Legislators question JITOC’s role after budget language requires committee sign‑off for $40M in IT modernization funds

Maria Royal of the Legislative Council told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday, April 2, that the joint interim oversight body created to review state information technology investments—the Joint Information Technology Committee (JITOC) established in statute—has an unclear relationship to standing committees and that required JITOC approvals for some technology modernization releases are not readily documented.

Royal, briefing members in the committee’s interim meeting, said the statute creating the committee is codified at 2 V.S.A. §614 and that the committee was created to "oversee, evaluate, and make recommendations" on the state's deployment and governance of information technology. The JITOC membership is defined in statute as six legislators (three members appointed from the House and three from the Senate, not all from the same political party), and the committee elects a chair and vice chair; the chairship rotates biannually between the chambers.

Royal and committee members reviewed recent budget language in which a $40,000,000 technology modernization appropriation (identified in session law as a technology modernization fund) was divided among specific projects and required JITOC review prior to release. The budgeted allocations listed in the session language include: $11.8 million for an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system upgrade, $1.8 million for a workplace information management system (WIMS), $9.6 million for a fire safety system modernization, $2.2 million for a case management system for the attorney general's office, $20.25 million for the DMV core system phase 2 and $2.3 million for Department of Labor unemployment insurance modernization.

Royal told members she could find committee records showing JITOC approved the $11.8 million ERP release and that the unemployment insurance funds had been approved, but she said she could not find documented approvals for the other allocations required under the session language. "The money's been appropriated... the strange thing is that on these occasions, it's been appropriated however, JITOC has to ... review it before it's released," Royal said. Committee members raised concerns that the statutory language and the budgetary requirement are not producing a clear, auditable record of approvals.

Members discussed the committee’s meeting rules (a majority is a quorum; the committee may meet when the General Assembly is not in session or at the call of the chair) and the practical continuity problem posed by legislative turnover between sessions. Several legislators asked whether membership should be drawn in a way that guarantees participation by members from standing committees with direct jurisdiction over relevant programs (for example, appropriations or judiciary). Senator Brock and Representative Scott Campbell were mentioned as members or former members in the course of the discussion.

The Legislative Council noted that JITOC has also received reports from the judiciary about a shrinking technology fee fund (court technology receipts) and that JITOC recommended that the committees of jurisdiction consider whether to provide more permanent support to the judiciary's tech fund. Royal said that JITOC had voted to transmit a memo urging the committees of jurisdiction to consider the judiciary’s request.

Committee members and staff discussed options to clarify statutory language, membership, reporting expectations and the relationship between JITOC and standing committees to reduce fragmentation and improve auditable oversight of large expenditures. They also noted related statutes and administrative units lawmakers should be aware of, including Title 3, Chapter 69 (which establishes a division of artificial intelligence within the Agency of Digital Services and reporting duties for AI systems used by state government).

Ending: Committee members agreed to follow up on the recordkeeping and statutory‑language questions and to coordinate further with Legislative Council and JITOC members so that pending releases tied to legislative appropriations have clear review and documentation requirements.