On July 20, Representative Reuven Carlyle took a bold stance against the successful lobbying done by the Washington State Department of Information Services.
I agree with Representative Carlyle’s view on state agency lobbying. In this case, DIS has put forth an effort independent of public interest, self-serving for the future longevity of IT bureaucracy. “Perhaps it is bad politics to point out that the Democratically-controlled Legislature and Governor have gone along after years of lobbying by the agency with a decision that is really only in the agency’s own best interests, but in my view it’s the truth of the matter.” Representative Carlyle stated in his blog entry posted on July 21.
Representative Carlyle joined forces with Representative Hans Dunshee in a letter to Governor Christine Gregoire expressing opposition to a new $300 million data center for the Department of Information Services. “The institutional infrastructure of bureaucracy in Olympia is enthralled with this plan–a modern, new data center consolidating their old systems blocks from the Capitol Campus.”
July 20, 2009
Honorable Chris Gregoire
Governor
State of Washington
Legislative Building
Olympia, WA 98504
Dear Governor:
Recently we spent considerable time reviewing the financial and technical materials provided by the Department of Information Services to make the case for the state’s new data center.
Upon review of the material, we are deeply troubled by the weakness of the technical and financial support
behind this decision, and fear the state is potentially making a $300 million mistake that will haunt us for decades to come. The lack of an independent, quality, detailed, technically-oriented business case is deeply troubling. We strongly encourage you to formally review this decision before bonds are sold in the coming days.
There are essentially four main strategic options for the state.
1. Utilize cloud services from commercial providers such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon or others as many
companies and governments are doing today.
2. Purchase state-owned computing equipment, but locate it in one or more commercial data centers, such as
those located throughout the state by a number of providers.
3. Build a state owned data center, but locate it somewhere other than Olympia—a place where total cost of
ownership including land, energy, labor and infrastructure is less expensive and where geographic diversity
provides system reliability.
4. Build a state owned and operated data center on the Capitol Campus. A compelling case can be made that the DIS staff decision—which appears to have been made without formal ISB approval or independent financial analysis—to select number four is seriously flawed. We acknowledge the years of hard work, discussion and review and do not mean to imply that there is not great thought behind this decision. Yet tactically a vast majority of the financial and technical analysis is limited to options 3 and 4 whereas the larger technology strategy question—and the public policy issues—are driven by options 1 and 2.
We also respect and, in fact, fully appreciate that option 4 is unquestionably in the best interests of the current agency since employees wish to retain IT jobs and remain in Olympia in a modern, consolidated, conveniently-located building.
The DIS business case fails to seriously explore the larger strategic question facing government technology today: How best to efficiently and effectively move away from hardware-centric, expensive, proprietary, silos of data trapped in old databases to open, transparent, flexible, accessible, customer-oriented applications available via the Internet? This massive investment of public dollars will not materially improve public services for citizens. It is unlikely to substantially save costs for taxpayers. It will not ensure a higher quality disaster recovery response.
Public sector IT experts predict that within just a few years up to 50% of government agencies nationwide will outsource most data to the cloud. Washington is home to many of the leading providers of this rapidly evolving commodity service where improved security, disaster recovery and lower costs are being driven by almost universal adoption by both the public and private sectors. Still, our own state government has yet to move in this direction in any material way. We are troubled that option 1 is covered in just over one page in the agency’s analysis and is dismissed outright without technical or financial support.
We applaud you for hiring Tony Tortorice. He has been gracious and responsive and we are impressed with his conviction for his new role and for this monumental project. He clearly has deep and impressive technical knowledge. We look forward to learning from him for many years to come. However, given the magnitude of the cost to taxpayers, the lack of an independent, technical, second opinion and the lack of comparative data for all of the options, we encourage you in the strongest way possible to postpone the imminent sale of the bonds and review this decision. We encourage you to seek outside counsel on this major decision.
We are speaking out because we feel a fiduciary obligation to let you know, directly and personally, that we
believe this decision is fundamentally inconsistent with the technical, financial and strategic direction of public and private sector innovators worldwide. We believe this decision, if allowed to stand, will one day be deeply regretted.
Our best personal regards and deepest respect,
Rep. Hans Dunshee Rep. Reuven M. Carlyle
Chair, Capital Budget Committee 36th Legislative District
44th Legislative District
copy:
Speaker Frank Chopp
Senator Lisa Brown
