Committee hears experts on state IT consolidation, opens public hearing on House Bill 3,230

The Information Management and Technology Committee convened an informational meeting on Friday, March 7, focused on state IT organizational assessments and models and opened a public hearing on House Bill 3,230, which would direct the state chief information officer to contract with a third party to study how the executive department oversees, manages and uses information technology.

Committee co‑chair Nathanson opened the session and asked staff and witnesses to introduce the topic and the bill. Sean (committee staff) summarized the measure: “an assessment of the as‑is environment, the identification of potential alternatives, a gap analysis, then a plan and report along with a budget to implement the preferred or recommended model,” and said the bill would require the CIO to submit a report to the governor and legislature if enacted.

Why it matters: witnesses from state government, national associations and private advisory firms told the committee a third‑party assessment can produce clearer visibility into enterprise IT spending, cybersecurity posture and options for consolidation or hybrid models. Doug Robinson, executive director of the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, told the committee, “If you’ve seen one state, you’ve seen one state,” to emphasize that operating models vary widely across states and that assessments help tailor recommendations. Todd Kimbrell, vice president and analyst at Gartner, likened reliable IT infrastructure to household plumbing: “When your plumbing works, you never think about it,” underscoring that investments in unseen infrastructure support public services.

Key points from state and agency leaders: Terrence Woods, the state chief information officer, reviewed Oregon’s recent organization and history. He said the office moved telecom and the data center into the CIO’s office in 2015, unified security in 2017, established a chief data officer and chief technology officer in 2017, rebranded to Enterprise Information Services in 2021, and created a chief administrative officer role in 2023 for program management, budget and contracts. Barry Leslie, director of the Department of Administrative Services, described Oregon as largely decentralized across agencies but noted existing enterprise services such as the state data center and shared network functions.

Benefits and risks discussed: witnesses and committee members discussed common rationales for consolidation—reduced redundancy, stronger cybersecurity, software rationalization and potential cost savings through enterprise contracting. They also named risks and barriers: agency resistance to change, procurement practices that slow innovation, political and legal constraints on centralization, and the time and resources required to conduct a credible assessment and follow‑on work.

Market and procurement observations: Robinson and Kimbrell said many states are moving from an owner‑operator model to a CIO‑as‑broker model that uses commercial cloud and managed services. Robinson noted that many state CIO offices now receive some general fund support in addition to chargebacks. Kimbrell described centralized, decentralized and hybrid models and said most states now operate in a hybrid/federated posture; he added that vendors generally favor long‑term relationships and that collapsing multiple agency contracts into statewide agreements can produce better terms.

Public testimony and timeline: Daniel (Dan) Wolf, director of state programs for the Alliance for Digital Innovation, testified remotely in support of HB 3,230 and urged the committee to return a favorable report, saying the bill would help Oregon develop a “North Star” strategy for cloud and modern services. When asked about study length, Wolf advised that the work “depends” on scope but recommended at least six months to perform the study and suggested a realistic full lead time of about 12 to 18 months to select a partner, gather stakeholder input and produce a final report.

State context and numbers: Committee staff (Sean) provided current Oregon figures: just over 2,300 information technology staff distributed across about 50 state agencies, with roughly 250 reporting directly to the state CIO; IT spending captured in committee materials was just under 2% of the all‑funds state budget—about $2.3 billion of an approximately $121 billion all‑funds budget (about 1.8 percent), which aligns with national figures witnesses cited.

Outcome and next steps: The committee conducted the informational session and held a public hearing on HB 3,230; no committee vote or work session was recorded during this meeting. Committee members indicated they would digest the testimony and the bill may require an amendment to set specific dates for the study and reporting, should the committee schedule a work session.