Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports
if they are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).
Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and
attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Lopez
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
2-21-07
3-23-07 HB
SHORT TITLE Dept. of Information Technology Act
SB
979/aSPAC/aSFC
/aHHGAC
ANALYST Aubel
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY07
FY08
Transfers appropriations;
exact amount not specified
Transfers appropriations;
exact amount not specified
Non-Recurring General Fund;
Central Telephone Services
Fund*;
Internal Service Fund*;
Educational Technology
Service Fund*
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
REVENUE (dollars in thousands)
Estimated Revenue
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY07
FY08
FY09
($0.01)**
($0.01) Recurring
GSD Other
Revenues*
$0.01
$0.01 Recurring
DOIT Other
Revenues*
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Revenue Decreases)
** See narrative
*See above description of funds.
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)
FY07
FY08
FY09 3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
Total
Unknown Unknown
Recurring
See
narrative
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates to HB 814 and HB 75/HHGACS (SB351/SPACS)
Conflicts with HB 541
Duplicates HB 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC
pg_0002
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
2
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received From
Office of Chief information Officer (OCIO)
Department of Finance Authority (DFA)
General Services Department (GSD)
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
Office of the Attorney General (OAG)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Department of Military Affairs (DMA)
Department of Health (DOH)
New Mexico Higher Education Department (HED)
Department of Corrections (DC)
Public Regulatory Commission (PRC)
Public Education Department (PED)
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HHGAC Amendment
The House Health and Government Affairs Committee amendments include the following
changes:
1.
A new stipulation is added for the three public governor-appointees on the Information
Technology Commission (ITC) that one is from each congressional district; and
2.
The two nonvoting
members representing local government are added back in for the
ITC, with the provision that the members are not from the same or adjacent counties.
As amended, SB 979 now duplicates HB 959, as amended.
Synopsis of SFC Amendment
The Senate Finance Committee Amendment removes the “governor’s consent" requirement for
the Secretary’s appointments of the division directors for the new Department of Information
Technology.
Synopsis of SPAC Amendment
The Senate Public Affairs Committee Amendment to Senate Bill 979 makes two primary
changes, as follows:
Information Technology Commission
The Information Technology Commission (ITC) is increased from 13 to 17 voting members.
The two local government representatives are reclassified as voting members and revised as
governor-appointees, one selected from a list of three names provided by the New Mexico
pg_0003
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
3
Association of Counties and one appointment from a list of three names provided by the New
Mexico Municipal League. The third and fourth additions are two members appointed by the
Governor to represent local telecommunications service providers.
The amendment further clarifies that the two representatives from the national laboratories shall
be appointed by the respective laboratory director.
Communications
The second primary addition to SB 979 adds language requiring an assessment of how the
expansion or upgrade of a state-owned or state-funded telecommunications network – whether
voice, data or video transmission – would potentially affect local telecommunications service
providers and their service ratepayers.
Further revisions clarify the reference to “radio" communications is restricted to “two-way
radio" services and capacity.
Synopsis of Original Bill
Senate Bill 979 repeals Sections 15-1C-1 through 15-1C-12 NMSA 1978 and enacts the
Department of Information Technology Act, which creates the Department of Information
Technology (DOIT) as a cabinet-level department. DOIT would administer all laws and exercise
all functions currently being performed by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO);
the Information Technology Commission (ITC); and the Communications Division (CD),
Information Support Division (ISD), including Radio Communications Bureau (RCB) and the
Telecommunications Bureau of GSD. The stated purpose of the bill is to consolidate enterprise
information technology services duplicated within executive agencies and provide additional
information technology services and functionality to improve and streamline information
technology systems and services.
The new Secretary, appointed by the Governor with consent from the Senate, would serve as the
Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the state.
The proposed department is comprised of three major divisions: Program Support Division,
Compliance and Project Management Division, and Enterprise Services Division. Each division
has an Exempt director appointed by the CIO, with the Governor’s consent.
Section 7 creates the “information technology rate committee", consisting of seven members that
will review and propose the rate and fee schedule by July 15 of each year.
Section 9 re-creates the Information Technology Commission (ITC) (which would be repealed),
retaining the voting structure of 13 members in the current Section 15-1C-4, but updates the
public education representation and adds three nonvoting members: two representing local
government and one representing the office of the attorney general.
The Information Technology Oversight Committee, currently established in Section 15-1C-10
(which would be repealed), is not re-established under SB 979.
Additional “housecleaning" language reconciles provisions in SB 979 to related sections
pg_0004
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
4
elsewhere in enabling statute pertaining to GSD, OCIO, the state police emergency response
officer and emergency management task force, educational technology deficiencies, Amber alert
notification, and juror selection.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
According to DFA, SB 979 would require the transfer of approximately $48.0 million of
budgeted expenditures and 215 FTE from the General Services Department (GSD), along with
all necessary assets and liabilities that currently support the information technology and voice
and data communications functions. The OCIO has 10 FTE and a FY07 budget of
approximately $1.0 million. DFA notes that the most cost-effective means of achieving the
transition would be for the OCIO personnel to move to the Simms building.
Fees for IT and communication services currently going to GSD would flow to DOIT under this
Act. Additional revenue and appropriations fiscal impact is indeterminate at this time, although
GSD asserts that a GSD/OCIO transition cost analysis is being developed.
However, GSD does provide some insight, as follows:
Moving ISD and CD from GSD into a department with the OCIO will require transition
costs for moving, relocation of other departments, reconfiguration of program support
staff and some recurring cost and staff increases to ensure both new departments have
adequate staff, equipment, and on-going expenses. Both departments will need an
accounts receivable and billing system, and there will be some new costs (e.g. housing
outside Simms Building for GSD program support).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
GSD notes that the overarching policy issue this bill addresses relates to the anticipated benefits
(financial and programmatic) of centralizing the policy and operational aspects of the state’s IT
programs, which would include completing the executive strategy of consolidation, providing
overall standards for common uses, reducing duplication of efforts, and aligning IT direction for
executive agencies. Additional significant issues relating to various segments of SB 979 are as
follows:
Chief Information Officer
In addition to standard cabinet secretary duties and powers, GSD specifies that the DOIT
Secretary has a broad range of authority concerning executive branch IT issues, including:
Prepare a state IT strategic plan;
Ensure communication and coordination among executive agencies;
Ensure protection of privacy and security of information and individuals;
Promulgate rules for oversight of IT procurement;
Establish criteria for IT project management; ensuring performance-based phases and
release of funding only when a phase is successfully completed;
Provide oversight and ensure risk management, disaster recovery and business
continuity, including compliance with ITC strategies;
Review and approve agency information technology plans, funding requests,
purchases, Request For Proposals (RFPs) and contracts;
pg_0005
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
5
Develop and implement procedures to standardize data elements, determine data
ownership and ensure data sharing among executive agencies;
Verify compliance with IT architecture and strategic plan;
Report any non-compliance to the Governor, executive agency management, and the
Legislative Finance Committee;
Develop IT cost recovery mechanisms and rate/fee structure for executive agencies as
well as other public or private sector providers and ensure use of existing public or
private IT resources when practical, efficient, effective and financially prudent;
Provide technical support to executive agencies regarding their IT plans;
Review IT appropriation requests and make written recommendations to DFA, LFC,
ITC and “the appropriate interim committee"
Ensure public hearings on issues affecting outside entities with no less than 30-days
prior notice to any interested parties;
Be able to issue orders and instructions to ensure implementation and compliance and
enforce them by court action;
Recommend solutions when agency IT functions or systems overlap or duplicate; and
Provide general oversight, standardization, monitoring and security for IT related
issues.
The OCIO specifies that that Secretary is also given authority to promulgate procedural rules and
set standards for the executive agencies’ information technology needs, functions, systems and
resources, subject to the review and approval
of the ITC and the normal public review process.
The scope of the duties identified for the Secretary is obviously quite extensive. Yet SB 979 does
not include a minimum qualification provision as is currently specified for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer in Section 15-1C-6 NMSA 1978: a “minimum of seven years'
experience in the management of a large information technology enterprise."
GSD questions whether the State Purchasing Agent is removed from the IT procurement process
(Section H (2)), but Section C (2) on page seven clearly specifies that the Secretary approves IT
requests that “proposals and contract vendor requests that are subject to the Procurement Code
."
The OCIO asserts that the DOIT Secretary, as chief security officer, can better manage the state
and security plans. However, no reference to “chief security officer" was found in the Act.
Department of Information Technology
DFA notes that consolidating information technology services was recommended by the
Governor's Performance Review. The report concluded that a new Department of Information
Technology (DOIT) should merge the current strategic planning and agency oversight functions
of the Office of the OCIO with the information processing and communication services provided
of the General Services Department (GSD). The review also suggested that DOIT consolidate
enterprise information technology functions duplicated within agencies, such as project
management, security, privacy, disaster recovery, and infrastructure and strategic planning.
DFA also provides a frank assessment of the current challenges and possible solutions that may
face the new DOIT, as follows:
The information technology function at GSD is in a period of major flux. New rates for
pg_0006
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
6
IT services were developed effective July 1, 2006 without the knowledge of the impact of
SHARE on the need for information processing services. Six months of actual agency
usage data applied to the revised rates indicates that GSD is not recovering its costs for
providing information processing services, because agencies are not using some of the
services at nearly the level of FY06. In the near future, the development of new agency
server-based systems, especially at the Human Services Department, will further reduce
the need for enterprise mainframe services provided by GSD. A more consolidated
approach to providing IT services may help resolve some of the enterprise issues at GSD,
but DOIT will be inheriting problems that it may not currently have the expertise to deal
with.
It will be important for DOIT to be prepared to deal with the historical adversarial
relationship that has occurred between user agencies and GSD. The new Secretary of
DOIT will have to convey to agencies a strong customer service orientation.
Information Technology Rate Committee
SB 979 creates the Information Technology Rate Committee (ITRC), consisting of five members
appointed by the Governor from executive agencies that use information processing services, the
Secretary of DFA, who will serve as committee chair, and the Secretary of DOIT. The
committee shall review and approve the rates for information processing services proposed by
the Secretary of DOIT and receive comment on them from the Office of the Governor, DFA and
LFC. The Act specifies that by July 15 of each year the committee shall implement the
consensus rate schedule for services used. This provision will be extremely useful to agencies
for budgeting purposes, but a clarification could be made to specify that this rate schedule
applies to the next fiscal year.
Several agencies noted that the internal rate-setting protocol does not require the proposed rate
committee to consider a market-based comparison when setting rates. However, without
language compelling agencies to purchase their services through DOIT, the ability for agencies
to select their providers would logically require DOIT to set competitive rates. GSD points out
that moving rate setting from cost-based rates may expose the state to federal claims.
DOH suggested that all agencies acquiring services from the Department of Information
Technology should have service level agreements in place prior to rate setting, which would help
address the cost-recovery issue raised by DFA.
THE AOC notes that the judiciary uses IT- related services including SHARE, digital microwave
communications to courts, internet services, point-to-point telecommunications circuits from
GSD to JID, and other IT services that the state may provide related to accounting, human
resources and other core services that are shared between the executive branch and the judiciary.
Given this relationship, AOC believes that the judiciary should have a voice in the rate-setting
process.
Information Technology Commission
A 13-member Information Technology Commission (ITC) is created: five members appointed by
the governor, one staff member with telecommunications regulatory experience appointed by the
chair of the Public Regulations Committee, two members representing education: one appointed
by the Secretary of Higher Education and the other appointed by the Secretary of Public
pg_0007
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
7
Education, two members from the national laboratories and three members with information
technology and management experience who are not public employees, appointed by the
governor to represent the public. Eight nonvoting members would also sit on the commission:
two members from Judicial Information Systems Council, one member from the Office of the
Attorney General, two members representing local government appointed by the New Mexico
Municipal League and the New Mexico Association of Counties, respectively, one Legislative
Counsel Service (LCS) staff member, one Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) staff member
and the DOIT Secretary as Chief Information Officer.
Some concern has been expressed by local government entities over their lack of voting power
on the committee.
The redefinition of the members of the ITC includes a restriction on members who have a
financial interest in IT companies that could benefit from state contracts, which would avoid any
possible conflict of interest.
GSD maintains that ITC rule-making authority is removed, its ability to hold OCIO, GSD and
agency projects accountable is eliminated, and the new cabinet secretary is vested with both
oversight and implementation authority. Other agencies noted that a centralized IT department
has been successfully adopted in other states.
Communications
NMSA Section 15-5-1 currently authorizes the Telecommunications Bureau of the
Communications Division of GSD to enter into necessary agreements to provide, where feasible,
a central telephone system, including wide-area telephone service, and related facilities to all
executive, legislative, judicial, institutional and other state governmental offices located in New
Mexico.
The OAG notes that this bill would expand the authority of the Secretary of Information
Technology to provide telecommunications services as is necessary to facilitate a state-mandated
program, including distance education, tele-health or school-based health center programs,
services that will presumably reach beyond the offices described in current law.
On the other hand, the state central telephone system limitation, Section 15-2-1, is amended so
the new department shall not provide telecommunications services, including telephone, data and
broadband services, to an entity other than those authorized under Sec. 15-5-1.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
Current statute provides more specificity regarding the agency submission of IT strategic plans,
which raises the issue of plan quality, as well as ultimately the performance of the plan’s
implementation. The OCIO maintains that this language was intentionally dropped in favor of
the Sections D and E (page 9), which leave the form and detail to the rule-making authority of
the Secretary in order to provide flexibility to easily adapt with changes in technology. The
OCIO maintains that embedding the requirements in statute would not provide this flexibility.
DFA suggests that the proposed structure and authority of DOIT should result in closer
coordination between services provided and agency needs, and bring into closer alignment
pg_0008
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
8
individual agency information systems directions with an over-all state plan. DFA also believes
that this direction should help to eliminate redundancy and result in a more efficient and cost-
effective delivery of information processing services. DPS also believes that better coordination
of state-wide IT initiatives will reduce rising costs in the future.
In order to track the performance of DOIT in realizing the expected results from centralizing the
executive IT components into a more enterprise-focused structure, the LFC strongly suggests
that performance measures be adopted according to the Governmental Accountability Act that
will identify and measure at least the five top objectives DOIT envisions it will achieve.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
Section 26 provides for the transfer of functions, personnel, property, contracts required to DOIT
to carry out the Act’s mandates. It should be noted that this transfer provision does not
relate to
the IT divisions of the individual executive agencies other than GSD and the OCIO.
At the time of transferring all agency and program resources to DOIT, the Governor's office and
the State Budget Division shall identify those resources necessary in order to maintain the same
level of service provided to agencies. All IT and communications human resources currently
located at GSD and OCIO will require evaluation to determine how they would fit into the new
DOIT organizational structure. The need for technical and administrative functions at DOIT will
have to be clearly identified. Position reclassifications may be necessary and even though not
called for in SB 979, a portion of the current administrative function at GSD may also need to be
dedicated to DOIT, as well as a portion of the GSD IT staff remain behind to directly support
GSD IT needs.
According to GSD, a transition plan is being developed that will address these issues. Although
the intent of such a plan to promote a "seamless" transition, some administrative impact can be
anticipated from the consolidation of two agencies with differing “corporate cultures", differing
procedures, differing reporting structures, and new or expanded objectives.
SB 979 does not set a deadline for the consolidation of all programs and services, but does
require the Secretary of DOIT to provide the LFC with a plan to provide information technology
services to executive agencies.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
No longer duplicates HB959/aHHGAC/aHAFC, which has two local telecommunication
providers instead of one and does not strike the governor-consent requirement for division
directors’ appointments.
Conflicts with HB 541, which proposes a different structure for the ITC.
Relates to HB 814, which proposes a structured IT equipment replacement plan.
Relates to HB 75/HHGAC Substitute and SB 351/SPAC Substitute (duplicate bills), which
would insert the same prohibitions as included in SB 979 about providing telecommunications
services (telephone, data and broadband) to any political subdivisions of the state, except as
necessary to facilitate state mandated programs (e.g. distance education, tele-health or school-
pg_0009
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
9
based health center programs).
Provisions not in SB 979 but included in HB 75 and SB 351 would require GSD to prepare an
agency plan before expanding or upgrading a state telecommunications network (voice, data or
video) that includes an assessment of the potential impact on local telecommunications service
providers and rate payers. A definition is inserted into the GSD telecommunications bureau that
excludes from “executive, legislative, judicial, institutional and other state governmental offices"
any municipality, county, school district or two-year public post-secondary educational
institutions.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
HED states a concern of multiple authorities over its Education Bureau Chief, which it explains
as follows:
SB 979 amends the public education act (referencing the education technology bureau)
from the Education Tech Bureau Chief and the Council on Technology in Education to
define and develop minimum educational technology adequacy standards to the Council
and the secretary of IT. The Public Education Department has a CIO and as such has
oversight for the departmental IT. The DOIT will also have oversight over the
department’s IT. Hence, the Education Tech Bureau has a bureau chief, an agency CIO, a
council and proposed participation of the Secretary of IT by this bill.
DOH states it technical issue as follows:
House Bill 959, Section 11, Paragraph D states “the injury prevention and emergency
medical services bureau of the public health division of the department of health for
assistance with accidents involving casualties…" The injury prevention and emergency
medical services bureau is within the Epidemiology and Response Division of the
Department of Health.
Administrative Office of the Courts suggests that most sections of the Act clearly specify that
any changes only relate to the executive branch, but maintains that certain sections lack that
qualification. Their suggested amendments are included as part of Attachment 1 (B).
Both NMED and GSD note that SB 979 refers to administratively-attached agencies (Subsection
B), but none are included in the bill. All GSD suggested amendments are included in Attachment
1 (A). NMED’s suggested amendments are included in Attachment 1 (C).
ALTERNATIVES
One option submitted by GSD is to establish a single state infrastructure pursuant to the
executive order without diminishing ITC oversight and without eliminating ITOC.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
The OCIO will continue to have oversight of state operations for information technology and
communications.
GSD will continue with prime responsibility for managing IT operations. Current opportunity
for increasing effectiveness and efficiencies of a consolidated IT system would be lost.
pg_0010
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
10
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
1.
What will the organization structure look like and when will this be determined.
2.
Will qualifications for the Chief Information Officer be defined.
3.
Where will DOIT be located. If at the Simms building, will any GSD personnel be
displaced.
4.
The OCIO maintains that the transition and centralization effort will not create additional
operational budgetary demands. How realistic is this assessment.
5.
Do the current revenues for GSD pay any indirect costs for other programs, such as
Program Support. If so, how will these funds be replaced.
6.
Will a legislative interim committee be created to replace ITOC.
7.
Would it be beneficial to remove language in the telecommunication section relating to
archaic technology, such as “WATS".
8.
How will DOIT coordinate agency IT budgeting, agency IT appropriation requests, IT
replacement schedules, and other IT-related strategies and decisions with the Legislature.
9.
How will the rate structure be assured that it doesn’t over- or under-charge its customers.
MA/mt
pg_0011
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
11
SB 979 – Dept. of Information Technology Act
A. GSD PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Reference
Issue
Resolution
Page 1-6
None
Line 10, after “procurement" add “consistent with the
Procurement Code and rules promulgated there under by the
State Purchasing Division of the General Services
Department".
Line 14, after “price agreements" add “consistent with the
Procurement Code and rules promulgated there under by the
State Purchasing Division of the General Services
Department".
Page 7
State Purchasing
Division is omitted
from IT
procurement
Lines 16 and 17, delete “develop and implement procedures
to standardize data elements, determine data ownership and"
and insert “establish rules and promulgate guidelines and
standards to promote coordinated development and use of
systems solutions among departments and agencies and to "
Line 3, delete “propose" and insert “recommend".
Line 6, after “;" insert “and"
Line 8, after “schedule" insert “and recommendations"
Line 10, after “committee" delete semicolon and insert a
period.
Page 12
Appropriate role of
IT Rate Committee
– authority should
be with secretary;
committee should
review/recommend Line 11, change “(4)" to “C." and capitalize the initial letter
"B"; after the comma delete “implement a" and insert “the
secretary shall implement an equitable".
Pages13-23
None
Communications
engineer reference
is not required
Lines 7 through 15, delete subsection A
Page 24
Conform w/HB 75 Line 22, delete “including" and insert “such as".
Line 22, before the period insert “of information
technology".
Conform service
charge to language
in Section 7 – rate
committee
Line 24, before the period insert “pursuant to Section 7 of
this Act".
Page 26
Include fees for IT
and radio services
Line 24 after “collected" insert “for information technology"
GSD omitted from
property transfer
Line 7, after the comma insert “general services
department".
Page 28
Sec. 19 outdated -
covered in Sec. 18
Lines 13 through 22, delete section 19.
Include in repealer in Section 27, page 38.
Conform outdated Line 5, delete “telephone" and insert “telecommunications".
pg_0012
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
12
Line 5, after “including" insert “voice, radio, video and data
communications".
language using (5)
page 2 definition
of “information
technology"
Line 6, delete “wide-area telephone service".
Page 29
Covered in Sec. 16
– service charge
Lines 12 through 24, delete section 21.
Include in repealer in Section 27, page 38.
Line 5, delete “central telephone" and insert “information
technology".
Line 7, delete “the central telephone system" and insert “a
department information technology service"
Page 30 Conform outdated
language, include
all DOIT services
Line 11, delete “the central telephone system" and insert
“information technology services".
Pages 31-35 None
GSD left out – e.g.
some property,
records, etc will
stay in GSD;
Between lines 1 and 2, insert new subsection A: “The
general services department and the office of the chief
information officer shall analyze and develop a transition
plan to provide for the transfer and redistribution of
functions, personnel, and related assets, liabilities and
contractual obligations from the existing general services
department and office of the chief information officer, as
may be necessary to create the department of information
technology, without impairing the services and business
operations of the programs remaining in the general services
department. The secretary of the general services
department and the chief information officer shall present
this transition plan to the legislative finance committee, to
the office of the governor, and to the department of finance
and administration for review and approval as the basis for
the actual transfer."
Line 2, renumber “A" to “B", and renumber the remaining
subsections. At the beginning of the sentence insert
“Pursuant to the terms and conditions provided in the
approved transition plan," and change the initial “T" to “t".
Line 9, after “department" insert “, and such related program
and administrative support functions as defined in the
transition plan,"
Line 22, after “agencies" insert “or impairing the services
and business operations of the programs remaining in the
general services department".
Page 36
Protect all DOIT
and GSD program
service delivery
Page 37, Line 1, after “program" insert “, as such have been
defined and provided for in the approved transition plan,"
Page 37 Conform C. and D.
to transition plan
Page 37, Lines 2 through 5, delete “The governor’s office
and the state budget division of the department of finance
and administration shall assist in the identification of
personnel, money, appropriations and property to be
transferred and" and insert “The secretaries of the general
pg_0013
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
13
services department and of the department of information
technology shall certify to the office of the governor and to
the state budget division of the department of finance and
administration the integrity of the transition, and ".
Page 38 Add appropriation
based on transition
plan with money
to cover associated
costs for both
Between lines 2 and 3 insert a new section:
“APPROPRIATION.--_______________dollars
($_________) is appropriated from the general fund to the
general services department and ____________dollars
($_________) is appropriated from the general fund to the
department of information technology for expenditure in
fiscal year 2008 to effect one-time and transition costs
necessary to implement the provisions of this act. The
expenditure of these funds shall be made pursuant to the
provisions of the approved transition plan and for no other
purpose. Any unexpended or unencumbered balances
remaining at the end of fiscal year 2008 shall revert to the
general fund."
Section 27 Repeal
of existing statute
eliminates penalty
for non-
compliance and
ITOC.
Line 3, delete “15-1C-12", and insert “15-1C-7 and Section
15-1C-9". Line 4, delete “11", and insert “7 and Section 9".
Lines 5 and 6, delete “Laws 2003, Chapter 49, Section 9 and
Laws 2003, Chapter 308, Section 9, as amended".
Add repealers for
obsolete sections
15-2-8 and 15-5-3
Line 6, after “)", insert “, Section 15-2-8 NMSA 1978
(being Laws 1975, Chapter 214, Section 4, as amended) and
Section 15-5-3 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1963, Chapter
181, Section 3, as amended)
Page 38
Add repealer for
obsolete IS
Council attached
to GSD
On page 38, between lines 2 and 3, insert a new Section 27
to amend Section 9-17-6 NMSA 1978 by deleting
Subsection B.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Section 6, C, 3 (Should say) promulgate rules for oversight of executive branch information
technology procurement;
Section 6, C, 12 (Should say) establish rules to ensure that executive branch information
technology projects satisfy criteria established by the secretary and are phased in with funding
released in phases contingent upon successful completion of the prior phase;
Section 6, C, 13 (Should say) provide oversight of executive branch information technology
projects, including ensuring adequate risk management, disaster recovery and business continuity
pg_0014
Senate Bill 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC – Page
14
practices and monitoring compliance with strategies recommended by the information
technology commission for executive branch information technology projects that impact
multiple agencies; and
Section 6, E, 3 (Should say) protection of the privacy and security of individual information as
well as of individuals using executive branch the state's
information technology systems.
C. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT AMENDMENTS
1.
Consolidate the IT functions and rulemaking functions of the State Records and Archives
under the DOIT so that SRA IT-related rules adhere to the state strategic IT plan and are
more appropriately define technically to ensure such rules are able to be implemented.
2.
Define reporting structure for the state policy emergency officer. SB 979 does not clarify
whether the state police emergency response officer reports to the DOIT or to DPS.
3.
Require that "protocols or reporting structure with the department of information
technology" be at least as robust as those that currently exist and that any transition to a new
protocol is seamless so that emergency response activities are not hampered by either failed
protocols or no protocols at all.