Committee Hears Bill to Rename CIO Office, Change Title and Classification Rules

Senate government affairs opened a hearing on Senate Bill 12, a measure that would change the Office of the Chief Information Officerwithin the governor's office to the Governor's Technology Office and revise related titles and organizational structure.

The bill seeks to standardize unit names (administration becomes the Director's Office; operational units become divisions), to clarify the title of the information security leader as a deputy, and to move certain statutory references to align with the office's organizational changes. The bill also proposes converting the deputy chief of the Office of Information Security from classified to unclassified service, with a provision that the current incumbent remain in classified service "until he or she vacates" the position. Timothy Galuzzi, the State Chief Information Officer, introduced the bill and said, "My agency stands apart from the rest as the only 1 that is named after the principal leader that is not elected by Nevadans." He told the committee the chosen name, the Governor's Technology Office or GTO, "demonstrates alignment with the Governor's Finance Office or GFO as a strategic partner for all executive branch agencies who leverage our enterprise technology services."

Why it matters: supporters said the change removes an unusual naming mismatch, aligns internal organization with similar state entities, and clarifies statutory references. The classification shift prompted detailed questions from senators about employee protections, pay and parity. Heidi Clarkson of the Legislative Counsel Bureau explained the bill's timing and the transition clause: "section 31 of the bill ... clarifies that the person who is currently the incumbent in that position, Deputy Chief, as of 07/01/2025, which is the effective date of this bill, must remain in the classified service until he or she vacates that position because that position is currently a classified position." She added that the incumbent retains due-process rights afforded by classified service.

Senators sought specifics about the practical effects. Senator Daley asked what "vacate" means and whether an incumbent could be removed; Galuzzi and Clarkson said the wording is intended to preserve protections for the current incumbent until they leave the job by promotion, retirement or other vacancy. Senator Neal questioned whether the change would make deputies more "easily fired." Galuzzi replied the proposal is aimed at parity: other deputies in the office are unclassified, and converting the information security deputy when the position is next vacated would align classifications across the leadership team. He said unclassified status can provide greater pay flexibility to recruit and retain senior talent.

On costs and executive support, Galuzzi told the committee a small governor's recommended budget decision unit already includes funds for rebranding (business cards, letterhead) and that amount is nominal, "I believe it is in the $1,600 range," and that the change had been vetted by the governor's office. Nick Schneider, Director of Government Affairs for the Vegas Chamber, testified in support: "We're in support of this change of nomenclature to better align with the GFO as far as the IT function oversight that this department will cover."

No vote was recorded at the hearing; the bill was presented and opened for public testimony and committee questions.

The committee record shows the bill includes several cross-statutory edits and an explicit clause reserving the current deputy information security incumbent's classified status until the position is vacated. Galuzzi said the office will work with Legislative Counsel and Human Resource Management if classification-study results require further alignment.

Looking ahead: committee members indicated further review and possible amendments could follow, particularly around classification timing and pay parity.