House committee debates stricter reporting, public dashboard for ADS IT projects

The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Thursday, Feb. 20 reviewed draft DR250896, version 1.3, a bill that would require the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) to publish more detailed public reporting on state information-technology projects and maintain a public “project dashboard.”

Committee members focused on three central questions: which projects must appear on the dashboard, how much historical revision history the public report should include, and whether the dashboard or an annual report should carry the bulk of the detail. Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Counsel read proposed language that would require “the agency shall maintain a project dashboard on its publicly accessible website that provides status of all current information technology projects with a total estimated cost of $500,000 or greater.”

The bill’s drafters proposed two separate public products: a dynamic “current projects” dashboard showing planning and operational projects (with fields such as agency, project name, estimated and current start/completion dates, original and current cost, timestamps and explanations for changes), and a separate “completed projects” dashboard that would show final costs and completion dates. Segal said the draft also contemplates an annual report that could carry a fuller, longitudinal record of changes.

Committee members raised several concerns and alternatives. Representative Southworth asked how multiyear projects would be treated, noting many projects will not have final goals met within a single year. Lisa Dobbin, a JFO IT consultant, said project charters typically hold project goals but that charters “are usually not posted public publicly.”

A deputy auditor advised the committee to clarify the universe of projects covered. “You wouldn't wanna have ADS interpret this to be like a, you know, a laptop replacement or, you know, some de minimis activity,” the deputy auditor said, recommending the statute narrow coverage to projects managed by the EPMO or projects receiving direct appropriations so routine operational purchases are not swept in.

Members debated the draft’s $500,000 cutoff. Some said smaller, cumulative projects can add up and are useful to see; others worried that including everything would be overly burdensome. The committee discussed keeping the dashboard simple and putting richer, longitudinal detail in the annual report (or in linked, downloadable data). Several members asked for an archive or a requirement that project revisions be recorded so the committee can see the “missing middle” — intermediate cost or schedule changes over time — rather than only original and current values.

On process, committee members agreed to solicit ADS feedback on feasibility and format before finalizing statutory language. Representative Kathleen James said she had already shared the draft with Secretary Riley Hughes of ADS and that staff would invite ADS to comment. Rick Segal said he would prepare a revised draft; Lisa Dobbin agreed to reach out to Secretary Riley Hughes. Segal indicated a follow-up draft could be ready the next day and the committee discussed an effective date of July 1 for any enacted requirements.

No formal motion or vote occurred during the meeting. Instead, members asked staff to refine the draft language — including clearer definitions of “current” projects (active, inactive, canceled or completed), whether the threshold should be lowered or replaced by an EPMO/direct-appropriation trigger, and how many years of completed-project history to display (members suggested options such as a rolling five-year archive). The committee plans to reconvene with ADS or its representatives to test feasibility and settle the data fields and publication cadence.

The discussion emphasized oversight and transparency goals: members repeatedly cited the need to see project histories longitudinally so that a project that appears “green” in a snapshot cannot mask large cost increases over time. Several members asked for a low-technology fallback (a periodically updated spreadsheet or simple web form) if the existing ADS tooling cannot provide a fully interactive dashboard immediately.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will circulate the revised draft to ADS and solicit technical feedback; Rick Segal will produce an updated bill text; Lisa Dobbin will contact Secretary Riley Hughes for ADS input. The committee did not adopt the bill or set a final rollout timeline pending ADS response.