House committee OKs ADS redline, seeks original schedule and cost columns on public IT dashboard

Representative Kathleen James, chair of the House Energy Digital Infrastructure Committee, presided over a committee markup on bill 250896 on Thursday, Feb. 27, focusing on transparency requirements for the Agency of Digital Services(ADS).

The committee reviewed an ADS-proposed redline of the draft that would replace much of the committee's original language with ADS wording for a public dashboard and an annual report. James said the discussion was urgent because the committee was scheduled to vote the next day: "This is an important committee meeting" and "I think that my sense of the room is that everybody's good with that. Hey. Thanks, mister Myers. Thanks, everybody," concluding that the bill was likely to be voted on at "01:30PM" the following day.

Committee members agreed in principle to adopt the ADS draft language but pressed to restore or clarify several items they said are essential for legislative oversight: an explicit focus on information about projects throughout the project life cycle, a requirement that the dashboard include indicators showing whether a project is on time and on budget, and columns capturing original (initial) estimates so the public and legislators can see change over time.

Why it matters: committee members said the bill is meant to create a persistent public record so future legislatures and the public can assess how state IT projects progress against their original goals and budgets. Several members argued that without original estimates and clear indicators, the dashboard could mislead users about whether a project is truly delayed or overbudget.

Key points from the markup

- Scope and purpose wording: Committee members agreed to broaden the bill's purpose language from a reference to a "dashboard" to a requirement for publicly available information about information-technology projects "throughout the project life cycle," and discussed adding an intent (session law) statement to record legislative intent for future reference.

- Content required on the dashboard: The committee asked ADS to include: project name, project start date, implementation start date (to distinguish planning from execution), initial (original) estimated completion date, current estimated completion date, initial estimated implementation cost, current estimated implementation cost, and clear indicators explaining whether a project is on time or on budget. Representatives repeatedly emphasized adding the "original" or "initial" estimated completion and cost so changes over time are visible.

- Business case and life-cycle costs: The committee discussed language requiring a "business case including life-cycle costs and staffing costs when provided and available by the partner department or agency." Members noted that some agencies do not separately account personnel costs by project, so the bill should request such costs "when provided and available."

- Thresholds and completed-projects view: The ADS draft removed a $500,000 threshold that the committee had previously considered; members noted the ADS language would cover more projects. The committee also agreed to remove a separate public "completed projects" dashboard and rely on the annual report for completed-project summaries.

- Update frequency and data access: ADS proposed updating the dashboard monthly; the committee accepted monthly updates (ADS currently updates weekly). Committee members also discussed the practical need to allow data download (for example, an Excel export) so legislators can run their own analyses, and asked ADS to preserve the "current" estimated completion and cost fields in addition to the initial values.

- Definitions and practicality: Members and ADS staff discussed how to define "start date" (planning start vs. implementation/contract start) and where definitions or explanatory hover text should appear on the dashboard. ADS staff cautioned that the dashboard has limited physical space and suggested hover text or an explanatory key rather than packing many literal column headings. The committee asked ADS to try to fit an original estimated completion column and to use hover text to explain terms.

- Timing: Committee staff said they would circulate a cleaned, word‑smith draft of the ADS redline and that the committee was slated to vote the next day at 1:30 p.m. No formal vote took place during the Feb. 27 session.

Quotes (from meeting participants)

"This is an important committee meeting," Representative Kathleen James said while explaining the timetable and the expected vote the next day.

"No. Updated draft. Same as last time, but, I understood that you wanted to go over the EDS proposal and see how you wanted to what you wanted to bring over to the committee draft," Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Council said when discussing the draft versions on screen.

For the record, Lisa Goughlin introduced herself as a JFO IT consultant and took part in questions about dates, phases and what the dashboard currently shows.

Ending

The committee accepted most ADS drafting changes as a starting point but instructed staff to add or restore language for original-estimate fields, on-time/on-budget indicators, and business-case life-cycle costs "when provided and available." Staff said a revised clean draft would be circulated quickly and the committee was scheduled to vote on the bill the following day at 1:30 p.m. No formal action was recorded in the Feb. 27 transcript.