Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration and General Government

For those who wish to provide public via teleconference, the toll free number and access code is posted on the Committee website and I will provide that as well here, which is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 71778. Of course, as we welcome all participation, we remind everyone that we need to maintain decorum both here and remotely. If that gets out of hand, we will turn off folks access to the hearing and ability to participate.

We will take up public comment following the items that are docketed for discussion. So let's establish a quorum. The consultant, please call a roll calling. Senators Caballero here. Senators Bolian present. Senator Neela here. Quorum is established. Thank you very much. We're picking up the items that are docketed for discussion today. I'm going to first recognize Members for any opening comments. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that as we start, we've met a couple of times to go over budget items, and I heard the Governor loud and clear in regards to a status quo budget and to do the things that we've been doing for a long time, but basically not to do anything new. And I know that in the last legislative session we added to the workload of many of the departments.

And so we have to be sensitive to the fact that we ourselves asked for some work to be done. But beyond that, I want to be very clear that I'm very, very concerned with the amount of new staff that's being requested and additional resources in the budget that to me look like they go way beyond what the minimum the Governor was talking about.

So I know that these BCPs go through the governor's office and I know they review them very carefully, but from where I sit, I'm really concerned about it. If we are in a status quo budget, then we ought to be looking at kind of status quo activity. I needed to get that out because I'm going to end up supporting some things because there hasn't been that kind of warning, if you will.

But I'm one of the few, as my good colleague from Sacramento has said in the past, we both were here during the days that we cut everything that was important in the state. We cut education, we cut health services, we cut everything. And I know that we've worked really hard to increase our reserves, but I also want to make very sure that we're not adding staff at a time when we don't know if the budget is going to continue.

I'm an optimist, so I keep telling people I think it's going to get better this year as the year rolls on. But if it doesn't, and did I know we'd be dealing with floods when we started in January? No. Did I know that hospitals were going to go down the toilet and I'd be asking the Governor for $1.6 billion in order to keep the seven or eight hospitals that are teetering on the verge and seven or eight next year that will be following? No.

And so I think there's just a lot of uncertainties. I want to get that off my chest. It will, I think, affect how I see the rest of our budget activity. This Committee deals with internal spending by the state, and so I just think that we should take the Governor at his word. So I know you're all here to ask for more money, and I get it, but I just wanted to get that off my chest.

I don't want to see you all cry or leave, but I am really concerned about it. And the question I ask is, can we do more with less a little bit, and then do what we need to do to convince everybody that those additional resources might be needed at a different date when we have more money. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to kind of get it off my chest.

Absolutely the most valuable comments. Senator Niello,

Those are excellent comments. And as Senator Caballero mentioned, there are just a few of us that are here now that were here when the budget situation was disastrous. We're not in that situation, but it is a challenge.

Those are excellent comments. And as Senator Caballero mentioned, there are just a few of us that are here now that were here when the budget situation was disastrous. We're not in that situation, but it is a challenge.

And in addition to what the Senator just said, I'd also emphasize that we're going to have to engage in priority setting, which has not really been the call of the day for the last five budget sessions because there has been so much money available and spending has doubled in the last five years. So it'll be a new exercise for this institution and for everybody else.

And in the area of priority setting, it also means that we need to make sure that we Fund things that still need to be funded. On the Senate Floor today, we honored the court appointed special advocates Casa, a very important service to foster kids. The state has a very unique responsibility with regard to foster kids, when you pull a kid out of his home or her home, you have responsibility for that child's welfare until they can get to a home.

And cost is one of those things. And the current budget proposal has multi year money that was committed last year that now has been zeroed out. So that's something that perhaps is a priority we should look at adding back in, which means then something else has to be taken out. So it's going to be difficult. And so I want to stress that side of it also,

Senator Neillo and I would just add my comments to those of the other Members of the Subcommitee that I think, particularly given some of the more very recent legislative actions that are being undertaken.

And I think as we look at what we already understand to be a more constrained revenue picture, we need to be thinking more broadly, certainly administratively, about opportunities within program, new committees, special programs, to look at the administrative support for those programs and see where they can be consolidated in ways that would achieve a little bit better efficiency and still maintain effectiveness of the program, because we're going to be called upon to do that in this scenario, I think so.

I very much appreciate enjoying the comments of my colleagues. Before we begin with presenters, I do want to note I may have misspoke, so I'm going to give the number and code to participate via teleconference one more time. That number is 877-226-8163 and the participant code is 71877-871-8778 thank you very much. With that, we'll move to the Department of Technology, please, and take up issue 32, California Calgov Resource Renewal. . Good morning and welcome. Please proceed when prepared.

Good morning, Chairman Padilla, Members of the Committee, my name is Jared Johnson, and I am the Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Technology. Thank you for the opportunity to attend today's hearing and discuss the proposals submitted by my Department. I'm sorry. Move the mic closer to your. There you go. Is that better? Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you.

The goals of our proposals are to strengthen California's cybersecurity posture, continue delivering innovative solutions to our residents, ensuring underserved communities and underrepresented populations have access to broadband services, and optimizing our Department to effectively administer our statutorily mandated programs. I'm joined today by Chief Administrative Officer Miles Burnett, who will provide a brief summary of our proposals, and Members of my Executive team who are ready to answer your questions. Chairman Padilla and Members of the Committee, as Chief Deputy Director Johnson stated, my name is Myles Burnett.

I'm the chief administrative officer for the California Department of Technology. I will run through briefly the BCPs one at a time. I'm starting with number 32, and we will be here for any questions.

Issue number 32 Californiaca Gov Resource Renewal CDT requests the renewal of five positions and 1.3 million in General Fund authority in fiscal year 2324 and ongoing to continue working on the development and evolution of several digital transformation initiatives, including the CA design system, incorporating UX disciplines into our digital efforts, and re imaging the CA gov web portal.

This budget request moves the state toward more reliable, useful, efficient and effective technology intertwined with our public services, and will enable CDT to make major strides in the development and evolution of CA Gov, a critical element of the state's digital infrastructure and the primary digital touch point for residents of California looking to engage with services offered by their state government. And with that, we are here to answer any questions.

Are there questions? Are there comments from DOF or LAO.

Understand exactly what you're asking for. You're asking for five positions permanently to maintain the system so that we don't have to pay for a contract or this is a new system. I need to understand a little bit better. The technology is one of the areas that I think we have to spend the money. That's the bottom line. When we don't, we pay one way or another. So I'm wondering, are we setting up a new unit in the Department or what are we doing?

They are new positions, but I'm going to ask Mr. Jonathan Porat, the Deputy Director over this area, to come up to answer to give you, I think, a deeper understanding of what this program would.

And let me just frame it from my perspective is, back in the day, the Department of Technology was created as an agency, and the idea was that we were going to do our internal to the State of California. We were going to do our own, don't get me talking about technology, because I know very little, but we were going to do our own work.

So we didn't have to keep hiring contracts to come in, and then they didn't work and they didn't function as we wanted them to. And then it became a Department somehow. And then it appeared as if it went back to the old procurement method of hiring contractors to come in and to do work on our system.

And so I'm trying to figure out where should we be investing our money so that we can get people with the real skills to keep our systems up and running, and we don't have to go out and pay consultants that can't do the job. So does that help?

Yes, I do believe so. And we have Mr. Porat at the speaker there. Welcome. Please state your name and title and proceed.

And we all have to talk loud because it's really hard to hear. So.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am Jonathan Porat. I'm the chief technology innovation officer as well as the chief of our office of Digital Services, which manages our web and design teams as well as our data teams for the California Department of Technology. And I think that's a really great question, Senator. I would say that this BCP completely aligns with that direction. What we're talking about is not creating a new team, but formalizing really fundamental tenets of improving the customer experience for our residents.

The staff that we are requesting are staff that lead the state's efforts in defining accessibility, making websites more usable, streamlining websites so that they run better, not so CDT can run the entire state's website, but so that we can develop a design system, which is essentially a library of tools, concepts, standards that we can give back to all the other departments so they can learn from our expertise.

So these positions are really critical as an investment in building that infrastructure, as chief administrator officer Burnett mentioned earlier, and is not designed to be creating a separate web production team. Rather, we want to build out those capacities so that we can make sure that all Californians can benefit from our digital offerings.

Very good. Well, I appreciate that explanation because I think that's part of the challenge that we have, is having the best technicians that are up to date and keep them away from the tech companies and have them internally that can get the jobs done so we don't have to hire expensive contracts. So appreciate that. Thank you.

The CA.gov site I wasn't familiar with, so I went on it yesterday just to see what it looks like. Do you have data that indicates how many people access that site and how long they stay on it?

Yes, and we have very rigorous analytics. There are actually analytics functions as part of this ECP so we can expand that focus. As you might expect, over the past couple of years, the websites that have gotten the most attention are those related to Covid relief, being able to find vaccines, people looking for employment, looking for information about wildfires or housing. And we hope to build out that infrastructure so that all of the departments who run their own individual websites can benefit from the information that we have. I do want to clarify that when we discuss CA.Gov, we're talking about the website as a whole.

So all of the state's web presence, and not just that homepage CA gov that you go to when you type that into a browser.

Yeah, that home page directs you to the other pages. So are there other departments and agencies that do not use your services for website development? And if so, why?

So some departments are going to need specialized design for their need. Maybe they're trying to deliver a specific service or they have a particular need for data protection that isn't going to be standardized across every Department. As we discussed to the answer to the previous question, our Department is not the website builder for every Department. But we do set things like accessibility standards, promote best practices and design to make sure that those websites are accessible. And in that case, every website has to follow those standards.

So if we set accessibility rules to make sure that Californians who need a screen reader can understand everything that's on a website, every website needs to self certify and follow that. How each Department decides how they want to best display their content is going to be up to them, because they're really the experts on how to best communicate with Californians and deliver that service.

Of course, we're always there to support them, and in many cases we provide consulting or support, especially on design elements where we really have a lot of expertise. But when it comes to the actual service delivery itself, the content, the information, that's always going to be owned by the Actual Department who's running the website.

And in those other departments or agencies, do they have their own it personnel that perform that service or do they hire contractors?

So it really depends, and it depends on the step of the process. They may hire contractors as part of a larger effort to design a program. They may hire internal staff to just do operations and maintenance around the site. And in some cases, we help to provide those operations and maintenance on our own. One element of what chief administrative officer Burnett discussed was something called RCA web portal.

That's a platform of websites that we manage for some departments, and we strongly encourage departments to consider that as an option because as we discussed, if you do want to be hosted on our platform, we can take care of those accessibilities, certification needs, all of those things that might otherwise require additional staff. But ultimately, it's up to the Department because they know that program the best.

We just want to give them as many good options as they can and provide them the guidance that they need to make sure their services are usable, accessible and efficient.

Thank you. This item will be held that will bring us to issue number 33, centralized service renewal and Otech reduction in services. Please proceed.

In fiscal year 22-23 CDT was granted a single year conversion of 42.3 million from the Technology Services Revolving Fund to the General Fund to lower its rate structure.

CDT requests the continued conversion of that funding authority for fiscal year 23-24 as CDT continues to work with the Department of Finance to reassess its cost recovery model. CDT expects to raise several of its rates in fiscal year 23-24 but would have to raise them substantially higher without the General Fund conversion as required by government code section 11540.5 f. CDT expects to submit its first report to the Legislature on the rate reassessment process by April 1, 2023.

In addition, CDT requests 8.2 million in General Fund authority in fiscal year 23-24 and 4.9 million in fiscal year 24-25 to help close sorry to help close an undercollection due to the loss of revenue from customers migrating to vendor cloud based services. Since most of CDT's cost structure is fixed in computer hardware, software and staffing costs, CDT cannot reduce its cost of operations at the same pace that customers reduce the services they consume from CDT.

To close this gap, CDT will work closely with customer departments to analyze service demand, identify additional opportunities to reduce expenses, eliminate cost and efficient services, and develop plans to move customers away from services identified for elimination. With that, we are here to answer any questions on this BCP. Actually, two bcps, one issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Department of Finance or any comments?

No, we have nothing to add.

Brian Metzger, LAO we recommend the Legislature withhold action on both of these proposals until the first rate reassessment report is submitted April 1. Pursuant to statute, the report will provide an update on the progress CDT and Department of Finance have made in reducing state data center it service rates by, for example, eliminating cost inefficient services by helping state entities more directly compare state data center rates with major private vendors in terms of things like cost and levels of service, as well as to potentially avoid future revenue losses that will need to be backfilled with General Fund.

And so, once CDT submits the report to the Legislature, we'll review it according to some of the criteria that we highlighted in our budget overview report to make sure that it aligns with things like legislative goals and priorities. And so, once reviewed, we can provide an updated recommendation to the Legislature.

Thank you. Other questions from Committee Members Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is not an unusual phenomenon for individual operating departments within a large organization to resist centralized services. It happens in businesses, in government.

So that's not terribly unusual and for various reasons. But if I understand this request, you're asking for an insertion of General funds to essentially lower your overhead, to reduce your fees, to be more competitive in that challenge of getting individual operating departments to utilize essential services. Do I have that right? I just point out that is not an effective solution to that in this particular organizational challenge. I understand it, but I'm skeptical about the strategy. Thank you very much.

Any other questions from Members? This item will be held that takes us to issue 34. Digital identification continuation

In fiscal year 21-22 CDT received two positions and 1.1 million in General Fund for two years to deploy a digital ID system for an initial subset of state services that would provide a consistent, secure, privacy enabled, reliable and consent based method to authenticate and verify the identity of California residents when they access specified digital state services.

Since 2021, CDT's digital ID program has engaged a set of pilot partners, evaluated and selected a vendor platform, and launched the first pilot integration into a production environment.

This BCP requests a renewal of two positions and 1.2 million in General Fund authority in fiscal year 23-24 and 24-25 to launch and maintain planned and existing pilot partner integrations, evaluate and implement additional requested features, scale the solution to additional state agencies, and engage with other public entities in the external development community, developer community to provide a blueprint for privacy centered SSO services. With that, we are here to answer. Any questions?

Department of Finance, are there comments or questions? Thanks. LAO

Brian Metzger. We have no concerns with this proposal.

Thank you. Any questions from the Subcommitee? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In developing a digital be, I would think that there's going to be concerns on the part of people who are so identified about privacy protection. How do you overcome that? I would envision that there would be some portions of our population quite a bit of pushback on that.

To give you a more robust answer to that, I invite Jonathan Porat back, who is the Deputy Director and chief innovation officer for the state.

Thank you, chair. Thank you for your question, Senator. We take that extremely seriously, and that's why we're piloting the technology out. The strategy that we have right now is to focus on how can we validate different californian identities by different dimensions that you might use, age, whether you're a student, whether you're eligible for certain programs that privacy and protection is of the utmost importance to us. That's why the Legislature very wisely put a lot of data protections in place and limited how we can pilot the technology. Additionally, we're looking at that very closely as we select providers and vendors to work with.

As you heard from chief administrative officer Burnett, part of the reason why we're asking for staff is we're trying to build and learn from the developer community, from vendors, so that we can equip the state to understand what are kind of those ground rules if we're implementing some sort of digital identification system throughout our websites or throughout our digital services. So that's at the forefront of this work.

And basically the reason that we're asking for this funding is to continue that work, to figure out what is the most responsible way to do that so that we don't set up a program in the future or have another State Department set up a program in the future. It might integrate when you put California at risk.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, that item will be held and that'll take us to issue 35 state digital equity plan

To implement AB 2750 CDT requests nine positions and 2.5 million in General Fund authority in fiscal year 23-24 and ongoing to develop a digital state digital equity plan and obtain anticipated federal funding to develop, oversee and monitor implementation of this plan. CDT will identify and collaborate with state agencies as planning partners to support the development of the state digital Equity plan.

Approving this request will support the following activities oversight of plan development monitoring of additional grant programs identified during plan development ongoing stakeholder and community engagement reporting and complying with federal requirements securing additional NTIA funding through the Capital grant program and the competitive grant program. The state Digital Equity plan will build on the state's broadband for all programs and identify the digital equity barriers for eight covered populations.

It will also identify the state's plan to address outcomes in key priority areas, including education, Healthcare, digital equity and inclusion, economic and workforce development and civic participation and access to essential services. And with that, we are here to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Comments from Department of Finance we have nothing to add. Bryan Metzger, Lao we have no concerns with this program. Thank you. I'll bring it back to the Subcommitee. Are there specific considerations being given to residents who are living in rural areas, particularly in the planning, and what are the unique challenges that are not present here?

To give you a more complete answer to that, I invite Deputy Director Scott Adams to answer that question.

Good afternoon, chair Padilla and Committee Members. My name is Scott Adams. I'm the Deputy Director of broadband and digital literacy at the Department of Technology, leading the work on the coordination of broadband for all and then development of the digital equity plan. So, Senator, in response to your question, yes, part of the need for the additional resources is the need to engage with the underserved residents and the rural communities.

And so thus far, we have established a number of different touch points, mostly virtual, but over the last year, convened with over 3000 entities that include a number of rural advocates for those areas. We are about to embark on over the next three months a process of holding 20 regional workshops throughout the State of California to get deeper into the community. And it's specifically those workshops that we are intending to really engage with the rural population more.

And I would imagine that as we move beyond planning and complete the tasking here for which we're providing support, when we get to actual, any further program allocation or implementation, there'll be unique geographic considerations with actual implementation that are unique to rural areas, among underserved areas. So I was wondering, making sure that we're taking that into consideration in the conversations as well with people who are kind of uniquely situated in those parts of the state. I appreciate that. Are there other questions from the Members of the Subcommitee? Thank you very much. This item will be held. That brings us to the Secretary of State. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Welcome and proceed when prepared.

Good afternoon, Senator Padilla and Committee Members Tamara Johnson, chief financial officer with the Secretary of State's office. On behalf of the Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Webber, we'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present the proposal that's before the Committee today, which is the notary automation program replacement project, or otherwise known as NAP 2.0. We are requesting approximately 3.6 million from the business fees Fund in 23-24 and two information technology manager, one positions. And just for a little background.

The Secretary of State currently utilizes an antiquated legacy notary public system which is approximately 30 years old. The system stores and maintains notary public Commission data. Current technology has evolved significantly since the current system was created, so integration of the legacy system with current and future technology and possibly third party systems would be challenging. Creating a new system will allow the SOS to streamline business processes and offer more efficient online services to notaries and the public.

Updating the system will allow for easier amendments in the future should the notary laws change. This request will provide planning resources for building a new system which supports all of the functionalities of the legacy system and incorporates online application and Commission management, a searchable public database of notary publics, and electronic epistle authentication certificates with an online verification search. With that being said, I have Shannon Delgado, assistant chief Business Programs Division, with me today to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Thank you very much. Are there comments from Department of Finance? Department of Finance no comment. Thank you, LAO.

Nick Schroeder of the LAO.

All right, we'll bring it to the Subcommitee. Are there questions from Members? All right, this item will be held. Thanks to you both for your presentation. It brings us to the State Controller issue 37, SCO, annual comprehensive financial report and other annual reports. Good afternoon and welcome. Please proceed when prepared.

Good afternoon, Chairman Padilla and Committee Members. My name is An-Vi Ching. I am the budget officer at the state controller's office. We thank you for the opportunity to discuss SEO's 2023-24 budget change proposals, which represent critical workloads and will ensure SEO can continue to carry out mandated work uninterrupted. The first item before you is SEO's annual comprehensive financial Report and other annual reports.

SEO is requesting $924,000 to make per minute in 23-24 6 expiring limited term positions currently working to ensure that all of SEO's financial reporting functions related to the legacy system are successfully transitioned to fiscal, including the handling of departmental accounting information and processes, while using fiscal to produce annually and on time annual comprehensive financial report, the budgetary legal basis annual report and other annual reports. The six resources were approved in 2021-22 and are set to expire June 30, 2023. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Department of Finance. Questions, Senator Caballero.

Well, I appreciate the presentation. I guess my concern is, do we know when the transition to fiscal will be complete? Number one and number two is making these permanent? Seems. Well, actually. Why do you need them permanent as opposed to temporary? I mean, they were set up to help the transition to Fi$cal.

So I'm wondering, how much longer is it going to take, what's left in the transition, and are we going to be able to turn off the legacy system soon, or is it wise to keep it open just in cases of backup? Yeah, I think that's it. Fi$cal was supposed to be done a long time ago and it's taken a while. And part of that is the difficulty with taking old legacy systems and transferring the information and making sure that it's accurate. Right.

And the delay has caused some of the financial documents to not be available and has created concern about the tardiness of some of those reports. So that's the reason I'm asking the question.

Thank you, Senator. And I would join in the question. Please answer.

Good afternoon, Chairman of Padilla and Committee Members. So to answer the question about the transition, we do have a new controller that just joined us in January, and she is quickly coming up to speed on the current State of our transformation into fiscal. We have been evaluating timelines with her and while not ready yet to make a decision on that, she is coming extremely close to making that decision and will share her decision soon.

On when SCO will our timeline to build out the remaining of our functionality and then get us onto fiscal. And so for the second part, I'll turn it back over to my colleagues, but she will be making that decision soon. We've worked with the Department of Fi$cal on several different timelines, several different options, the resource constraints, the scope and the timeline as stated in AB 156. So we should be having a decision soon on that.

And please state your name and title for the rest.

oh, my apologies. Kathy Liao with the state controller's office, Fi$cal Division. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the? If not, this item will be held.

But I did ask a question about I don't understand why we're moving from temporary to permanent, number one. Number two is this really is premature.

If the SCO hasn't even had a chance to look at the progress of Fi$cal in order to make determinations of what kind of resources that are needed to be able to move mean, I know that you don't expect somebody to get into an office and be able to do everything quickly, but I'm concerned with going from temporary personnel to permanent personnel without knowing exactly what it is they'd be doing.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the question. Senator, my name is James Anderson. I'm the Bureau Chief of State Government reporting in the State Controller's Office. To address your question regarding the difference between the original request for the six limited term positions and this request for permanent positions, the six limited term positions, the resource need for the six positions hasn't changed. There's ongoing work to validate information to support the transition of the state controller's office from the legacy systems to Fi$cal.

And so the staff are currently performing validation of information in fiscal to reconcile to the legacy system. They are doing updating configurations. They are performing work for the implementation of new GASB standards, GASB 87 leases, which is being implemented statewide. GASB 96 subscription based information technology arrangements, which is being implemented statewide. That will be utilized by all departments within Fi$cal to report to the State Controller's Office.

So there is ongoing work and future work anticipated with forthcoming GASB pronouncements and additional work in the transition of SCO to Fi$cal. But as my colleague stated, a plan in response to Assembly Bill 156 is still being deliberated by the controller and she will present that to the Committee soon.

Okay, very good. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator. I mean to get ahead of you. I think it's pretty clear that this was identified as two year funding for transitional program specific functions and support. And presuming that the program is completed successfully, there's a separate question about ongoing funding, and that doesn't seem completely clear here. And I would just join in that concern and note that recommendations to hold this item open as well, which we will do without objection.

That would bring us then to issue 38, Fi$cal integrated solution, maintenance and operational. support

SCO is requesting $3,255,000 to support the continuation of six existing positions on a permanent basis and for contract resources for the maintenance and operations of the fiscal integrated solution, including providing support to fiscal departments. The six resources were approved in 2018-19 and are set to expire June 30, 2023. Making these six positions permanent is essential to maintaining daily accounting operations and to assist consultants with planned system enhancements.

These positions have been key to the success in maintaining the necessary level of service to departments and to complete their monthly closing. Proper maintenance of the integrated solution has a critical bearing on the successful performance of SCO's core functions. The integrated solution provides the key interface between Fi$cal and SCO's legacy system, whose accuracy must be maintained to ensure the accounting book of record is accurate. The workload of the six positions have been steadily increasing each year and is projected to continue.

Additionally, staff interact daily with fiscal departments on various types of status inquiries such as appropriations, Executive orders, budget revisions, work list items, and other documents affecting the department's appropriations. We're happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you very much. Other comments from Department of Finance. Thank you, LAO. Thank you. Questions from Subcommitee Members if this item will be held. Thank you both. That'll bring us to the Department of Consumer affairs. Thank you. Issue 39, Business Modernization cohort 1 and 2. Please proceed when prepared.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Padilla and Members of the Committee. My name is Jason Piccione. I'm the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Consumer Affairs, and I'll be introducing the BCP today.

The BCP is requesting funding of $6 million to allow continued implementation of the business modernization efforts cohort 1 and 2, which includes a total of nine boards and bureaus. This proposal will allow these programs to continue implementing and refining their selected business modernization software called Connect, consistent with the department's business modernization plan. This request combines the efforts of both BMC 1 and 2.

The requested funding is divided by program and reflects the necessary appropriation to cover system integration, software licensing, project management, credit card payment fees, project oversight costs, and continued funding for eight positions within the department's Office of Information Services to support project implementation and maintenance support. Thank you for consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any comments from Department of Finance? Department of Finance? No additional comments. Thank you. From Lao. No comments. Thank you. Thank you to the Subcommitee, Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The question are these the boards and bureaus that were not included in the breeze program?

Correct.

So this is a new technology, so to speak?

Correct. A different platform? Yes.

Okay. And then the fee on. I'm really glad that this is happening, but the 2% fee on the use of the card, you'd be able to pay your licenses online. Is that the cost of doing business with the credit card company? Is that why it's being instituted?

Correct. It's the direct cost of doing business to pay for credit cards.

Okay. All right. I'm really happy that you can get through this new program. You can get so many people to pay their licensing fees or whatever it is they need to pay for right online, because that was always a really big issue. Is the fraud connected to cash payments? And so it's a good thing? Very good. Thank you so much.

All right, anybody want to be recognized? All right, this item will be held. Thank you both for your presentation. That'll bring us to public comment. The Subcommitee welcomes the public's participation in the matters docketed today, both by teleconference and here in the hearing room in person. If you're participating by teleconference, once again, that number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 717. Excuse me, 718778. Doing that for some reason. Not enough coffee yet.

All right, we'll start with witnesses who would like to provide testimony here in the hearing room. Please queue up if you're present. If you need to provide testimony, state your name for the record. I don't see anyone leaping at the microphone. We will check with our facilitator to see if there are folks via teleconference that can be queued up and I'm getting the. And please press one, then zero for public comment. Please make. Please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad.

It does not appear that we have anyone wishing to participate by teleconference, so we will move to the items docketed for the Committee for Vote only. I'll make a brief note. Issue number 111 and 25 will be pulled from the vote voting items and continued to another hearing at the request of a Member of the Subcommitee. With that objection, they'll be continued as there are no staff present to help answer those questions.

With that, we will take the first group of vote only items, which will be item issue number three, issues five through 8, 10, 13 through 15, 19 through 24 and 26 through 31. Do we have a motion on those move approval? Thank you. The motion is to approve as budgeted consultant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Those items are out. We will then take a second group of items for vote only, which will be issues number 2, 4, 9, 12, 16 through 18. Do you have a motion on those items? The motion is to approve as budgeted. Please call the roll. [Roll Call]

Though those items are out, want to again thank everyone for their participation in the Subcommitee hearing today. If you didn't have an opportunity to provide testimony either in person or via teleconference, you can always do so in writing to the Committee. The Committee will stand adjourned. Thank you.