ASLCS - The Journal - LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT of information systems

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT of information systems

By:
Dave Larson
Director of Information Systems
Legislative Services
Kansas

Volume 4, Number 1 Spring 1998

The Issue

"The dominant function of a state legislature is lawmaking. Its secondary function is overseeing executive branch operations." 1 These functions are linked, and "if the legislature fails to oversee effectively, this will weaken its ability to make policy decisions that will safeguard and enhance the public's interests." 2

The task of overseeing electronic information systems is an evolving process, constantly needing review as information technology itself changes.

Most state governments delegate electronic information systems oversight to the executive/administrative branch. While practical, this model also delegates the responsibility for the establishment of information system policy to the executive branch. "The notion that agencies of the executive branch do not make policy decisions, that they merely carry out or implement policy decisions made by the governor or the legislature, is no longer fashionable in the literature of public administration. Scholars today generally believe that agency personnel are involved in the formulation of public policy, not only by contributing to agendas relating to policy, but in the implementation of laws as well." 3

Why Should Legislators Care About Overseeing Electronic Information Systems?
State Governments Rely on Information

State governments acquire and produce vast quantities of information. The collection of data, the conversion of data into information, the storage of information, and the multiple uses to which that information is applied are the main activities of many government employees. These activities are needed in order to govern the people effectively.

State Governments Rely on Information Processing Tools

State government processes have become highly automated. It is impractical to pull the plug on technology and seek to replace it with labor or other tools. Doing so would impair the ability of state governments to function effectively.

State Governments Seek to Improve Their Service Delivery

Nationwide, state governments are embracing the principles of better service delivery. They do this to improve citizen satisfaction, to cope with increasing demands of the citizenry, and to check the growth of bureaucracy. Increasingly, the Federal government hands over responsibility for implementing programs to the state without the accompanying funding. Better information technology tools give states the leverage to achieve these objectives.

Information Systems Cost Money

What legislator doesn't keep a watchful eye on the bottom line of government?

Oversight Is a Legislative Responsibility

Oversight of information technology is not just for the technician. States have information systems in order to provide people, like legislators, with the information they need to make decisions, which in turn affect the citizenry. Information systems help serve the legislator's constituents better, manage resources efficiently, and develop needed products or services.

Legislators perform many roles during their service; such as representative, consensus-builder, manager, and overseer. A legislator generally oversees through one of four types of committees:

1. a committee on appropriation of funding,
2. a committee on governmental organization or structure,
3. a committee on the rules and regulations of state government, or
4. a committee on evaluation or auditing.

Even if a legislator is not a member of one of these committees, he will eventually be asked to vote on these issues when they come before the entire body.

The funding committee must make appropriations based on a review of agency needs and operations. Each budget, including information system budgets, contains critical decisions that may or may not have come to the governor's attention. Nearly every budget contains one or more policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the funding committee. These critical decisions may not be obvious to the casual reader. "This is not to say that the executive branch deliberately conceals this information, rather it is not articulated but should be made known to legislative policy makers." 4

The review of the rules and regulations is also an important oversight role. Rules and regulations express implementation procedures. A legislative review of rules and regulations allows a legislator to judge an agency's compliance with the intent of the legislature.

In some states the state auditor is affiliated with the legislature. Increasingly legislators want to know more about an agency's performance. Often it is not enough to know whether an agency is spending an appropriation in accordance with law. Other questions arise: Are the programs (information systems) accomplishing what they were intended to do? Are the information systems as efficient as possible? What benefit do they provide to the citizens of the state? Such questions are answered in a performance audit. Important differences between legislative intent and agency performance may surface during a performance audit. 5

A performance audit may further measure how well an information system's objectives are being met (effectiveness auditing) and how efficiently an information system is operating (operational auditing).

The role of the legislator is to set the direction of information systems through law and see that the implementation of that direction is carried out via review of appropriations, rules and regulations, and performance.

The Best Oversight Is Done Before the Information System Is Developed or Purchased

There are many issues the legislator must wade through in order to set a direction for state information systems and then monitor its adherence. An important question is: "Who will design the system?" Legislators have a choice whether to participate in the design of the system or to set objectives and delegate its design to others. States are populated with talented, professional staff who are perfectly capable and paid to perform design tasks. The legislator may choose to focus on setting the policy and direction for these staff to follow by asking the questions that ensure the system is carefully planned in accordance with legislative intent. However, the all-important task of setting the ultimate goal, clearly describing the desired outcome, and setting the priorities among competing tasks is the policy-maker's obligation.

Accountability

Accountability is often perceived as lacking in governmental information systems development. An effective oversight program will establish who is accountable. Agencies should be held accountable for identifying priorities, budgeting accurately, and adhering to standards. This means standards must have been established and communicated to the agencies. It further means the budget process must have a way of illuminating technology requests and ensuring those requests are in concert with the direction established by the legislature and governor. Budgets must identify agency priorities and provide indicators to legislators so that they may judge the merits of each request in the context of the other priorities of the state.

Inherent in holding agencies accountable is the obligation to provide them with the training, guidance, and assistance they need to plan and manage information resources.

Public Reaction

Information collected and maintained by government should, with few exceptions, be accessible to the citizens. Technology is a two-edged sword, with potential for great benefits and great abuses. The balance between privacy and access is delicate. Striking this balance is the legislature's task. Technology can now accumulate information into portfolios which were once nearly impossible simply because data was spread across many agencies. To the researcher, this ability is invaluable. To those who wish to guard their privacy, it is a bane. Even if access is allowed, there may be disparities between those able to access information electronically and those without the technological means to avail themselves of the resource, creating a different form of access problem.

Effectiveness and Efficiency

Any oversight effort should also be concerned with effectiveness and efficiency. Perhaps the first question that one might ask is whether the data should be collected at all. If so, who will need it, why, and when? How will it be stored and does this method improve or hinder access? How will the data be checked for accuracy, protected from corruption, and preserved for posterity? What is the goal of the system and does it compliment the mission of the agency? Is the system duplicating efforts already in existence in another agency? If so, why can't the data be collected once and shared?

The utilization of information technology can facilitate the sharing of data. Governments at all levels are cooperating in the development of information systems that share common data. To achieve this level of cooperation, a set of guiding principles is required.

To be useful standards need to be communicated, understood, and followed. They also have the unappealing drawback of stifling innovation when the current standards will not accommodate a new idea. Establishment of guiding principles for information systems may provide a framework that allows for compatibility between information systems and yet is flexible enough to change with time and technological improvements.

The Challenge to Think Differently

It is a fact that today's pace of technological advancement is greater than at any other time in our history. Oversight of information systems requires a measure of adaptability as well.

The task at hand is to think differently about government information systems. Today, "information highways" are being created where data moves to where it is needed. Information systems need to be viewed as investments and not expenses. Just as better roads lead to faster and more efficient delivery of goods, information technology investments are a critical element of the infrastructure of today's economy. Legislators will be asked to consider not just doing the same job faster, but to utilize information technology to do things differently and hopefully better. The task is not only to speed processes but to transform them. Like any proposition placed before a legislature, the decision should be based on sound planning, an evaluation of how the proposal fits into the plan for the state, and an estimate of the return in lower costs or improved service.

Good Planning Is One Thing, Good Management Another

Careful planning within a statewide set of guiding principles, in accordance with legislative and executive intent, is not enough to ensure successful use of information technologies. Management of the implementation and operation of the systems is also required.

There are many questions to ask, yet no one can predict exactly which ones will be necessary in any particular instance. Knowing what to watch out for could be equally helpful.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that governmental agencies have had problems implementing automated information systems. According to the GAO, most problems are not caused by lack of regulations, policies, or procedures, but by the following:

1. Agency needs are not clearly identified, leading to inadequate definition of requirements.
2. Alternative approaches are not considered; too frequently, agencies seek unique solutions for common application needs.
3. Problems in software development or system configuration are often deferred to the next development phase and are not addressed before moving on.
4. Determinations of system needs and requirements continuously change, leading to cost overruns and schedule delays.
5. Top managers and congressional leaders are not always provided with accurate cost and schedule estimates.
6. Managers are frequently reluctant to make tough decisions to terminate a poor development effort; instead, they choose to spend additional funds in an attempt to solve problems.
7. Program management responsibility frequently changes and is often poorly defined.
8. Top agency management is not adequately involved in the system development. 6

Are There Any Models?

Every state manages information technology in some manner. A survey report by the Council of State Governments categorizes state efforts into three models: the independent agency, cabinet level, or department level. 7

The independent agency model has the advantage of concentrating planning and policy in an independent information policy body. Often these organizations are commissions or boards of appointed individuals from both government and the private sector. Its independent status helps the agency to tone down the political influences, serve as a forum for resolving issues, and develop a broad perspective of needs. The drawbacks to this model are the potential for becoming a bureaucratic barrier and the requirement of a high level of cooperation with the other agencies of state government.

The cabinet level model has the ability to coordinate planning at a level to ensure that the information strategy is working toward state goals. Its disadvantages are the potential for political influence and bad technical decisions.

The department level model can be very effective in addressing multidepartmental issues, such as providing specialized training and exploring innovative technologies for service delivery, which promote greater efficiency. Critics of the departmental model claim that it can be detrimental to innovative ideas and can create too much paperwork. The departmental model may also create conflicts of interest. 8

The Council's report offers this advice: "In choosing a structure for a particular state, several things should be taken into consideration: The political culture or history of the state - how the state is organized and why; the history and present status of information resources in the state; and, the purpose or mission expected of the information policy organization."

The rise of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) is another response to the need for statewide information systems management. The creation of a powerful state officer who manages the implementation and application of state policy is increasingly common. This position, frequently housed in the governor's office or in the governor's cabinet, is staffed by a professional technology manager. From this level, the CIO is able to implement policy across agencies and affect the desires of the legislature and the governor for efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and monitoring.

Kansas Example

Several years ago, the state legislature in Kansas established in law the Joint Committee on Computers and Telecommunications. This committee is composed of six members, one each appointed by the Senate President, Senate Ways and Means Committee chairman (Senate appropriations committee), Senate Minority Leader, Speaker of the House, House Appropriations Committee chairman, and the House Minority Leader.

The Kansas committee is unique in its direct influence on the funding of information technology ventures through its guaranteed overlapping membership on both the technology and appropriations committees. Recently, the management of Kansas information systems has evolved to include an executive committee and a CIO position, reflecting the ever-changing response of legislative oversight to the evolving nature of information technologies.

Regardless of how it is accomplished, it is important that state legislatures take interest in the oversight of information systems. Without legislative participation, the policies will be made by the governor, the executive branch agencies, or by happenstance - but they will be made. It is wholly appropriate that legislatures take the initiative as those responsible for the oversight of government by setting the policies on information systems, by setting the criteria by which state government can plan for information systems; by setting the rules by which information systems will be judged, and by defining where the state is now, where it should be going, and how that transition will occur.

Credits:

1 Harder, Marvin, Introducing the Kansas Legislature, Capitol Complex Center, Topeka, KS, 1986.

2 Harder, Marvin A., and Davis, Raymond G., The Legislature as an Organization, The Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 1979.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Hinton, Barb, Deputy Post Auditor, in testimony before the Kansas House Committee on Computers, Communications and Technology, February 20, 1991, citing the General Accounting Office.

7 State Information Resource Commissions Backgrounder Paper, The Council of State Governments and the National Association of State Directors of Administration and General Services, 1991.

8 Ibid.

For more information about ASLCS, write or call:

Joan Barilla
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Phone: 303/856-1349
FAX: 303/364-7800
E-mail: joan.barilla@ncsl.org