A4
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • THuRSDAY, JANuARY 10, 2019
OPINION
editor@dailyastorian.com
KARI BORGEN
Publisher
JIM VAN NOSTRAND
Editor
Founded in 1873
JEREMY FELDMAN
Circulation Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN
Production Manager
CARL EARL
Systems Manager
OUR VIEW
State purchasing practices are indefensible
O
regon state government has
been stunningly inefficient
when buying computers
and other technology.
In fact, agencies’ buying hab-
its are so bad that the state unnec-
essarily spent an extra $400 million
to $1.5 billion during the 2015-
17 budget period, according to a
recent report from the state Audits
Division.
The problem is ironic: anti-
quated systems of purchasing
goods and services for information
technology. Some of the purchas-
ing systems date to the 1990s.
As a result, whereas one agency
paid $176.40 for a 24-inch Dell
monitor, another paid $241.15. The
state bought 1,300 such monitors
during the study period, accord-
ing to the audit report, and could
have saved more than $16,500 if it
bought at the lowest price.
In another example, agencies
paid 131 different prices for the
same Ricoh surge protector, rang-
ing from $65.90 to $173.98. Prices
also fluctuated widely for some
software licenses and service
contracts.
The state’s woes in managing
IT projects have been well-known,
and the audit report says more
improvements also are needed
there.
National studies have shown that
the majority of IT projects run into
AP Photo/Don Ryan
Workers process applications for Cover Oregon, the state’s health exchange, in 2013. The
program was abolished in 2015 after management and technological debacles.
significant issues, whether in the
public or private sector. The tech-
nology itself is not to blame. The
problems arise from human faults:
arrogance in decision-making,
internal rivalries, unrealistic expec-
tations of what technology can
do, equally unrealistic timelines,
changing desires, mismanagement,
lack of oversight and inadequate
attention to testing.
All those showed up in the infa-
mous Cover Oregon debacle.
As for buying IT products and
services, the audit report criticizes
technology as well as procedures.
We are well into the 21st century,
but unlike most corporations, the
state lacks an overall purchasing
system for products, whether com-
puters or those little adhesive notes
known as “stickies.”
The lack of a viable eProcure-
ment system is indefensible and
illustrates how public officials’
claims of cost-efficiency do not
always match reality. Technology
purchases represent a fraction of
the state’s multi-billion-dollar bud-
get. But if the lessons learned from
this audit were applied to all state
purchasing, the estimated savings
could average from 5 percent to 20
percent.
The state is making progress,
having launched OregonBuys as
a pilot program for eProcurement
in 2017. Ten state agencies partici-
pate so far. It won’t be fully imple-
mented until mid-2021. Secretary
of State Dennis Richardson, whose
Audits Division performed the IT
purchasing audit, and Republican
legislators are outraged about the
long timeline. Gov. Kate Brown
and Democratic lawmakers should
be, too.
Brown proposed some expan-
sion of OregonBuys, but the state
should move much faster. Invest-
ments in eProcurement will save
money and potentially time.
There are all sorts of reasons to
oppose centralized purchasing. It
limits choice and reduces personal
decision-making. Some jobs might
become unnecessary. The technol-
ogy of such a system is fallible.
But so is the current decentralized
approach. The audit report said,
“purchase-level data is only avail-
able for approximately 12.5 percent
of procurement expenditures.”
The report also noted, “Without
the ability to analyze detailed pur-
chase data for all procurements,
Oregon is unable to identify oppor-
tunities for potentially millions of
dollars in cost savings.” In con-
trast, states such as Georgia have
achieved significant savings by
tracking and analyzing such pur-
chase contracts.
If the governor and Legisla-
ture truly are serious about saving
money without harming services,
as they should be, the audit report
is a good place to start.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Seniors need affordable
housing options too
hile agreeing “affordable” housing
is a genuine and ongoing problem in
our area, one factor I never hear/see men-
tioned is the lack of affordable housing for
senior citizens. Many seniors are living on
their Social Security checks, and perhaps
a small pension. But not enough to afford
the high prices of most homes with high
property taxes; apartments need first and
last month’s rent.
We currently have two 55-plus trailer
parks, and two manufactured home parks
in Warrenton. There are no vacancies. In
the Astoria Mill Pond location, Gateway
Phase 1 is ideal. However there is a 2-3
year waiting list. There may be assisted
living homes available, but not all seniors
require that service. Also, most cannot
afford the high cost of these facilities.
With all the proposed building in our
county, why can’t 55-plus and older/dis-
abled folks also have an opportunity to live
in quiet and affordable living quarters? Are
grandparents just being put out to pasture?
BERNADINE THOMAS
Warrenton
W
Newspapers are
foundation of democracy
went out the other morning to pick up
The Oregonian off the sidewalk, and
thought it wasn’t there, and that only some
flyer was in its place, because it was so
tiny. But it was the newspaper.
We are all aware that our local newspa-
pers are shrinking, and we fear that they
will soon disappear altogether, as many
newspapers across the nation have. Also,
we watched family over the holidays star-
ing at their phones and laptops, and accus-
ing Granny of not being with the times.
Well, I am with the times. These times are
scary, as our press is denigrated by this
administration.
Who is doing the investigative report-
ing? It is our newspapers. How many
times have you noted CNN, or CBS, or
other news outlets quote stories from the
Washington Post or The New York Times?
I am going to continue to support news-
papers including, of course, The Daily
Astorian. They are the foundation of our
democracy.
JEAN HOOGE
Astoria
I
When’s the next
mayoral election?
hile we’re on the topics of collusion,
complicity and conspiracy, it seems
a little odd that a decision that’s already
been made is brought back again and
W
again, to the potential profit of a global
corporation with very deep pockets.
Lo and behold, the new Astoria mayor
publicly censures a board member for hav-
ing an opinion contrary to aforementioned
global corporation (“Design Review Com-
mittee member confronted by Astoria
mayor over hotel comments,” The Daily
Astorian, Jan. 8).
As a show of magnanimity he refrains
from firing her, merely “suggesting” she,
in essence, shut up. Brave new world,
indeed.
When’s the next mayoral election? Can
mayors be impeached?
JOHN RIDER
Ocean Park, Washington
Mayor showed poor judgment
with committee member
n response to the article “Design Review
Committee member confronted by Asto-
ria Mayor over hotel comments,” The
Daily Astorian, Jan. 8):
As a veteran of the U.S. Navy subma-
rine service, I’ve witnessed enough poor
management and leadership of projects
and people by senior officers to know that
just because you served multiple years of
service and attained a certain rank, does
not automatically qualify you to be a good
manager of people and projects.
Mayor Bruce Jones has shown clear
lack of good leadership by pointing out
I
publicly that he believes his 30-plus years
of experience as an officer in the Coast
Guard gives him automatic qualification as
a good manager and leader of people and
projects over someone who is younger.
Ms. Sarah Jane Bardy has built her suc-
cessful business through excellent proj-
ect management and people skills in a very
short time. All without benefit of lead-
ership training, etc., which Mayor Jones
has undergone numerous times during his
30-plus years of service within the Coast
Guard.
Mayor Jones, in discounting Ms. Bar-
dy’s own experience, shows very poor
judgment. Plus, what is the purpose of
the Design Review Committee if the City
Council will overturn its decision?
ANDREW FUHRMANN
Astoria
AAUW opposes proposed
changes to Title IX
he Astoria branch of the American
Association of University Women
(AAUW), objects to changes to Title IX
proposed by U.S. Department of Educa-
tion Secretary Betsy DeVos regarding dis-
crimination on the basis of gender in our
educational institutions.
DeVos proposes regulations, in place of
what are now guidelines, that will make
it harder for victims of sexual harassment
and assault to assert claims. It will pro-
T
vide additional protections for educational
institutions that fail to adequately protect
students.
The proposed definition of sexual
harassment as “unwelcome conduct on the
basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive
and objectively offensive that it denies a
person access to the school’s education
program or activity” is exceptionally limit-
ing, in our opinion. There are many forms
of sexual harassment that are damaging
that do not meet this high standard. What
does, “objectively offensive” and “per-
vasive” mean? Who decides if this stan-
dard is met? These are just some of our
concerns.
AAUW of Oregon is a nonpartisan
organization. This isn’t about partisan pol-
itics. It’s about the protection and well-be-
ing of middle-school, high-school, college
and university students.
Astoria AAUW urges you to join us
and our statewide organization in oppos-
ing proposed regulations regarding Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
Docket ID ED-2018-OCR-0064.
Contact DeVos’ office directly via
the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education. Contact Senators Ron
Wyden, Jeff Merkley and Rep. Suzanne
Bonamici today. Time is running out.
Opportunity for public comment ends Jan.
31.
LIZ BARTELL
SARA MEYER
Astoria AAUW