MINUTES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 1, 2010 6:30 p.m. Common Council Chambers Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: Chairperson Vance Skinner, Don Shelley, Steve Neaman, Robert Stedman, Peter Paasch, Alderperson Joan Francoeur, Chris Pofahl None Bret Mantey (Information Technology), Erik Ludwig (TV25) Alderman Kalblinger I. Call to Order - Chairperson Skinner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. a. Approval of Minutes None to report b. Correspondence None to report IV. Status Reports Discussion and Recommendation A. Projects (Approved) 1. Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (Derek Knox) ITAC recommendations on RFP Mr. Ludwig stated Mr. Knox could not attend tonight s meeting and Erik would be filling in for him with this update. On December 27, 2010 @ 9:00am, the City of Brookfield will be viewing vendor offerings. Mr. Mantey stated the City shared information with the City of Brookfield, but Brookfield wanted to accelerate the RFP in order generate assessments right away. Mr. Mantey stated that ITAC is welcome to attend this meeting. Alderman Skinner asked if there is a best in breed and Mr. Ludwig said yes, there is no final pricing yet, but they are looking to release this as soon as possible and would like ITAC comments in order to move forward. Alderperson Francoeur asked what the timeline is. Mr. Ludwig said that CAMA would be a 18-24 month implementation. Mr. Mantey stated that next year there are many IT projects, as well as yearly audits and tax cycle, animal licensing and voting, in addition to the normal PC installation and general duties. Therefore, we will be staggering the implementations in order to ease the workload. Alderperson Francoeur asked if we are seeing any participation from consultants and Mr. Mantey stated yes. Alderman Skinner stated the training component will be a huge undertaking. Mr. Mantey stated that IT has allocated some of the internal budget in order to get some of the processes completed and this is cutting two months off of the RFP process. Alderman Skinner asked if this will be complete on or before March 18, 2011 and if it is following the same timeframe. Mr. Mantey stated this timeframe is fine. 2. Financial and Tax Systems (FTS) Erik Ludwig, PM Alderman Skinner asked if there was anything else that needed to be added. Mr. Ludwig stated that the process has been one-on-one interviews with Finance, Park & Recreation and Cemetery, relating to specific systems and making sure the requirements are there. The tax billing
component affects Clerk Treasurer s most heavily; they have to code each type of payment separately in order to maintain this information because the current system can t do it. Mr. Mantey stated there a huge savings in efficiencies from the CT office, so they won t have to use excel docs to track financial transactions. Don Shelley commended the IT staff for all the work that has been put into this. B. Selections - None at this time C. Emerging Technologies (Discussion and Recommendation) None at this time D. Challenges (Action Items) None at this time E. Projects Proposed, Research, Review - None at this time V. Old Business 1. Public Official email accounts (Ald. Francoeur discussion) Alderman Francoeur stated City Attorney Curt Meitz prepared a brief explaining aldermanic email and open records requests, which states the Alderman is the authority and custodian of his/ her email record. The email policy should be amended to sign a form in order to delegate access authority to the IT department for archived emails. The Clerk Treasurer s office has never been the custodian of the elected official s records, but they are the custodian of minutes and agendas and the action of the Common Council. This email is owned by the alderperson. Records are to be retained for seven years, but no one knows the retention period for Alderman emails. If we don t want alderman to retain electronic records for seven years, we need to determine how this should be handled. Mr. Shelley stated this would be desirable from the public perspective to have an email address for the alderman on the city web site. There is no mandate for alderman to have email addresses or to use the city sponsored account. Alderperson Francoeur stated it makes no difference where it s being created, Facebook, Twitter, email or blog, it is now officially a record. Alderperson Francoeur stated the Human Resources Director, Donna Whalen is working on the social networking policies. Alderperson Francoeur stated Mr. Meitz went further and said that whenever an official does something in writing, it s a public record. Alderman Skinner stated there are pros and cons to that approach and there are expectations that Alderman be available. The City has Alderman that do not use email, but the public expectation is that they should. Mr. Shelley thinks a 10 minute meeting with the City Attorney s office about this would be a good idea. Alderman Skinner stated he thinks that most aldermen do not understand this document. Mr. Pofahl stated people that deal with open records daily, don t completely understand open records requests. Mr. Pofahl asked what happens when a new alderman comes into the district; what happens to the old emails from the prior alderman. Mr. Mantey stated the email account stays with the district. Alderman Skinner asked about the hand off that occurs during elections, as this looks like an opportunity to adopt a new email policy requirement. Alderman Francoeur stated this would have to go through the Common Council for action. Mr. Shelly stated this could go through the voters. Alderman Francoeur stated yes, the other way is when the public demands electronic communication. Page 2 December 1, 2010
Alderman Skinner asked what the overall cost is to maintain these accounts until they get used. Mr. Mantey stated $5.00 per month, per user. Alderman Skinner asked if there is a concern the email address could get hacked into if not being used. Mr. Mantey stated that IT monitors them, but if it gets hijacked, we won t know about it until someone reports it. Mr. Mantey stated IT needs to know how IT is to check these accounts without violating policy. Alderman Skinner stated there should be a consent form developed by the City Attorney. Alderperson Francoeur stated the consent form is attached to the email policy, which came from ITAC, which is housed in the Human Resources requirement. The policy came from IT and IT could use the Attorney s office as a guide for the bulleted summary items on page six of the memo. Alderman Skinner stated if he gets replaced two years from now, those emails can be retrieved by what is stated on page two, paragraph three: Microsoft is not considered a custodian of these records under the Public Records Law. However, the City, in addition to the individual alderperson, though its Information Technology Department, would be considered a custodian of the aldermanic records managed by Microsoft. Alderman Skinner stated these records would be under my email alias, which is housed with Microsoft. Mr. Paasch stated this is your personal benefit to know the retention policy within the City and you would be better off having the City archive the emails. Mr. Shelley stated without archiving emails with Microsoft, IT is violating the memo from the City Attorney s office. Alderman Skinner stated that this is not an option, it is a requirement. Mr. Mantey stated this memo has cleared up many things. Alderman Skinner stated he will ask if Alderman Kalblinger would like action or follow-up on this handout and if we are responsible for those emails as alderman when the account is handed off to a new person. Alderman Skinner stated he needs clarification if it s the Alderman or the City which is custodian of the emails, if the alderman signed off on the consent form. Mr. Pofahl stated that what this memo saying your department is the custodian of these records and he doesn t know if he would like that. Mr. Mantey stated this will cost the City for an email archiving appliance and this sets new precedence. Mr. Pofahl asked what happens to city departments that don t save their own stuff. Mr. Mantey stated in 2003 there was an archive study done and the document has retention schedules for every type of document the city holds, but this area was never addressed. Alderperson Francoeur stated we have not had City sponsored accounts before and that s why this issue is coming up now. VI. New Business Discussion and Recommendation 1. Business Continuity Plan Matter of Report (BCP) - Postponed Motion: Alderman Skinner made a motion to postpone this item, second by Mr. Shelley. 2. Review of approved 2010 ITAC projects (year end status report) Mr. Mantey stated that nothing major was approved for 2010, except for CAMA and Kronos. Kronos is in progress and CAMA is postponed until 2011. Mr. Stedman asked if the Kronos Advance Schedule module is on budget. Mr. Mantey said no, he thinks it may go over budget due to additional programming cost for customizations. Alderman Skinner stated that IT items are either on or under budget and that is good, he is not used to seeing that. Mr. Paasch asked how we ended with the Court Phoenix module issue. Mr. Neaman stated there have been staff changes at ProPhoenix. Mr. Pofahl asked when the City bought the package from ProPhoenix was the court package not included. Mr. Mantey stated it was included, but not developed yet. Mr. Mantey stated ProPhoenix started customizing the court software for every organization and changed the base code. Alderperson Francoeur: There is a lesson here as Page 3 December 1, 2010
shown by the ITAC selection process, that sometimes integrating everything into one system is not beneficial and systems should not be Beta; must be production code and already implemented. Mr. Paasch asked if the Toughbooks for the Police Department are high end. Mr. Mantey stated they are lower end Panasonic s costing about $2,800 each. Alderman Skinner asked about the command vehicle pc. Mr. Mantey stated this is shared by Police and Fire Departments and has to be specially mounted. 3. Review of 2011 IT budget and ITAC approved projects (status report) Alderman Skinner stated everything got approved as requested. Mr. Mantey stated the financial system is $421,300 this year and next year. Mr. Shelley asked why the Security Camera for the City Garage is listed number 13. Mr. Mantey stated that was an error and it should be listed as not funded. Alderman Skinner asked what happens if the finance package comes back at $600,000 and how the designated funds in the budget of $842,600 are parsed out. Mr. Neaman stated we would take $421,000 per year and have to negotiate some of that. Mr. Shelley asked what happened with standard definition cameras. Mr. Neaman stated Finance is going to set up a separate line item for the telecable fund. Alderman Skinner stated there are over a million dollars in IT requests, versus $350,000 from last year. Mr. Mantey stated disaster recovery is a hot issue, as well as business continuity. Mr. Mantey stated the City needs a redundant fiber ring and it s clear we need better resiliency in the City. We are trying to work with WCTC, Carroll College and the City of Pewaukee to discuss the use of fiber services and disaster recovery issues. These things take time and the funding is not there. Mr. Shelley asked for future CIP funding if the $432,000 would be there from the Finance system. Mr. Neaman said no, that is already approved. Alderman Skinner asked if there has been any further discussion with the City Administrator about charge backs to departments for maintenance costs for various systems and annual maintenance. Mr. Neaman stated he has not had time to discuss this with the City Administrator, but this may be possible with the 2012 budget. Mr. Neaman stated the City used to do chargeback for depreciation of equipment, but not maintenance. VII. VIII. IX. Referrals Discussion and Recommendations None at this time Action Item Review Alderman Skinner asked for clarification from the Attorney s office on the overall use of city accounts and records requests after a transition has occurred with aldermanic positions. Adjournment Motion Moved by Mr. Paasch, second by Mr. Shelley and unanimous vote to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Page 4 December 1, 2010
Respectfully submitted, Ald. Vance Skinner Chairperson Prepared by: Kristen Gerbensky, Recording Secretary Information Technology Department Audio: 1:22:47 Page 5 December 1, 2010