If there’s one thing the two candidates for auditor can agree on, it’s that the next state auditor needs to review how public dollars are spent on information technology projects.
But exactly how Sen. Vince Illuzzi, R-Derby, and Doug Hoffer, a Burlington Democrat/Progressive, would assess the millions of dollars doled out for IT projects, could differ greatly.
Illuzzi announced Monday morning that if he were elected auditor, he would conduct a sweeping review of information technology (IT) projects across state government.
His announcement comes less than two weeks after WCAX reported that the state court’s new $5 million computer system has a case of irreparable hiccups. With the state already out almost $2 million, officials aren’t sure if Vermont will recoup the rest. What’s more is that the Utah-based company, New Dan Technologies, which was given the contract, had never programmed a court computer system before.
“Fraud always catches everybody’s eye … and that’s serious and it needs to be pursued,” Illuzzi said over the phone Monday. “But when you compare that … to $5 million in judiciary and $17 million in motor vehicles, you can see that the impact on the taxpayer is significant and adverse when it comes to these major-ticket IT purchases.”
The $17 million Illuzzi referenced was for a new Department of Motor Vehicles computer system, which, as Seven Days first reported, barely functions. And that $17 million paid out to Hewlett-Packard is actually $18 million.
According to an April auditor’s report, the Seven Days story led current Auditor Tom Salmon to review the department’s expenditure. While the report featured a back-and-forth between Salmon and department commissioner Robert Ide, it did not include any analysis from the auditor.
Although Hoffer agrees with Illuzzi that a strong review of IT projects is necessary, he said he wants to first fully assess the scope of the issue, so that he doesn’t stick his foot in his mouth.
“Can we agree that some things need to be done? Sure, that’s the easy part,” said Hoffer. “But the hard part is saying, ‘Where can we make the biggest contribution? Does it mean looking at every single project or is it an issue relating more to purchasing procedures?’ I don’t know the answer, but what I’m not going to do is jump out ahead of the problem.”
Hoffer brushed off Illuzzi’s press announcement regarding the review as pure politics.
“Frankly, this is what my opponent does: He takes a headline and turns it into a press release. In my view, he’s right, of course, to identify this as a problem. We already knew that,” he said. “But when you define a project for the office of the state auditor, you have to have a scope that is within your means, that’s not going to take you down 15 different pathways. I don’t have enough information, and I’m certain that the doesn’t either, to properly and wisely define that scope of work.”
When Illuzzi was pressed about his proposal, he said he would carry it forward prudently, if elected. But he also said he would not rule out the possibility of completely revamping state protocols for multimillion-dollar investments in IT. The last time the auditor’s office conducted a comprehensive assessment of the state’s IT investments and policies, he said, was a decade prior, when Elizabeth Ready was auditor.
“Maybe there isn’t much that needs to be recommended,” said Illuzzi. “But the fact that such big-ticket items keep coming up, I think, requires a retrospective review so that prospectively we can try to negate or eliminate future problems.”
