Dear Secretary Hood:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1494, enacted during the 37th Session of the Legislature of Florida convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2005, and entitled:
An act relating to information technology management . . .
The State Technology Office was established in 2001 as a self-funded, centralized technology office with an emphasis on setting statewide information technology policy and supporting my vision for leveraging technology to enable an enterprise approach to managing information technology. This enterprise approach is intended to centralize information technology management by eliminating agency silos that have proven ineffective and wasteful. Since its creation, the State Technology Office has made progress with regard to enterprise project oversight and information technology management. Recent actions to cancel deficient contracts and redevelop relationships with agencies have been effective. Its oversight and centralized approach is in strong support of my vision for a smaller, more efficient government.
State government presents a very unique and complex business environment and continues to present a difficult challenge. Thus, while the State Technology Office has worked to build consensus for enterprise information technology governance and to provide a sound model for providing information technology services to government entities, its efforts have been slow to gain acceptance. Our environment is naturally resistant to change. Agencies struggle for control of their resources and attempts to centrally manage systems and resources often incite posturing by agencies to avoid losing valuable resources. The State Technology Office has worked hard to overcome these challenges by working as a partner in information technology related matters.
Dissatisfaction with progress so far does not justify legislating the State Technology Office out of existence, which is what Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1494 effectively does. I am fundamentally opposed to a number of the bill's key premises and provisions.
First, the bill represents a paradigm shift, abandoning the enterprise approach to managing the State's technology investments and retreating toward a "stovepipe" technology management system in which each agency develops its own internal information technology governance processes. Instead of focused, enterprise planning, the bill requires agencies to utilize available resources to develop an information technology portfolio management process and project management methodology. These activities, while useful, would be very difficult to coordinate among the agencies and could result in a multitude of incompatible information technology management models. The bill does not define an enterprise-level management process to oversee the agencies.
Creation of an agency-centric, stovepipe approach to managing information technology is detrimental to the State and its citizens because it would preclude any efficiencies that could be realized through enterprise-wide consolidation and coordination of information technology resources. Second, the bill diminishes the executive's ability to properly organize, oversee and manage information technology projects. While the bill replaces the State Technology Office with the Florida Technology Council within the Department of Management Services and grants authority for the Governor to appoint a State Chief Information Officer as head of the Council, it diminishes the State Chief Information Officer's authority, removing the Chief Information Officer's agency head status. The bill authorizes $2 million for the Florida Technology Council, but it grants the Council minimal oversight regarding project management -- a function that is crucial to the success of the significant technology projects that are ongoing and planned.
In addition, while the Council is authorized to develop an agency model for information technology investment, the bill fails to grant the Council the authority to mandate the process as an enterprise-wide policy. It does not include provisions granting the Council any authority for the oversight and project management of agency information technology contracts. Large scale, high stakes projects will be left unchecked and may quickly become problematic.
The bill, therefore, limits the executive branch's ability to oversee agency information technology projects by making the State Chief Information Officer, an officer appointed by the Governor, subservient to agencies.
Third, the bill's reinvented stovepipe approach is riddled with more bureaucratic complexity than existed before the State Technology Office was created. For example, the bill requires the Council to perform its duties in consultation with the Agency Chief Information Officers Council and the Technology Review Workgroup and requires the Council to obtain the approval of the Agency Chief Information Officers Council for each of its deliverables. For the reasons enumerated above, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1494, and do hereby veto the same.
Sincerely, Jeb Bush
