Tim, Thanks for replying. Being you are a state employee, I believe your input is especially valuable to the discussion concerning SB-455. I would like to suggest though that a better forum for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED], as this is somewhat off-topic for brluglist. I included Mike Stagg via CC: in this e-mail as I do not think Mike is subscribed to brluglist. I can see how you draw a conclusion about expecting the consolidation of state IT functions to have problems in the same way that the consolidation of state employee insurance has had problems, but I don't think that the same result is inevitable. But, I don't know what you know. Can you share with [EMAIL PROTECTED] your experiences? Also, you mention that there are numerous things to consider and that we should read and research other similar events before acting. Please let us know more information about these other considerations and where we can research them. Again Tim, thanks for your valuable input and for having the courage to speak up. It is only by considering all sides of a discussion that we can really know the truth of the matter. Looking forward to your input, John Hebert --- Tim Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <em>> Mike and all, please don't think that I am taking an <em>> opposing viewpoint from <em>> Mike. I'm not taking any side yet. There are <em>> numerous things to consider. <em>> One being that the state employees insurance was <em>> been to the Division of <em>> Administration just like is being proposed for IT. <em>> Since that time, it has <em>> been a disaster. The state employees and taxpayers <em>> have not fared well. <em>> <em>> There are numerous ramifications to this bill that <em>> would have a vast effect. <em>> I know this for a fact. I work for the state as a <em>> Human Resources Manager, <em>> so I'm not pushing any personal agenda. <em>> <em>> I'm only asking that you read and research other <em>> similar events before <em>> acting. <em>> <em>> Please take a close look at this before acting. <em>> ----- Original Message ----- <em>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <em>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <em>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 8:15 AM <em>> Subject: [brluglist] more info about SB455 <em>> <em>> <em>> > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- <em>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > Subject: [LaTechSector] SB-455 Committee Vote <em>> today <em>> > Date: 4/10/01 2:02:31 PM <em>> > <em>> > The bill to create a new chain of command for the <em>> > state's Information <em>> > Technology needs -- SB-455 -- comes up for action <em>> > before the Senate & <em>> > Governmental Affairs Committee today. The <em>> Committee <em>> > convenes at 1:30 <em>> > p.m. <em>> > <em>> > I've uploaded a copy of the bill to the Yahoo! <em>> Groups <em>> > site. A notice <em>> > containing a link to that file went out a few <em>> minutes <em>> > ago. <em>> > <em>> > This is a solid piece of legislation. It moves all <em>> IT <em>> > operations -- <em>> > including the Office of Telecommunications <em>> Management <em>> > -- under the CIO. <em>> > This is an essential step towards bringing some <em>> order <em>> > and efficiency to <em>> > the state's internal IT efforts. Higher education, <em>> the <em>> > Legislature and <em>> > the Courts are excluded from this effort. <em>> > <em>> > As I mentioned last week, word is that there is <em>> quiet <em>> > but significant <em>> > opposition mounting to this bill. Read the bill <em>> and <em>> > you'll understand <em>> > why. For starters, it brings both OTM and the <em>> members <em>> > of the Council of <em>> > Information Service Directors under the CIO and <em>> the <em>> > Office of <em>> > Electronic Services. It disbands the Database <em>> > Commission. <em>> > <em>> > Others outside of state government are threatened <em>> by <em>> > this bill as well, <em>> > particularly vendors of "telephone" equipment. <em>> > Apparently a move is <em>> > underway by these folks to keep the CIO and the <em>> Office <em>> > of Information <em>> > Policy (the formal name for this new <em>> organization) <em>> > out of existing <em>> > vendor/client relationships. In other words, these <em>> > vendors don't want <em>> > the move to standards to apply to them -- at least <em>> not <em>> > right away. <em>> > <em>> > This would, in effect, "Grandfather" in wasteful <em>> > spending and <em>> > purchasing practices for the near term. For <em>> instance, <em>> > such a provision <em>> > would lock the state into operating separate voice <em>> and <em>> > data networks at <em>> > a time when the rest of the world is moving <em>> rapidly <em>> > towards converged <em>> > voice and data networks because of the savings and <em>> > efficiencies that a <em>> > single network can deliver. <em>> > <em>> > This is an essential bill that will lay the ground <em>> > work for the State <em>> > of Louisiana to take advantage of best practices <em>> in <em>> > computing and <em>> > networking developed in both the public and <em>> private <em>> > sectors. It will <em>> > also enable the state to create some best <em>> practices of <em>> > its own. <em>> > <em>> > WHAT?!!! LOUISIANA LEAD?!!! What a concept!!! <em>> > <em>> > Please take a few minutes today to contact members <em>> of <em>> > the Senate & <em>> > Governmental Affairs Committee via e-mail today. <em>> If <em>> > you can, you could <em>> > also try to call them; leaving a message <em>> expressing <em>> > your strong support <em>> > for SB-455 will be nearly as effective as speaking <em>> to <em>> > them directly. <em>> > <em>> > If we are ever going to bring the efficiencies of <em>> > modern IT to state <em>> > government in Louisiana, this bill is the <em>> essential <em>> > first step. <em>> > <em>> > Mike Stagg <em>> > digitallouisiana.org <em>> > <em>> > Here are the names of the committee members, the <em>> > city/town of the <em>> > District Office and their e-mail address. <em>> > <em>> > CHAIRMAN -- Sen. Chris Ullo <em>> > Harvey <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > VICE CHAIMAN -- Sen. Jon D. Johnson <em>> > New Orleans <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > Sen. Robert Barham <em>> > Rayville <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > Sen. James David Cain <em>> > Dry Creek <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > Sen. John J. "Jay" Dardenne <em>> > Baton Rouge <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > Sen. Noble E. Ellington <em>> > Winnsboro <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > (The "o" in Ellington is dropped in the address, <em>> > according to the <em>> > Committee web page.) <em>> > <em>> > Sen Charles D. "C.D." Jones <em>> > Monroe <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > <em>> > <em>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <em>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <em>> > <em>> > <em>> > <em>> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <em>> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <em>> > <em>> > <em>> > -------- End of forwarded message -------- <em>> > <em>> > -- <em>> > John Hebert <em>> > System Engineer <em>> === message truncated === <p>__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ================================================ BRLUG - The Baton Rouge Linux User Group Visit http://www.brlug.net for more information. Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to change your subscription information. ================================================ <!-- body="end" --> <hr noshade> <ul> <li><strong>Next message:</strong> Dustin Puryear: "Re: [brluglist] mailing lists managers" <li><strong>Previous message:</strong> Tim Gilmore: "Re: [brluglist] more info about SB455" <li><strong>In reply to:</strong> Tim Gilmore: "Re: [brluglist] more info about SB455" <li><strong>Messages sorted by:</strong> [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ] </ul> <hr noshade>
<small> <em> This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : <em>Thu Sep 06 2001 - 11:10:52 CDT</em> </em> </small> </body> </html>
