"On January 1, 2000, computer systems worldwide will malfunction or produce inaccurate information simply because the century has changed. Unless corrected, such failures will have a costly, widespread impact on federal, state, and local governments; foreign governments; and private sector organizations. All sectors of the economy, many of which provide goods and services that are vital to the nation’s health and well being, are at risk, including telecommunications; public utilities; transportation; banking and finance; commerce and small business; national defense; government revenue collection and benefit payment; and health, safety and emergency services. Moreover, Year 2000 problems in one sector will cascade to others due to the many interdependencies and linkages among them." - U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1998
Washington state government is considered a nationwide leader in Y2K preparation with 55 percent of our state’s "mission critical" systems reporting compliance. In fact, our state government is ahead of most of the private sector in this regard. But what this good news does not tell us will surprise many people in and out of government circles.
Although 55 percent of our state’s mission critical systems report Y2K "compliance," only one agency, the Department of Social and Health Services, is independently certified as compliant.
Of the 16,250 public water systems, 162 phone companies, four gas companies, three non-Public Utility District (PUD) electric companies, 31 PUDs, three petroleum pipeline companies, and 66 sewer districts, none report they are compliant. At this time, no central person, agency, or entity has the authority to require that these companies submit accurate and timely Y2K compliance information. Some companies will be ready; others will be taken by surprise as they begin Y2K preparations far too late. But more surprised than anyone will be the customers who depend upon these entities for water, sewer, power and phone service.
The only independent, mandatory system-wide Y2K monitoring and reporting occurring in our state is for the agencies and programs under Governor Locke’s direct supervision. We applaud the Governor and his principal Y2K consultant for the excellent work they are doing. But most of the critical services depended upon by the majority of citizens, including utilities and phone companies, are not under Governor Locke’s supervision.
The 1998 Legislature declined to earnestly address Y2K issues (despite valiant efforts by several lawmakers), instead pushing critical decisions to 1999. This means more costly solutions and unnecessary distress for the public at large.
John Saunders and his team at the Department of Information Services are doing yeoman’s work on Y2K compliance for state agencies. And it appears that the Department of General Administration is doing a good job identifying and resolving most embedded chip problems.
But we are deeply concerned about the lack of Y2K oversight for private and public sector services most critical to the majority of citizens. In November of 1998, we communicated our concerns to the governor’s office. The governor responded positively to our concerns by creating a Y2K Office in his budget office. The Y2K Office, headed by Chris Hedrick, is charged with 1) coordinating state agencies’ efforts to prepare for Y2K; 2) coordinating all Y2K efforts, public and private, to make sure citizens, businesses and local governments have the accurate information needed for preparedness; and 3) providing accurate Y2K information to the news media and the public about the status of government and private industry preparedness.
We appreciate the governor’s efforts, but to avert unnecessary problems and serious side effects, we think more action is needed right now, particularly by the legislature. The Y2K Office should not be in the governor’s budget office. (But at least he’s doing something!) Only the legislature has the authority to collect and distribute critical Y2K information from public and private entities. (When it comes to the private sector, lawmakers must use their power for informational, not enforcement purposes.) Only the legislature has the authority to empower a Y2K Czar.
EFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Legislative leaders, the Chief Justice and the governor should jointly designate a highly credible individual as our Y2K Czar. This must be a person of highest integrity who is trusted by members of both political parties. (State Auditor Brian Sonntag comes to mind.) This individual should work with legislative and gubernatorial appointees to develop a comprehensive Y2K oversight and communications strategy. The public and the media must have a source for timely, comprehensive, relevant and straightforward information regarding Y2K. Failure to do this will not only cause unnecessary real problems, but will also lead to a destructive Y2K rumor-mill that inflames the general public’s fears..
The legislature should establish a Joint House-Senate Y2K Committee that meets during the session to hold oversight hearings over the utilities to include: private and public electric companies; gas companies; water districts; petroleum pipeline companies; sewer districts and telephone companies. (The current reporting system by electric companies to the North American Electric Reliability Council leaves a great deal to be desired because it relies almost entirely on self-reporting.)
The legislature should hold oversight hearings on the progress of agencies reporting Y2K compliance. These hearings should include the status of: 1) deep-testing of systems identified as compliant; 2) contingency plans and firewalls for electronic data exchanges; and 3) access to critical resources.
Many dedicated professionals are working long hours to try to make vital services Y2K compliant by December 31, 1999. We need to do all we can to ensure that their efforts are not undermined by recalcitrance or false bravado. A trustworthy Y2K Czar will go a long way toward helping citizens of our state face the new millennium without fear.
Prepared by Bob Williams, Senior Research Analyst, (360) 956-3482 or effwa@effwa.org
For more information, check out the White Paper on Y2K prepared by Victor Porlier.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"