and yet there are others that, without the addition, could be used to achieve what is necessary. She suggested DoIT could function at full staff capacity for a year and then return to Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to make a proposal.
Mr. Savage replied that during the current biennium the department has been using planners in a project management capacity for several projects. He said the planning function has suffered as a result. However, he acknowledged, the department has not been as proactive as it should have been all along by having failed to assist the agencies in developing their technology plans. He said that was a problem he wishes to correct.
Mr. Savage stated two project managers would not be enough to do the management work for every project that will arise during the biennium. He said he expects them to perform some of the management work and to provide some oversight of Management Systems Analysts (MSA) that would be hired to do project management. As an example, he said, if the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) project were approved, he would not expect to be performing full-time management of the project, but DoIT would provide oversight management.
Mr. Savage said he has a list of the various projects that the project managers will be expected to address. He said the list shows what percentage would be allocated to the project managers on which projects. Mr. Rodriguez indicated he had a copy of the list.
Kathy Ryan, Deputy Chief, Planning and Research Unit, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology, said the agency intends that the new project managers will work on two tax projects, if those are approved. Also, she said, they would work on The Executive Budget migration from the mainframe to a server platform. She added that another project coming on line is the Health Information Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Ms. Ryan stated it has been very difficult to respond to requests from the agencies to provide them with planning support. She said it consumes a lot of time for planners to perform project management; it removes people from the pool, and then other agencies often have to wait as much as 6 months or more. She explained project managers perform a different function, yet they are very necessary for projects.
Ms. Ryan expressed concern that without the project managers, DoIT will be unable to do the planning necessary for the state. She stated that is why she wants project managers who are dedicated to the one function, and which would be funded by the projects they oversee.
Senator Jacobsen asked whether the project managers perform identical duties. Ms. Ryan responded a project manager would have similar duties, but the difference would be that they provide oversight of a team. Senator Jacobsen pointed out there have been vacancies in the agency, and he asked why more people are needed if they perform similar duties. Ms. Ryan replied there are no vacancies, and she was unable to explain the notation that there were unfilled positions. She indicated at least one of the positions had been upgraded.
Mr. Beers voiced concern that projects are being scaled back systematically due to budgetary concerns. He asked whether that may impact the demand for DoIT planning assistance.
Mr. Savage responded that, if a significant number of projects already identified for the managers have been cancelled, it would be appropriate to scale back from two positions to one. However, he said, if the projects that are cancelled are not already on the list, that would not apply. He agreed that the hiring of project managers should conform to the number of projects that are ultimately approved by the Legislature.
Mrs. Chowning commented that puts the legislators in a difficult position. Mr. Beers asked how many projects on the list have simply been proposed, and how many are actually underway. Mr. Savage replied that is being investigated right now. He said HIPAA would utilize 25 percent of the time over the 2 years of the biennium. He explained that President Bush has decided to go forward with the HIPAA requirements, so those will come into play. He acknowledged it is not clear how that will be funded, whether it will be federally funded or paid by the projects that need to comply.
Mr. Savage said the migration of the Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) from Cross System Product (CSP) to Visual Age Generator is also fairly definite. He said the Nevada Electronic Budget System (NEBS) migration off the mainframe is also certain as soon as funds are available from the Department of Administration. Others, he noted, are less obvious, such as the simplified tax project, which is still under discussion, or the document management project, also in the Department of Taxation. He said the Welfare Division is considering a data warehousing project, which he deemed likely, but not certain. He estimated half of the projects are either ongoing or reasonably certain.
Mrs. Chowning suggested approving one position, and, if the other projects come on board, the agency could make a request to the IFC.
Mr. Beers asked how far along DoIT is in the planning loop for the various projects. Mr. Savage answered the agency is fairly actively engaged in most of the projects. He acknowledged that if the projects are approved, it will take some time to actually hire someone to work on them.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether the department could give assurance that the positions would be scaled back if the positions are not absolutely required. Mr. Savage replied, “Oh, yes, ma’am. Absolutely. If other projects came up instead, we would come to you and discuss that in advance.”
Taking note that the committee was not ready to make a decision on module M‑201, Mrs. Chowning directed attention to decision unit E-907.
E-907 Transfer from Application Design & Development
Mr. Rodriguez explained decision unit E-907 recommends the transfer of 1 Computer System Technician position from budget account 721-1365, the Application Design and Development Unit. He reported the department indicated the position will provide the planning unit with needed technical and documentation support, and will be responsible for implementing configuration standards for its projects.
Mr. Rodriguez said approval of the decision would be contingent on approval of decision unit E-805 in budget account 721-1365, which reclassifies three Data Entry Operators to Computer System Technicians.
E-805 Major Reclassifications – Page DoIT-11
According to Mr. Rodriguez, decision unit E-805 recommends reclassification of an Information Systems Specialist (ISS) III position, and a 5 percent salary increase for the planning manager position. He explained the increase is requested because of the addition of 2 project manager positions, which would be at the same salary grade as the current planning manager.
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Rodriguez to recount how many positions were being requested for the budget account. Mr. Rodriguez replied under decision unit M-200 one position requested is an ISS IV position for a Capacity Planner, in M-201 two project managers are requested, in E-275 additional training is requested at $2,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) position, and in E-805 the reclassification of 1 ISS III position to an ISS IV position and a 5 percent salary increase for a project manager are requested. Also, he said, decision unit E-907 requests the transfer of 1 Computer System Technician position. Mrs. Chowning summarized the total position requests at four new positions plus one reclassification. She asked the committee for input.
Mr. Beers suggested approving 50 percent of the requests with the caveat that, should some of the projects materialize, the department could request more positions. As to training, Mr. Beers, commented the state tends to undertrain. He asserted it is critical to have well-trained people, and it negates the investment in new people if they are not trained properly.
Mr. Rodriguez referred to a chart (Exhibit E) addressing the training proposals offered by DoIT. He explained it outlines various potential funding levels for the department’s proposals. He pointed out that each of these proposals run from a scenario representing a study presented by DoIT. He said the chart indicates costs of training at various percentage levels, which were referenced in the study by the department. He said a level of 10 percent represents a “top of the line” information technology (IT) company offering training at 10 percent of budget salaries. A 5 percent level represents a “middle-of-the-road” training level, which is considered well-trained by the department, and a typical expenditure is between 2 and 3 percent.
Mr. Rodriguez pointed out the second set of boxes on the chart indicate the cost per FTE, with the department recommending the fifth box showing a cost of $2,500 per person. He said the sixth box represents $3,000 per person, which is equivalent to the 5 percent level, and the seventh box represents a very highly trained IT staff. He said those are the options that reflect the study presented by the department as the basis for its funding request. He said that in 1999 the department spent 75 percent of the amount authorized for training, in 2000 the department spent 90 percent, and currently, as of April 14, the department has spent approximately 40 percent of the amount authorized.
Mrs. Chowning noted the department is asking for an increase of 78.5 percent, indicated in box 5, and box 4 represents a 3 percent increase. Mr. Rodriguez responded the department has not spent the amount approved, and it plans to increase those expenditures. He said the question is what level of funding should be supplied.
Mr. Beers commented it would make sense to separate the specialists from the other employees, and fund each group separately. He opined the technical experts should be separated and allow the director the discretion on how to allocate the funding. He recommended half the technical experts be trained at a cost of $3,500 per FTE, and the other half at $3,000 per FTE. He reiterated this is a critical area that should be addressed. He suggested the technically skilled experts should fall between boxes six and seven, and funding for the general administrative staff, for Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, and various office applications they will use, should be reduced.
Mrs. Chowning observed that was more than requested. Mr. Beers indicated he was unsure. Mr. Rodriguez said box six represents $3,000 per FTE, while box seven represents $3,500 per FTE. He said the Governor recommended box five at $2,500 per FTE.
Mr. Beers inquired whether that separates people who are not technical experts. Mr. Rodriguez responded the recommendation did not make any inferences as to how the dollars should be allocated, which would leave it to the discretion of the department.
Mr. Beers asked whether it would be possible to break out the FTEs into General and Administrative staff using Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, and the technical people who will be using visual aids training. Mr. Rodriguez responded that would be possible. Mr. Beers stated he prefers that concept. Mr. Rodriguez noted box four represents funding at 3 percent for the account, which amounts to slightly less than $2,500 per FTE.
Mrs. Chowning said that makes more sense, since the department has not used the sums approved in the past. She opined a 78 percent increase is quite a bit. Mr. Beers asked for comment on the 40 percent usage to date in the current year. Mr. Savage replied he was surprised, because training has been steady for the past couple of months. Mr. Rodriguez reiterated the percentage was calculated as of April 14. Mr. Beers asked whether all the invoices had been entered. Mr. Savage acknowledged there could be an accounting lag in the report.
Shelly Person, Chief, Planning and Programming Division, Department of Information Technology, admitted there is probably a lag in submission of invoices because there has been a lot of training in progress lately. She offered the opinion the amounts shown for training are appropriate. She explained the training increases will be concentrated in two budget accounts; the DoIT Planning and Research Unit (budget account 721-1370), and the DoIT Computing Division (budget account 721-1385).
Ms. Person said the dollar amounts stated in budget account 721-1370 are closer to the 4 percent training level. She said the other budget account, 721-1385, covers the technical specialists for which additional funds are being requested, not only for training, but also for the backlog.
Mr. Savage said that, in addition to the training that has been completed, nearly 90 percent of the training budget will have been spent by the end of the fiscal year. He said he was instructed to spend every dime.
Ms. Ryan added the Planning and Research Unit spent the entire training budget last biennium, and she anticipates the same will be true in the present biennium
Senator Jacobsen asked how the training is evaluated when it is completed. Ms. Ryan said she makes sure the planning group can put the class subject matter into practice immediately when they return from training. She noted the planning group works with many different agencies and it tries to guide the agencies. Therefore, she said, those persons need to know a little about a lot of things. She said currently much is going on with web development for the Internet, so they need to know enough about that to confer with the technical experts as well as to guide the agencies. She said her division selects classes that need to be used immediately, which is reflected back in the ability of the group to help the agencies.
Senator Jacobsen noted the rate of comprehension is different for each trainee. He asked how that is handled. Ms. Ryan responded that currently the planning group is being focused on planning for customer agencies, so an in-house class will be presented for all the planners. In the past, she said, the focus has been on project management and on the Capability Maturity Model, but right now the aim is to have all the planners focused on the same area. She explained that the product they produce is what is evaluated, and, when a planner works with an agency, an internal peer review is held to determine how well the planner performed.
As to training the technical staff, Ms. Ryan said that often the division can only afford to have one person attend, and then that person returns and passes the knowledge along to the others.
Mrs. Chowning surmised the agency is spending more funds than it appeared originally. She said if funds are going to be allocated, training is probably one of the best places. She suggested the proposal outlined in box five, which is what the division requested, may be reasonable.
Mr. Beers indicated he would be willing to make a motion reflecting that proposal. Mrs. Chowning recapped the discussion. She said the closing would include approving one position in decision unit M-200 and one of the positions in decision unit M‑201. She indicated the division would return to IFC if enough projects materialize that another planner is needed and the agency would scale back if fewer of the projects come on line. She added that decision unit E-205 would be approved as recommended. She said decision unit E-805 would approve a reclassification and a salary increase for the project manager, and decision unit E‑907 would approve a transfer. Also, she added, the closing would include the recommended technical adjustments and training as recommended by the Governor.
MR. BEERS MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1370 WITH APPROVAL FOR ONE POSITION IN M-200; APPROVAL OF ONE POSITION IN M-201; WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF DoIT TO RETURN IF THEY HAVE SO MANY PROJECTS THAT THEY REQUIRE ANOTHER PLANNER POSITION AND WITH THE INTENTION THAT THERE WILL BE A SCALE BACK IF DoIT DOES NOT HAVE ALL OF THE PROJECTS; APPROVAL OF E-205 AS RECOMMENDED; APPROVAL OF E-805 WITH THE RECLASSIFICATION AND SALARY INCREASE FOR THE PROJECT MANAGER; APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER IN E-907; AND WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, AND MR. HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Application Design & Development Unit – Budget Page DoIT-14 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1365
Mr. Rodriguez recommended one technical adjustment for the standard PC cost adjustments, which would result in a savings of $1,365 in each year of the biennium.
E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page DoIT-17
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-250 pertains to transferring MSA contractors to the agencies from DoIT as a pass-through, so the agencies would be responsible for managing the funds and paying the contractors. He recommended that a Letter of Intent be issued that would require the department to provide quarterly reports on the progress of the transfer. He noted the department is currently in the process of developing policies and procedures to track and monitor activities of agencies regarding agency responsibility over contractors. He said the major concern of the subcommittee was that the agencies might not be qualified at this point to manage the MSAs and the funding associated with it, so the state might have to pay for a contract performance that fell short.
Mrs. Chowning agreed the transfer to the agencies could be a problem as to whether agencies can handle the responsibility. She asked Mr. Savage whether he would care to comment. Mr. Savage explained that the financial payment responsibility would be transferred under the proposal, but not the technical oversight responsibility. He said DoIT will retain responsibility for technical oversight of the MSA contractors.
Mr. Savage clarified that is part of the duties the project managers and the additional Quality Assurance (QA) position will be expected to perform. He said they will continue to enhance the degree of technical oversight on the MSAs, and the transfer relates only to a transfer of the payment responsibility.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether DoIT will be able to coordinate the effort well enough to ensure the payments will be made when they should be. Mr. Savage replied in the affirmative. He said the procedures mentioned by Mr. Rodriguez will be used to address those kinds of questions, such as technical approval prior to the actual payment by the agencies.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether the department will be comfortable with the Letter of Intent if the budget is approved as proposed. Mr. Savage replied it would be no problem at all.
E-275 Working Environment & Wage – Page DoIT-17
Mr. Rodriguez reported decision unit E-275 recommends $55,797 in FY 2002 and $71,673 in FY 2003 to fund the addition of a new quality assurance analyst (ISS III) for the department. He said the department indicated there is a large enough workload for two full time QA positions, but only requested one. He said staff has no strong objection to the recommendation for the position.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether staff received enough information to make an evaluation of the workload projections. Mr. Rodriguez responded staff requested workload statistics and received outcomes, but very little information on methodology and assumptions used to project those numbers. Therefore, he said, staff cannot make a complete analysis of the statistics to make a conclusive recommendation. However, he said, staff realizes QA is a vital function for the department and it probably does need one additional QA position.
Mrs. Chowning made note that the staff felt one additional QA position was needed, but there was insufficient information to recommend any more than that.
E-805 Major Reclassifications – Page DoIT 18
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-805 involves a reclassification for three data entry positions. He explained that, during the course of DoIT’s pilot project to decentralize, it will relinquish the responsibility for data entry functions. He said the department intends to transfer two data entry operators to the Department of Personnel, leaving three data entry positions in DoIT. The department proposed reclassifying those three into Computer System Technician positions and transferring one to the Communications Unit, one to the Data Communications Unit, and one to the Planning and Research Unit.
Mr. Rodriguez stated the job descriptions provided by the department for the positions are unclear as to whether they would appropriately be classified as a Computer System Technician (CST) or another position. However, he added, the Department of Personnel will make the final classification of the positions once they are transferred. He said the workload statistics information supporting the transfer of the positions by staff was again related to outcomes. However, he said, very little information was received as to how the numbers were built into the statistics, so staff cannot make a conclusive recommendation regarding the transfers. He pointed out decision unit E-805 is associated with decision units E‑905, E-906, and E-907, which authorize the transfers.
Mrs. Chowning inquired how persons become Computer System Technicians when they have been data entry operators, and she asked whether the Department of Personnel is likely to approve of the transfer. Mr. Savage replied DoIT intends to retrain the data entry operators, primarily to provide data technical support for the units to which they will be transferred. He acknowledged the people will need retraining. He explained that DoIT has had “less than robust” recording of data in general, with less backup than desirable for many activities. He said for some time the inventory of communication circuits was essentially bogus, and when the circuit inventory was completed about a year ago it allowed the department to resolve some of the billing problems it had encountered. He noted, as an example, the problem had caused some bills to be uncollectible. He said there are problems of a similar nature in each of the areas to which the people will be transferred, in which inventories are not well maintained, or documentation is not as complete as it should be. He said substantial improvement is needed in record keeping and technical management within the units.
Mr. Savage pointed out the total amount of data entry that needs to be done is being reduced, largely as a result of the Integrated Financial System (IFS) project. He said the two who will be transferred out of the department entirely will handle the remaining data entry for that kind of thing, but the positions slated for transfer are not needed at all any more, while there is a “crying need” for additional data management within the units to support budgets as well as operations. He said the intention is to train them for the functions that are truly needed by the department.
Mr. Beers asked whether the actual people are being physically transferred to agencies they have been supporting under the DoIT umbrella. Mr. Savage replied two are being transferred to the Department of Personnel. Ms. Person clarified that of the five data entry staff, two will be transferred to the Department of Personnel to continue data entry for the time sheets. Three, she said, will stay within DoIT and be transferred to specific units to support technical documentation needs.
Mr. Beers rejoined, “I think you are teaching cats to bark.” He stated the job descriptions and skills are completely different. Ms. Person responded there are four levels in the CST job classification, and at least two of the people to be transferred qualify for the CST I position. She explained they are Senior Data Entry Clerks who have had additional training in such programs as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.
Mr. Beers restated that her answer acknowledged they have different skill sets, and the objective is to train people to do the work that needs to be done, rather than work they have formerly been performing. He asserted there is no question they are different jobs.
Mrs. Chowning observed the committee must determine whether to allow the department to reclassify the three positions, subject to approval by the Department of Personnel. She asked what will happen if the personnel department fails to approve the change. Ms. Person replied the current procedure will change Data Entry Clerks to Administrative Assistants (AA) effective July 1. She explained that if any of the Data Entry Clerks do not pass the personnel department’s qualifications for CST I they will be automatically changed to an AA position.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether that will accomplish what DoIT needs if the persons are automatically turned over to AA positions. Ms. Person answered, “No, it does not.” She said the CST I positions are truly needed to support each of the three units. She opined a majority of them are qualified, and in-house training is being provided to help them meet the qualifications by July 1.
Mrs. Chowning surmised the funds are already in the DoIT budget to accomplish the training. Ms. Person reiterated it is in-house training.
Senator O’Donnell admitted some of the decisions are very hard. He said he would like to err on the side of allowing the department to have the people for another year, with just a 1-year allocation for salary. Then, he suggested, they should be warned they will have to find another job within a year. He said DoIT needs people who can perform the qualified work so that the state as a whole will benefit. He opined saving their jobs may not be what is best for them or for the department. He said what needs doing must be best for all. He said, “I think what you need to do is let them know they need to go out and find a job, and then you go out and hire the best people for your organization.” He declared he did not like having to do that, but it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Savage responded the department could work with that scenario should it be the judgment of the committee. Mrs. Chowning said that would mean the committee would approve 3 CST positions, and whether the existing people met the qualifications, or someone else did, they would be available. Senator O’Donnell suggested the committee would be approving the reclassification, which he did not wish to do. He said if DoIT retains the classification it already has, and hires people who are capable within that requested classification, it would be fine. However, he said, the classification that contains others who are no longer needed should just go away. Mr. Savage voiced agreement. He said that is the main objective of DoIT, in which the unneeded classifications would be deleted.
Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, responded to a query by Mrs. Chowning, saying if positions are reclassified, and the current incumbents occupy them, those people will have classification rights within the state personnel system. However, he said, if the classification of those positions is changed at a certain point in time, some positions would have to be deleted and new positions added. He explained the classified positions may have rights within the classified system under that scenario, too. He stated if the people are retained in the three positions, and the positions are reclassified and are filled, the people have rights within the state personnel system. He acknowledged there are a number of mechanical issues that could be problematic.
Mr. Savage interjected that another scenario could be to delete the three existing positions, add the three positions in the needed category, and then the incumbents would be allowed to apply along with others for the new positions. He said if the department is successful in its efforts to train them to meet the minimum qualifications, they would be able to apply. However, Mr. Savage stated, the positions would be open to enable the department to hire the best candidates for the jobs. He remarked that scenario is not as protective of the individuals as his normal instinct would dictate, but it would address the technical needs of the department.
Mrs. Chowning asked what funding may be available. Mr. Beers commented he does not believe the 3 Data Entry Clerks will have to leave the state. He surmised there are still plenty of data entry positions that will become available over the course of a year throughout the state. Mr. Stevens interjected the agency indicated that as of July 1 the data entry classification will go away, and there are many AA positions within the state. Mr. Savage pointed out those people may have to leave DoIT, and asked whether they will have priority to find state jobs. Mr. Stevens conjectured they would, if the positions are allowed to be reclassified as of July 1. He pointed out there are many ways agencies can recruit, through an open and competitive basis, or internally within their own department.
Mr. Savage concurred with Senator O’Donnell that the department should seek the best qualified people to fill the positions. However, he said, the compromise brought up by Mr. Beers that there are other AA jobs available within the state, and Senator O’Donnell’s proposal to tell the people that their existing jobs will be discontinued and they can apply for more qualified positions, would be very fair and reasonable.
Mr. Beers commented he would hate to see the Data Entry Clerk positions expire on June 30, 2001, and have all those positions statewide become Administrative Assistants on July 1, 2001, leaving three operators unable to transfer to AA because of a technical glitch on the dates. He wondered whether it would be wise to have a Letter of Intent to reclassify the positions prior to June 30, or whether there would be some other way to address the problem. Mr. Stevens said if the positions remain as Data Entry Clerks they will automatically become reclassified through the Department of Personnel on July 1.
Joel Pinkerton, Budget Analyst, Budget Division, Department of Administration, commented that one consideration for the committee would be to lay off the positions as of July 1. He said if the problem is an occupational study change, those employees would have reemployment rights back to that classification in another agency. He acknowledged the danger could be that other state agencies may not care to fill positions with those employees. However, he said, the best way to make the transition and protect the employees, would be to lay them off. He acknowledged the problem was complicated.
Mrs. Chowning surmised that would mean the people would be notified they would have to be gone in 2 months. Senator O’Donnell considered Mr. Pinkerton’s point to be well taken. The Senator cautioned other state agencies might not want to pick up the employees who were laid off. He asked, “Do not we owe it to our constituency to hire the best and the brightest and the most qualified people that we can, or would our constituency say, `Look, we know they are going to lose a job, they are not needed, but, golly, find a place for them anyway, and go ahead and waste our money.’” Senator O’Donnell opined that would not be the case.
Senator O’Donnell continued, saying that if the positions are no longer needed, the people should find a job. He pointed out they have a skill, and they simply need to find the correct slot. He stated, “I am not in favor of saving a job to save a job, however painful that might sound.”
Mr. Stevens said the subcommittee seemed to be going in the same direction and might want to consider another option. He suggested that if those positions are going to be terminated, it might be best to do so on September 30. He pointed out a number of new state jobs come on board on October 1, and those people would have a better chance at that time than on July 1, because there would be more opportunities available than on July 1. Senator O’Donnell interjected that is why he thought a year would be better, rather than July 1, but he agreed September 30 would be fine.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether that would delete the option to train them to become CSTs. Mr. Savage responded the division would continue to provide the training through September 30, and the people would be put to good use. He said he did not think that would foreclose that option. He admitted he, too, is struggling with the dilemma. He declared his long-term concern for the department is to get the technical data support into the units as planned through the transfer. He suggested if the mechanism works in the long term, that would be fine. He said he would not like to lose that opportunity in the shuffle.
Mrs. Chowning restated the problem, saying the reclassification of the data entry positions would be approved. Mr. Stevens interjected the positions should not be reclassified, but rather they should be eliminated, and new positions should be added on October 1. Mr. Savage said that would work for his department.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO ELIMINATE 3 DATA ENTRY POSITIONS IN DECISION UNIT E‑805, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, AND 3 NEW COMPUTER SYSTEM TECHNICIAN POSITIONS BE ADDED EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1.
SENATOR O’DONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, AND MR. PARK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
E-806 Unclassified Pay Changes – Page DoIT-18
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-806 involves the reclassification of a NOMADS Project Executive to a Software Systems Executive. He indicated the cost savings will be $59,290 in FY 2002 and $61,602 in FY 2003. He explained the department made the request for the reclassification and an associated transfer in another decision unit to enable the NOMADS executive to serve as a global project manager for the Department of Human Resources. He said the projects planned or underway currently are Unified Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY), NOMADS, and the Medical Management Information System (MMIS) for the Welfare Division. He said the project manager will oversee and coordinate all Department of Human Resources (DHR) projects. Initially, he stated, the position will be funded at 50 percent from DHR, and 50 percent from other resources. He voiced his belief the department has reconciled the funding issue, and DHR has agreed to fund 100 percent of the position.
Mrs. Chowning surmised the committee needs to clarify whether DHR will pay 100 percent of the position. Mr. Savage stated that it will.
E-901 Transfer to Secretary of State – Page DoIT-19
E-902 Transfer to Taxation – Page DoIT-19
E-903 Transfer to UNITY – Page DoIT-20
E-908 Transfer to Personnel/Payroll – Page DoIT-21
Mr. Rodriguez said the positions are part of a pilot program to decentralize the programming staff, and over the biennium there will be a $2.92 million transfer out of DoIT in expenditure authority to the agencies represented. The transfer will include 2 data entry positions going to the Department of Personnel, 3 programmers going to the Secretary of State, 4 programmers going to the Department of Taxation, and 12 programmers for the UNITY project. He stated the department is currently attempting to establish policies and procedures to implement the pilot program. He said the department is nearly ready to present a draft, and any formal agreements into which they enter will set out the duties and responsibilities for each department and agency. He said the department would establish criteria to evaluate each project to determine whether the pilot program is successful, whether the programmers should be re-centralized, or whether the decentralization should be expanded. He said if the committee approves the measure, staff recommends a Letter of Intent be issued to require the agency to report quarterly on the progress of the pilot project, its success, and where it stands.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION UNITS E-901, E‑902, E-903, AND E-908, WITH A LETTER OF INTENT, AND TO CLOSE THE BUDGET WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Senator O’Donnell asked how decision unit E-806 will be funded in its entirety by DHR. Mr. Savage responded the funding is broken out into specific budget accounts in the DHR budget. He said in decision unit 101-3150, the director’s office would fund 25 percent in the first year of the biennium, 35 percent in the second year. He noted it would be done by billing the director’s office. He voiced the intention for HIPAA to be funded through the director’s office in account 101‑3150 by 25 percent in the first year and 35 percent in the second year. He said the NOMADS account number 101-3228 would be funded by 30 percent in the first year and 25 percent in the second year, and MMIS, budget account 101‑3158 would be funded by 35 percent in the first year and 30 percent in the second. The UNITY project, budget account 101-3143, he said, would be funded by 10 percent each year.
Mr. Stevens interjected the staff questioned whether the DHR initially budgeted for 100 percent of the position. Mr. Savage responded that DHR did budget for the position. Diane Jungwirth, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration, confirmed that the DHR budget includes full funding for the position.
Mrs. Chowning noted decision unit E-250 still remained to be addressed. She recited the provisions that needed to be decided. Those included approval of payments to vendors for the funding transfer, a Letter of Intent for a quarterly progress report, and, in decision unit E-275, one QA position. She noted decision units E-805 and E-806 had already been approved, while the committee had discussed units E-901, E-902, E-903, and E-908, leaving discussion and approval for positions E-905, E-906, and E-907. She noted Senator O’Donnell had made a motion encompassing all the units left in budget account 721-1365.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HETTRICK.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL, MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI, AND MR. PARKS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Computing Division – Budget Page DoIT-23 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1385
Mr. Rodriguez reported staff made four technical adjustments to the budget. He said the first was to decision unit M-100 to reflect inflation for utilities. He noted that, at the department’s request, staff recommended deleting decision unit M-203 because the equipment will be purchased in the current biennium, which will result in a reduction of $35,000 in FY 2002. He said decision unit E-277 reflects a request from the agency to increase funding for training to an amount equal to 10 percent of budgeted salaries. He stated the unit was included at a full 10 percent, but staff made a technical adjustment to reduce the amount by what remains in the base budget. He said that will amount to a reduction of $72,937 in each year of the biennium. Mr. Rodriguez noted decision unit E-711 also is adjusted to reflect standard PC cost reductions.
Mr. Rodriguez stated other issues to be considered include decision unit M-200, the department’s request to upgrade its R-46 to an R-56 configuration of the mainframe. He acknowledged the department might find it possible to defer the upgrade by a year or even over the biennium. He suggested the $1,052,808 request could be deferred into the second year of the biennium.
Senator O’Donnell asked what the rationale is to purchase additional computerization when the department indicates it reduced utilization to 60 percent. Mr. Savage responded that the department will not purchase more if the present computerization can be maintained at its present level. He said the department has exceeded its own expectations in terms of efficiency improvements on NOMADS.
Senator O’Donnell asked how that was accomplished. Mr. Savage responded most of it was involved with database queries, which he explained to the Senator. He added DoIT personnel made a concerted effort along with MSAs that were brought in who had specialized knowledge in that area. He said they all worked together to make it all efficient. Senator O’Donnell commented he was concerned over spending much more than absolutely needed when the entire state budget would have to be trimmed. Mr. Savage declared:
If we can maintain the current efficiencies, and if we can get this kind of comparable efficiency on UNITY as well . . . and get NEBS [Nevada Electronic Budget System] off, that’s the other machine, . . . to avoid any spiking upgrade requirement because of NEBS . . . it is possible we may not need to upgrade either machine at all during the next biennium.
Mr. Savage said the current projection indicates that no upgrade will be needed for either machine. He stated a lot of good work was done to make it happen. He recommended “a prudent suggestion” be made on the matter. He explained UNITY has not been fully implemented yet, so what may actually happen is not known. He suggested cutting the first year of decision unit M-200 in half on the assumption that the upgrade will be needed, but, he said, it can be delayed for half a year. He said he would be comfortable with that, and it would be risky to do more.
Mr. Beers asked what the schedule is for UNITY. Mr. Savage answered it is scheduled to be completed in July, although, he added, it may take a little longer. He explained the development is almost finished, but actual usage has not had a full trial. He said, “A small number of users have been using it for a small number of things.” He said it is possible an upgrade would be required if 750 users from Clark County are added. He explained the intention is to do the same kind of efficiency tuning as was done on NOMADS.
Mr. Beers asked what capacity was recommended for UNITY. Mr. Savage turned to Dorothy Martin, Deputy Chief, Computing Unit, Department of Information Technology, who he described as the facility manager and who has been acting as capacity planner. Ms. Martin said a study performed by the vendor has used a low estimate for some time. Recently, she said, discussions with UNITY indicated implementation has not occurred at the expected rate. She explained the different tiers of users are being examined to determine whether usage will continue at the present rate, which means it was under forecast, or whether the system is not fully ramped up.
Ms. Martin said there has been an issue of bifurcation with respect to adding Clark County users to the system. She noted an in-depth projection was made based on 125 users, the least amount, or 750 users. She said that depends on whether funds are available to add users to the system. She said UNITY is currently running at a maximum of approximately 12 percent of the system resources. She indicated when that projection is forecast again through the end of the calendar year it should be utilizing approximately 75 percent of capacity if NOMADS continues its current existence, and if UNITY continues to grow with the addition of Clark County resources.
Mr. Beers asked for clarification as to whether total utilization by all users would peak at 75 percent. Ms. Martin responded, “Yes, for the R-46. We also have the R-35.” Mr. Beers asked whether that is the basis for the projection that no upgrades will be needed if everything works well. He commented 70 percent is a comfortable range for loading, but at 80 percent it becomes worrisome. He suggested 75 percent would not be a problem, so an upgrade could be avoided at that range. However, he said, if the estimates are incorrect by 5 or 10 percent, and the system starts to run at 85 percent, there may well be some performance degradation by the end of the year.
Mr. Beers asked whether UNITY has the communication bandwidth already in place to run with 750 people. Mr. Stevens indicated it does.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether Ms. Martin was saying Clark County could have 750 users by the end of calendar year 2001. Ms. Martin responded that the question left unanswered is how many users will be on the UNITY system. She noted they are located in several different areas. She explained initial indications showed it would only be a portion of employees who would have to input into the UNITY program, but if they convert and everyone inputs into UNITY, it could be a maximum. She explained the agency had been asked to project the minimum usage and the maximum usage, but there is no probability projected because it is based on results from the current legislative session. She reiterated the maximum reported by the agency was an additional 750 users.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DoIT-24
Senator O’Donnell commented that if the UNITY system is going to be used, and it will be used at 75 percent of capacity over the next 2 years, there should be no need to upgrade the system for the next 2 years. He suggested the $2.3 million recommended in decision unit M-200 could be put to better use elsewhere. At the same time, Senator O’Donnell requested that Mr. Savage provide the names of the people responsible for the efficiencies of the NOMADS system because he wished to commend them for a job well done. He indicated he would make a motion to return the money to the General Fund. He stated, “If you have an emergency, we will set this on the record, that you can come back to IFC. If there is a problem, then you can make a request through IFC.”
Mr. Savage responded that would probably work, because the agency currently is sufficiently on top of the matter, and it will not come as a surprise; they will see it coming. He added the suggestion will work if the present projections hold.
Mr. Beers said he would like to make an appropriation of $10,000 to be added to the budget to be distributed in the form of bonuses by Mr. Savage to team members who reduced the utilization of NOMADS to its current level. However, he admitted that could not be done. Senator O’Donnell promised the issue will come up in the Classified Pay bill.
Mr. Stevens pointed out that the $2.3 million to be saved is not all General Fund. He explained it comes from a combination of funding sources, and only a portion is General Fund, not all. Mr. Rodriguez estimated approximately half the appropriation was from General Fund appropriations.
SENATOR O’DONNELL MOVED TO DELETE APPROXIMATELY $2.3 MILLION OF FUNDING SLATED FOR APPROPRIATION OVER THE BIENNIUM IN DECISION UNIT M‑200, BUT TO ALLOW THE AGENCY TO RETURN TO THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING IF IT SHOULD BECOME NECESSARY.
Mrs. Chowning suggested recommending that the oversight committee continue over the next biennium. Mr. Savage interjected an Assembly bill creates an Information Technology Commission, and if it passes it could serve the same function.
ASSEMBLY BILL 367: Creates information technology commission. (BDR 19‑48)
Mr. Savage noted A.B. 367 includes substantial representation from the Legislature.
Senator O’Donnell reiterated his appreciation for the work done by Mr. Savage and the DoIT staff for the technical accomplishments regarding NOMADS and UNITY. Mr. Hettrick voiced his agreement, and said it is nice to see people make things run better and then acknowledge they can get by without the addition of requests. He asserted that legislators do not enjoy having to cut requests, but they have no choice.
Mr. Rodriguez noted the good news is that NOMADS is under control and efficiencies are being met. However, he said significant reductions in NOMADS will result in significant reductions in revenue. He declared there is a need to match efficiencies in revenue. He said DoIT is projecting a certain level of utilization that will produce a certain amount of revenue, but when the utilization drops, the revenue drops.
Mr. Beers interjected expenses will be reduced as well. He asked how fast the rate can be changed. Mr. Savage replied when all the budgets are finished and final numbers are in, and the updated projections are in, the figures will be included in the rate model recalculation. He said it should be very soon, 2 weeks or even just a few days. Mr. Stevens said 2 weeks would be too long for the Fiscal Division, but a week might be acceptable. Mr. Beers stated the dollars should be decided by the end of the day, so only the projected utilization should be left. Mr. Savage said the updated forecast is at the printer, so that data is already available. He explained the recalculation has not been made, but it should be just a matter of days.
Mrs. Chowning commented a deadline should be set. Mr. Savage said it can be done quickly, that it was only the creation of the model that would take time.
M-202 Demographics, Caseload Changes – Page – DoIT-25
Mr. Rodriguez explained decision unit M-202 reflects the department’s request to purchase two terabytes of disk space at a cost of $980,000, $880,000 in FY 2002, and $100,000 for maintenance in FY 2003. He said staff recommended that financing of the disk space be made over a 4-year period, since that would align with the department’s new allocation methodology, and depreciation costs can only be recovered over a 4-year period. He said the financing of the hardware would thus be aligned with the depreciation, and it would result in some savings over the biennium.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether that was agreeable with the department. Mr. Savage replied it should not be a problem.
M-205 Demographics Caseload Changes – Page DoIT-25
Mr. Rodriguez said M-205 recommends that $150,000 be appropriated over the biennium to expand the department’s server farm. However, he said, the department presented a new proposal for the decision unit, and instead of requesting three new servers, it requests server upgrades. He said the net result would be a cost savings, and staff recommends switching decision unit M-205 to include the upgrades to the servers rather than the purchase of new servers as included in The Executive Budget.
Mr. Beers asked what the boxes were. Mark Blomstrom, Deputy Director, Communication and Computing Division, Department of Information Technology, explained the technical details of the upgrades to the servers. Mr. Beers expressed his approval.
M-206 Demographics Caseload Changes – Page DoIT-26
Mr. Rodriguez reported decision unit M-206 makes a recommendation to continue funding for the computer system’s program that was recommended at a meeting of the IFC on December 4, 2000. He explained it will continue a position that was approved for the department’s web development section.
M-207 Demographics Caseload changes – Page DoIT-26
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit M-207 recommends $122,510 in FY 2002, and $160,379 in FY 2003 for the addition of two Data Base Management Specialist IV positions. He stated those would be responsible for the continued maintenance, enhancements, and upgrades to the department’s database system. He said the department submitted workload statistics and capacity statistics that indicate there is sufficient growth for the addition of two positions to maintain the system.
M-581 Welfare Automated Systems – Page DoIT-27
Mr. Rodriguez reported the department recommended purchase of a software package to convert NOMADS’ application program language into a more current version. He explained it would transfer NOMADS’ cross-system product application development environment to another version of International Business Machines IBM software called Visual Age Generator (VAG). He said the cost would be $107,000 in FY 2002.
Mr. Beers asked what VAG would be used for. Mr. Savage replied it would be used primarily to maintain and upgrade existing code, and to write some of the code that in time may be used to migrate onto server platforms. Mr. Beers observed it apparently does not convert the old code. Mr. Savage admitted he was unsure. Senator O’Donnell explained it will not really convert the code, but it will allow the code to work on another box.
Ms. Martin interjected that was correct. She explained it moves the development environment to a PC-based platform. She said it is an IBM product that generates Common Business Oriented Language (COBOL) code, and it is the next step up from CSP (Cross System Product). She said it is designed to work on a PC-based platform, so the intent is to create a development environment that no longer taxes the resources of the mainframe. It could be developed, she said, and then the finished product could be uploaded to the current existing system to work in conjunction with any old code that may exist. She explained it is needed because CSP will no longer be supported and in service. She said extensive research was performed by the employment and training (ET) group regarding a replacement product for CSP, and VAG was the only viable product that was documented and submitted to NOMADS.
E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page DoIT-28
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-276 came about as a request from the department for resources to expand the web development unit and the services it supplies. He directed the committee to a handout (Exhibit E) provided earlier in the meeting, which details each component of the request. He explained the department requested eight positions over the biennium, along with several pieces of equipment.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated the first piece of equipment, listed at the bottom of the first page, requests an intranet web application server in the first year of the biennium at a cost of $35,000. He said the department supplied capacity numbers that support the purchase of the server. He said the next piece of equipment, a multimedia conferencing server, would expand on a current function that has not been indicated as a priority. He said the department identified 65 users for the service, and projected an additional 130 users in the second year of the biennium. He said the statistics presented were insufficient to convince staff to make a conclusive recommendation on the item.
Mr. Rodriguez said the department was requesting five security servers. He declared security is a priority for the department, and it is a critical element for the department’s operations. He stated staff did not recommend any reductions to the request, and if anything it would recommend adding to security. He said the department was requesting two database servers at $40,000 in each year of the biennium, five application servers over the biennium at a cost of $84,000 in the first year and $21,000 in the second year. He explained the information received from the department related to output, without sufficient detail, so staff was unable to make a recommendation.
Mr. Rodriguez said the same problem arose regarding the requests for domain name servers, three web hosting servers, and a web development test server. He added the department requested two e-mail servers at a cost of $140,00 in FY 2002, 3,000 gigabytes of disk storage space at a cost of $63,000, and some web zone switches at a cost of $75,000. He said staff acknowledges there will be an increase in utilization, but staff has been unable to determine how much that will be.
Mr. Beers commented it appeared the agency anticipates adding 45 new applications. He asked what an application is. Mr. Blomstrom responded, “In most cases the application is a database application, which is a web-enabled front-end module. It works into and through the website. However, it is not the website itself.” He explained all of the current seven applications that are running are database search functions of one nature or another. He said that is what this particular machine would host.
Mr. Beers asked whether the department had a list of the 45 new applications projected to come on line. Mr. Blomstrom replied he did not, although seven are already operating. He said there is a list of approximately 22, which have been identified and scheduled, and the projection is based on the fast rise and use of web applications that indicate 45 will be in use by the end of the biennium.
Mr. Beers inquired what kind of review and approval process is in use. Mr. Savage responded when planners deal with an agency they do a business requirements analysis in conjunction with the agency. He said the planners would also make calculations as to what requirements should be used. He said the agencies need to provide the estimates for business needs, but the department does not make an independent verification of their judgment regarding their business needs. He pointed out the department does make an analysis and verification of whether the technical system being proposed is consistent with those needs.
Mr. Beers asked whether the Legislature was being asked for the funding but leaving the decision as to which projects get the resources up to DoIT. He said the Legislature is accustomed to having oversight on the budgetary process, but he indicated he was unable to find where that oversight exists in the budget request. Mr. Savage replied that from a budgetary standpoint it would come in terms of the individual agencies that would pay the bills they were sent from DoIT at the end of each month for web services. He said that is the source of the budgetary dollars.
Mr. Beers asked how many of 22 projects on the backlog are likely to be approved by the Legislature. Mr. Savage responded he assumed most, because the funding all comes from agencies. However, he acknowledged he was not familiar with budgets of the other agencies. He said, “In a sense, it is embedded in the rate model, because all of the expenses to support the web are charged back to some specific agency, in the rate model process. As currently submitted, all of those charges have been built into the individual agency budgets.”
Mr. Beers asked whether the department intended to fund those 22 projects, plus another 23, which are included in the DoIT budget. Mr. Savage replied, “Correct.” Mr. Beers said he still did not see any legislative oversight or prioritization of the projects at a time when the Legislature is facing a significant shortfall. He noted the Legislature might have different priorities regarding the 22 identified projects than DoIT has. Mr. Savage agreed, saying he assumed that the Legislature will see the projects in the course of approving each agency budget, and should any be disapproved, that would be reflected in a revision to the rate model. Mr. Beers commented he did not think that would be so, because the agency budgets come to the Legislature with a line item for DoIT allocations. He said if the funding is included in the DoIT allocation, the legislators do not look at the particular projects. He noted this might be the only opportunity for the legislators to review those 22 projects and approve or disapprove of them.
Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the 22 projects have been identified in the allocation, but the other 23 are not included in any budget as yet. Mr. Blomstrom agreed. Mr. Beers disagreed, offering the opinion they have been identified because the request includes funding for 45 new intranet applications. He explained legislators never see those on the agency side because those come in as part of a line item for DoIT allocation. He noted all the costs are allocated by DoIT. Therefore, he said, there are 23 future applications that may or may not be brought forward that legislators are asked to fund, plus the 22 projects already identified.
Mr. Savage clarified that the expenses proposed are covered by projects that have been identified and folded into the rate model. He said those provide the capacity for the additional projects that are forecast, but which have not been specifically identified as yet.
Mr. Beers queried, “So the development and human resources costs of the 22 projects are in there?” Mr. Savage replied that was correct. Mr. Beers asked, “We may or may not need more people should the other 23 that we are providing the hardware and physical capacity to accommodate actually materialize?” Mr. Savage responded, “That depends on whether they actually do or not. Yes. That would be correct.”
Mr. Beers asked whether the application-development servers were already on the list, and if Mr. Savage would explain them.
Mr. Beers said:
We’re concerned that with three languages, and on that was entitled Crystal, which I assume is a reporting server, and I don’t remember what the fifth one was. But, those are just for application development. I think we’re concerned about a list of projects that would be needed to use those. On the domain-name servers, I’m kind of confused on that one, because most of the state agencies share a common domain-name and are simply subdirectories off the root of that domain named web server, to the best of my knowledge. So, I’m a little confused why we’re maintaining a large number of domain names when most of the domain is, my understanding, would be… most of the hits that come into the state from the outsider asking for some subdirectory of www.state.nv.us, rather than a separate domain.”
Mr. Blomstrom responded his understanding is that there are essentially two domain-name servers for Internet service from the outside. He said one domain name has been placed outside the firewall, and the other domain name server is within the intranet or the internal area, and it is only used internally. He said they are not exactly the same regarding the files and names maintained on both of them. He said beyond that point, Microsoft recommended using redundant boxes for the function for the obvious reason that, if a box fails, there is a problem until the box is repaired.
Noting that he has seen at least nine or ten domain names, and several subdirectories, Mr. Beers declared it would be helpful to see a chart showing how many domain names and subdirectories the state has. He opined most of domain names, perhaps nine of them, should be brought back under the www.state.nv.us umbrella. Mr. Blomstrom agreed. Mr. Savage indicated many will not be registered separately, but in terms of capacity and the ability to identify them, they are separate sites. Mr. Beers, Mr. Blomstrom, and Mr. Savage continued their discussion regarding domain names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
Ms. Martin said:
One of the things that we are currently working on is the capacity‑planning model, similar to the mainframe model, for the Internet. And in working towards that capacity-planning model, we have come to understand a lot of the factors with respect to where you need capacity and when you need additional servers.
One of the reasons is that each time you have an address, you take a resource, so in a sense, although it is not a separate domain name, and it does not cost you a fee to register that name, it takes a resource. And the resource is different than actual www.state.nv.us.
The other thing that can occur is links. Links take resources as well, not when you are actually at the link, but in order to put that moment in time when you are reaching the link.
The other thing that is different is, with the intranet, which would be within the state, if a hypothetical type of project would be if you wanted a state intranet, for instance, the employees or the state of Nevada, that server would take resources and you would want it located inside the firewall, not outside the firewall, the same as the Internet.
Mr. Beers commented that is the explanation for wanting a second domain server. Mr. Savage commented it would depend upon which machine the particular pages are actually located on, and if they are located on different machines that are separately connected, that would have a distinct IP address, even if it had the same domain name as registered. He suggested if the total capacity requires six machines, based on the total storage required, or processing time, the domain name would have six IP addresses associated with it based on the six machines separately connected.
Mr. Beers asked whether one of the two domain-name servers being requested would be for the intranet. He noted there is currently one outside the firewall, but none inside the firewall. Mr. Blomstrom interjected there is one that serves inside the firewall, but it is a split function machine, and the other application should be moved off.
Mr. Beers surmised one machine would take over the intranet service, and the second would be redundant. Mr. Blomstrom confirmed his statement. Mr. Beers asked whether those could be put inside or outside the firewall as circumstances might dictate. Mr. Blomstrom agreed that it could serve either place. Mr. Beers suggested one could be used for development purposes. Mr. Savage commented that one problem for development in general is that development should not be done on a production box. He explained problems occur such as data gets corrupted or machines crash. He said the objective is to meet the practice of keeping development and production on separate machines. In that regard, he said, that concept has driven much of the architecture.
Mr. Beers observed that, given the tenuousness of projections, with many meritorious goals such as redundant servers and separate development servers, the department should be able to get where it needs to go with fewer machines. He suggested they could serve one purpose at specific times, and at other specific times another purpose could be served. He asked whether that would be feasible. Mr. Savage agreed it could be feasible. However, he voiced a preference for cutting back on the application servers and the website-hosting machines, because most of the fuzziness occurs there, rather than attempting “time-sharing.” He explained if those projects do materialize later, with an agency able to fund them, that would be known ahead of time and a request could be made. He said rather than reduce the infrastructure items, including the separation of production and development, it would be more prudent to cut back on the capacity of the system for the actual applications.
Mr. Beers suggested it might be appropriate for DoIT to return with a list of priorities. Mr. Stevens pointed out the DoIT budgets impact nearly every budget in The Executive Budget. He said there are mechanical issues that staff must address that impact all the budgets based on actions taken by the committee. He said if the matter can be concluded, and then a list be presented on the next day, it would be fine. However, he reiterated, time is running out rapidly.
Mr. Beers suggested making a motion to close the equipment part of the budget by losing the multimedia/conferencing server under decision unit 2 on the spreadsheet (Exhibit E), losing the five application development servers under decision unit 5 on the spreadsheet, losing one of the three web hosting servers under decision unit 7, and losing the web development test server under decision unit 8, and giving the department the flexibility to use the machines to fit any purpose described on the spreadsheet.
Mr. Savage pointed out he did not have the same spreadsheet. He asked what fraction that would be of the total equipment. Mr. Beers estimated approximately 40 or 30 percent would be removed. He reiterated it would be important to provide DoIT with the flexibility to use the machines in any of the categories as they see fit. He said his approach endorsed a general reduction rather than any specific task reduction. He noted legislators must make up some “serious money” in the budget.
Mrs. Chowning proposed returning after floor session, which would provide an hour for the committee to look over the proposals. Senator Neal stated he would be willing to come back, especially because he did not agree with the cuts being recommended. Mrs. Chowning suggested the next 10 minutes be used to discuss the positions.
Mr. Rodriguez reported the department requested eight positions, four in each year of the biennium. He drew attention to the first page of Exhibit E showing the request for a CSP III Security Specialist position to coincide with new security equipment purchases, 1 CSP III Web Master, 3 CSP I Web Administrators, 1 CSP III System Engineer, 1 CSP II System Engineer, and 1 Multimedia/Conferencing Specialist. He said staff had the same problem as in the other decision units in that only a forecast of output was provided without a basis to evaluate output. He said the staff was not provided with methodologies or how the numbers were built up. He said the staff can only guess where the outputs will fall, but it cannot say whether one, two, or three positions will be needed.
Senator Neal commented that if the staff is confused as to what needs to be cut, the only recourse is to defer to the agency. Mr. Rodriguez commented the staff has requested the information repeatedly and it has not been provided by DoIT.
Mr. Stevens suggested that if decisions are made on equipment, assumptions could be made on the positions. He said the positions that are requested were based on the equipment to be provided. He pointed out that if equipment is to be cut, positions probably should be cut. Mr. Rodriguez agreed there is a correlation between the positions and the specific equipment.
E-277 Working Environment & Wage – Page DoIT-28
Mr. Rodriguez noted decision unit E-277 goes back to the issue of training. He remembered that training would fall into the higher technology area. He noted the department was requesting funding at 10 percent of the cost of budgeted salaries, which would equate to approximately $261,000 in training funding. He noted the alternative funding for training set out on the last page of the spreadsheet (Exhibit E) shows that 10 percent is at the very top. He said another section shows that 5 to 6 percent would provide a well-trained information technology (IT) staff. He said staff suggested, based on historical performances, that training be funded at the “well-trained” level, which could be found in box 6 on the spreadsheet. He said that would provide $3,000 per FTE, which amounts to approximately 6 percent of budgeted salaries. He added the caveat that should DoIT spend its training funding, it be given authority to go to IFC for additional funding.
Senator Neal asked whether that was connected with decision unit E-276 or the equipment. Mr. Rodriguez responded that it was an independent decision regarding training.
Ms. Martin interjected the cost of one class costs $5,000 in tuition, and $2,000 to $3,000 in travel expenses. She said if the allocation is $3,000 per FTE, then only one out of three employees can be sent to the class. She asked how the determination should be made as to who gets trained, and whether it would be once every 3 years. She asserted the request was not frivolous, but rather it was based on the cost of training. Mr. Savage commented training is the area in which the department has it largest built-up deficit.
Mr. Rodriguez said there was an indication the request was frivolous. He suggested the request should be based on historical performance, and relative to the request it appears to be in excess of what DoIT was able to spend. He added that, based on information provided, this would qualify as being a well-trained IT staff. He said how funding is allocated is a management decision.
Senator Neal asked whether the discussion was to provide $159,000 for training each year. Mr. Rodriguez replied that was recommended in box 6, putting the funding at approximately 6 percent, which is what staff recommended. Mrs. Chowning added that should include the caveat that if DoIT is able to spend the funds, and the funds are maximized, then DoIT could return to IFC.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DECISION UNIT E-277, IN BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1385, RELATIVE TO TRAINING.
SENATOR JACOBSEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DoIT-28
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit E-710 recommends the expenditure of $50,000 in each year of the biennium to replace two of the department’s servers.
Mrs. Chowning noted there were not exceptions to the recommendations. She requested that everyone take a good look at the material so that some units could be closed later. She outlined the particular decision units she wanted the committee to consider. Senator Neal noted the actions taken on decision units in DoIT also would affect most of the other agencies. Mrs. Chowning listed those decision units that should be held and those to be considered. She indicated the technical adjustments in decision unit could be approved,
Senator Neal asked whether the committee was considering that what is done in particular areas not only will affect DoIT, but also all the agencies it is associated with.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-100 ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION; TO DELETE DECISION UNIT M-200; TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-202 WITH THE PURCHASE OF TWO TERABYTES OF DISK STORAGE TO BE REFINANCED OVER A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS; TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-205 BY APPROVING UPGRADES OF FIVE SERVERS AND NOT GIVING APPROVAL TO THE PURCHASE OF THREE SERVERS; TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-206 ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE ONE COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER POSITION AS APPROVED BY THE INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE LAST DECEMBER; TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-207 ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TWO DATABASE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST IV POSITIONS; TO CLOSE DECISION UNIT M-581 ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PURCHASE OF THE VISUAL AID GENERATOR SOFTWARE PACKAGE; TO HOLD DECISION UNIT E-276; TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-710 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNOR; AND TO CLOSE THE REMAINDER OF THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mrs. Chowning pointed out decision unit E-277 had already been closed, and decision unit E-276 was being held.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Data Communication & Technical Services – Budget Page DoIT-31 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1386
E-712 Replacement Equipment – Page DoIT 35
E-713 Replacement Equipment – Page DoIT-35
Mr. Rodriguez reported the staff recommends two technical adjustments in budget account 721-1386. He said one is to delete $60,000 in FY 2002, requested in decision unit E-712, for purchase of two e-mail servers because they have already been purchased. He added decision unit E-713 provides the standard PC cost adjustments.
M-200 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DoIT 32
M-201 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DoIT 33
M-204 Demographics/Caseload Changes – Page DoIT 33
According to Mr. Rodriguez, the department requested $170,004 in FY 2002 and $218,521 in FY 2003 in decision unit M-200 for three new Computer Network Specialist positions. He said the staff has no objection to the request. He indicated decision unit M-201 recommends $45,561 in FY 2002 and $56,147 in FY 2003 for a Computer Network Technician (CNT). He said, again, the request was based on workload projections but very little backup information was supplied, and the staff could not make a firm recommendation. However, he said, there is a Computer Network Technician specialist dedicated to Las Vegas in decision unit M‑200.
Mr. Rodriguez said decision unit M-204 recommends $292,299 in FY 2002 and $126,067 in FY 2003 to purchase additional software and hardware for the SilverNet network system. He stated staff had no exceptions to the decision unit.
E-710 Replacement Equipment – Page DoIT-34
Mr. Rodriguez said the unit recommends $40,000 in FY 2002 and $15,000 in FY 2003 to replace network router equipment, which has reached the end of its useful life. He said staff concurs with the agency and has no exceptions.
E-906 Transfer From Application Design and Development – Page DoIT-36
E-910 Transfer to Secretary of State – Page DoIT-36
Mr. Rodriguez explained decision units E-906 and E-910 relate to transfers. The first transfers a Computer System Technician position from the Application Design and Development to this budget. He noted that is 1 of 3 classified Data Entry Operators coming to this budget account, as already approved by the subcommittee. He noted decision unit E-910 recommends the transfer of a Computer Network Technician from this budget account to the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Chowning commented the only decision unit that is questionable is M-201, because there has been so little information provided. She asked whether the position is needed in Las Vegas. Mr. Rodriguez replied that the agency feels the position is needed, but the staff could not tell whether there is a need for one or more.
Mrs. Chowning asked whether 2 CNT positions are needed in Las Vegas. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the positions in decision units M-200 and M-201 are two different types of positions. He said the Computer Network Specialist position is inappropriately named, and it would more appropriately be called a Digital Communication Specialist. He said that type of position deals with communications, whereas the Computer Network Technician, as requested in decision unit M-201, is a PC technician, who deals with PCs on the desk with servers. He reiterated those are different functions. He said an increasing trend in hours and work order statistics would justify more than one position in Las Vegas for M-201.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO CLOSE ACCORDING TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUT TO PROVIDE TWO CNT POSITIONS FOR LAS VEGAS, ONE IN DECISION UNIT M-200 AND ONE IN UNIT M-201.
MR. PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Telecommunications – Budget Page DoIT-38 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1387
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO CLOSE BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1387 ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
DoIT Communications – Budget Page DoIT-43 (Volume I)
Budget Account 721-1388
Mr. Rodriguez reported there were no technical adjustments recommended, but there is one closing issue in decision unit M-200. He said that recommends $175,742 in FY 2002 and $113,552 in FY 2003 for two Maintenance Repair Specialist positions. He said the department requested the positions, because they are related to the $9.1 million the department is scheduled to receive in “one-shot” funding. He noted there has been talk that the “one-shot” funding would be reduced to one-half, so staff would probably recommend an adjustment to the request.
Mr. Savage commented the maintenance workload will increase if the digital microwave enhancement is pushed off a year, which, he said, is what is being discussed. He said it will be necessary to have the positions to maintain the existing system. He asserted the positions are not tied to the new request. Mr. Beers suggested two positions be provided, whether or not the “one-shot” appropriation is fully funded. He noted there is quite a backlog.
MR. BEERS MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR’S RECOMMENDATION.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
At 11:08 a.m. Mrs. Chowning called for a recess until immediately after the floor sessions. At 12:24 p.m. Mrs. Chowning called the meeting back to order, and requested that committee members turn back to Budget Account 721-1385, decision unit E-276. She noted the staff report could be found on page 13 of the closing list (Exhibit C).
E-276 Working Environment & Wage – Page DoIT-28
Mrs. Chowning asked Mr. Rodriguez to give an update on the discussions held between staff and the agency while committee members attended floor sessions. Mr. Rodriguez referred to the spreadsheet he distributed earlier (Exhibit E) describing the positions and equipment requested. He said staff recommended approval of the first item listed under equipment at the bottom of the first page for an intranet web application server. He said staff and the agency agreed it would be best to delete the second equipment item for a multimedia/conferencing server. He reported agreement was reached that the next two items for security servers and database servers should be retained in the budget.
According to Mr. Rodriguez, agreement was reached to delete all five application development servers as requested under item 5. However, he said, the agency identified cost savings in the current biennium, and deletion of the five development servers is contingent upon approval of allowing the department to buy two servers during the current biennium.
Mr. Rodriguez said the sixth item, requesting two domain name servers for the Internet and the intranet, should be left in the budget request. The staff and agency agreed to delete one of the web-hosting servers and approve two, as requested in item 6, he said. He reported agreement on deleting item 8, a web development test server, but approval of item 9 for two e-mail servers is recommended. He said it was agreed that only half the storage in item 10, a request for 3,000 gigabytes of disk storage, would be sufficient. Finally, he said, the parties approved part of item 11, a request for web zone switches. However, he said, it was determined that only 3 of the 5 requested laptops should be approved.
Mrs. Chowning asked the Department of Information Technology if it was in concurrence with the reported recommendations by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Savage replied the department would like to be able to return to IFC later in the biennium if the requirements materialize and other agencies have budgets that can fund the services and equipment.
Mr. Beers suggested a Letter of Intent should be drafted to address that concern. Mr. Savage agreed that would be fine. Mr. Beers suggested the letter indicate the request was being approved because of the tremendous savings that DoIT has been able to realize for the state.
Mrs. Chowning requested that staff work up a dollar savings amount for the proposals. Mr. Rodriguez said he would present a formal report showing the savings.
Turning to the front of the spreadsheet, Mr. Rodriguez addressed the list of positions requested. He noted the proposal asks for 8 positions. He reported staff and the agency agreed the first request in item 1 for a CSP III Security Specialist position should be left in the budget, as well as the request in item 2 for a CSP III Web Master position.
In item 3, Mr. Rodriguez indicated it was decided to leave in 1 of the 2 CSP I positions requested along with 1 CSP II position, and move 1 CSP II position to FY 2003. He said the CSP III System Engineer requested in item 4 for FY 2003 should be left in the budget, but agreement was reached to delete the CSP II System Engineer position requested in item 5, and the Multimedia/Conferencing Specialist position requested in item 6. Mr. Rodriguez noted the total number of new positions would be four under the agreed upon proposals, three in the first year of the biennium and one in FY 2003. Four positions would be deleted.
Mr. Savage voiced agreement with the recommendations, with the same caveat as with the equipment. He pointed out the uncertainty with the actual growth rate, and requested that approval be given to return to IFC if the growth rate materializes.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO APPROVE DECISION UNIT E-276 OF BUDGET ACCOUNT 721-1385 AS DESCRIBED BY MR. RODRIGUEZ AND AGREED TO BY MR. SAVAGE REGARDING BOTH EQUIPMENT AND POSITIONS, AND INCLUDE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’DONNELL AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
There being no further business to come before the meeting, Mrs. Chowning adjourned the hearing at 12:33 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Mrs. Vonne S. Chowning, Chairman
DATE:
Senator William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
DATE: