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 Varela

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2-21-07

3-15-07 HB 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC

SHORT TITLE Dept. of Information Technology Act

SB

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.

Duplicates SB 979/aSPAC/aSFC/aHHGAC

Relates to HB 814 and HB 75/HHGACS (SB351/SPACS)

Conflicts with HB 541

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – 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 SFC Amendment

The Senate Finance Committee amendments include the following three changes:

1.

The Secretary’s appointments for the new department’s division directors are no longer

subject to the governor’s approval;

2.

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

3.

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.

HB

959, as now amended, differs from SB

979 regarding the ITC changes in #2 and #3 above.

Synopsis of HAFC Amendment

The House Appropriations and Finance Committee Amendment increase the number of members

on the Information Technology Commission (ITC) to 17 by adding one additional local

telecommunications service provider to be appointed by the governor. The Amendment also

removes the “number of lines" qualification for the members representing local

telecommunications service providers.

Synopsis of HHGAC Amendment

The House Health and Government Affairs Committee amendment to House Bill 959 makes two

primary changes, as follows:

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

3

Information Technology Commission

The Information Technology Commission (ITC) is increased from 13 to 16 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

Association of Counties and one appointment from a list of three names provided by the New

Mexico Municipal League. The third addition is one member appointed by the Governor to

represent local telecommunications service providers that have less than fifty thousand lines in

the state.

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 HB 959 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

House Bill 959 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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

4

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 HB 959.

Additional “housecleaning" language reconciles provisions in HB 959 to related sections

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, HB 959 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 HB 959 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;

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

5

•

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;

•

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 HB 959

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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

6

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

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

HB 959 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.

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

7

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

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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

8

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

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 HB 959, 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.

HB 959 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

Duplicates SB 979.

Conflicts with HB 541, which proposes a different structure for the ITC.

Relates to HB 814, which proposes a structured IT equipment replacement plan.

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

9

Relates to HB 75/HHGAC Substitute and SB 351/SPAC Substitute (duplicate bills), which

would insert the same prohibitions as included in HB 959 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-

based health center programs).

Provisions not in HB 959 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:

HB 959 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 HB 959 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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

10

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.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

Will qualifications for the Chief Information Officer be required.

2.

Where will DOIT be located. If at the Simms building, will any GSD personnel be

displaced.

3.

The OCIO maintains that the transition and centralization effort will not create additional

operational budgetary demands. How realistic is this assessment.

4.

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.

5.

Will a legislative interim committee be created to replace ITOC.

6.

Would it be beneficial to remove language in the telecommunication section relating to

archaic technology, such as “WATS".

7.

How will DOIT coordinate agency IT budgeting, agency IT appropriation requests, IT

replacement schedules, and other IT-related strategies and decisions with the Legislature.

8.

How will the rate structure be assured that it doesn’t over- or under-charge its customers.

ATTACHMENT

MA/nt:csd:mt

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

11

ATTACHMENT

HB 959 – 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.

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

12

Line 5, delete “telephone" and insert “telecommunications".

Line 5, after “including" insert “voice, radio, video and data

communications".

Conform outdated

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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – Page

13

transferred and" and insert “The secretaries of the general

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

House Bill 959/aHHGAC/aHAFC/aSFC – 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. HB 959 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 be seamless so that emergency response activities are not hampered by either failed

protocols or no protocols at all.