On August 5, 2009, Citizens Against Government Waste sent a letter to members of the Information Technology and General Services Committee in Los Angeles as it tried to decide whether or not to use Google Apps as a replacement for the Novell Group Wise e-mail and Microsoft Office Applications. In part, the letter read:
Even though some news reports have claimed that there will be cost savings from the switch, a July 10, 2009 report from the Office of the City Administrative Officer to the Information Technology Agency (ITA) contradicts those assertions. According to the ITA report, “In the City’s experience with other systems replacement projects, contractors that supported implementation of the new system have often remained involved with the project for a longer period of time than originally anticipated. … That no such costs are anticipated here is inconsistent with this experience. … GroupWise licensing savings totalling $269,700 will only be achieved if the City can fully implement Google’s system by December 31, 2009. … For this date to be met, ITA must submit a notice to proceed to CSC no later than August 1, 2009.”
Well, there is good news and bad news. First the good news since taxpayers don’t get much of that these days. According to an October 20 story on CNET:
The city of Los Angeles has decided to delay making a decision about whether or not to adopt Google Apps across its network, citing cost concerns.
The City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee did not take any action regarding the proposed contract, which has been debated for months as one of the more high-profile public sector Google Apps deals. That means the matter will pass to the full City Council for a vote later this month, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The article went on to say:
Security concerns had been prominent during earlier discussions of the proposal, which would see the city move off a Novell system and use Google’s hosting service for e-mail and office applications. But the council was more pragmatic, noting that implementing the system would cost $1.5 million more than continuing on with the current system and asking for further details before voting. “The urgency case hasn’t been made,” said Councilman Bernard Parks, chairman of the Budget and Finance committee, according to the Times.
The bad news is that the battle is not over and taxpayers are all too familiar with victory being snatched away.
Filed under: Technology, Telecommunications
