Vermont State Auditor Doug Hoffer Below you will find two short memos addressing the state’s 10-Year Telecommunications Plan. The plan, which is supposed to guide Vermont’s telecom policies and spending, is being updated and we wanted to share our concerns while it’s in process. We are not conducting an audit, but the shortcomings in the existing plan (and the scope of work for the new one) are sufficient to warrant communication with the Legislature and the Public Service Department in the hopes they can be remedied.
Here are a few important discussion points.
- The statute calls for “universal availability of appropriate infrastructure and affordable services for transmitting voice and high-speed data.” However, affordability is not mentioned in the Plan’s goals, despite its critical importance to Vermonters.
- The statute calls for “competitive choice for consumers among telecommunications service providers” for all Vermonters. The Plan notes the need for competition and choice, but refers only to a “majority of premises in the state”.
- The statute seeks to “ensure that by the end of the year 2024 every E-911 business and residential location in Vermont has infrastructure capable of delivering Internet access with service that has a minimum download speed of 100 Mbps and is symmetrical”. The Plan, however, refers only to “unserved and underserved on-grid” homes, defined as having no cable or fiber. Therefore, homes with telecom access below 100/100 Mbps are not included in the Telecom Plan goal. According to the Plan there are 185,000 premises that fall into this bucket.
- The statute requires “…an evaluation of alternative proposals for upgrading the systems to provide the best available and affordable technology for use by State and local government [and] public safety…” As we’ve learned with repeated 911 failures, this is essential. Strangely, the contractor that wrote the plan stated that an evaluation of local and regional public safety communications systems was “beyond the scope” of the Telecom Plan.
As I said, the shortcomings of the 2021 Telecom Plan can be remedied in the forthcoming 2024 Plan, but this will likely require the Public Service Department and the Legislature to clarify certain items like those above.
STATE OF VERMONT OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
To: House Committee on Environment and Energy
Senate Committee on Finance
Joint Information Technology Oversight Committee From: Doug Hoffer, State Auditor
Re: 10-Year Telecommunication Plan
Date: 29 September 2023
Cc: June E. Tierney, Commissioner, Department of Public Service
I recently asked my staff to research the State’s telecommunication planning efforts after hearing concerns about Vermont’s 10-Year Telecommunications Plan. Through that research we noted what appear to be inconsistencies and gaps in statute related to the telecommunications plan, as well as several shortcomings in the State’s current plan that do not appear to have been flagged by the Public Service Department (PSD) or your committees.
This memo is intended to provide a high-level summary of our concerns with the statute and with the State’s current Telecommunications Plan. Legislative committees should especially consider the “Matters of Concern Related to Statute” in order to determine if legislative changes are merited. I have also sent a memo to the Commissioner Tierney with more details about our concerns with the State’s current plan.
PSD is currently developing the State’s next 10-year telecommunications plan using the same vendor and under a similar contract as before. Because of that, I’m concerned the State’s next telecommunications plan will have the same shortcomings. However, I’ve decided not to initiate an audit on this topic at this time because the process to develop the next telecommunications plan is still underway. My office will continue to monitor this process, and I may decide to conduct an audit in the future.
Background
Statute requires PSD, with assistance from other State agencies, to prepare a 10-Year Telecommunications Plan for Vermont. Act 79 (2019) required that the plan address each of the State’s telecommunications policies and goals, and assess initiatives designed to advance and make measurable progress towards those policies and goals. Act 79 also required that PSD complete a new plan every three years.
PSD finalized the first 10-Year Telecommunications Plan under these new requirements in June 2021. PSD contracted with the same vendor in July 2023 to develop the State’s next telecommunications plan which is to be adopted by June 2024. The focus of our research was to evaluate whether the 2021 Plan complied with statutory requirements, and whether the contract for the new plan required the vendor to meet all statutory requirements.
Matters of Concern Related to Statute
After preliminary review of the 2021 Plan and relevant statutes, my office identified instances where statute appeared unclear or were left open to PSD’s interpretation. -
Statute Doesn’t Require Plan to Include Recommendations to Achieve State Telecom Goals
Statute does not require that the telecommunications plan include recommendations to help the State achieve its telecommunications policies and goals. Rather, statute simply says that the telecommunications plan should “assess initiatives designed to advance and make measurable progress” towards the State’s telecommunications policies and goals. By contrast, the statute related to the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan explicitly directs PSD to develop a plan that includes recommendations for State actions. It also requires that PSD complete an annual report with recommendations to “enhance the process for planning, tracking, and reporting progress” towards meeting the State’s energy goals.
Statute is Not Clear About Which Telecom Systems and Infrastructure Are Intended to Be Part of the Plan
The relevant statute makes several references to assessing telecommunications systems and infrastructure but does not define these terms. This makes it difficult to determine whether the telecommunications plan encompasses all the elements of the State’s telecommunication system as envisioned by the Legislature. As an example, the statute requires PSD to assess “State-owned and managed telecommunications systems and related infrastructure.” However, 16 V.S.A. § 2171 establishes Vermont State Colleges as a public corporation and notes that this corporation owns “the real and personal property of” certain State-operated institutions of higher education. As a result, it is unclear if PSD should include an assessment of telecommunications systems and infrastructure owned by Vermont State Colleges in the telecommunications plan. The 2021 Plan did not include such an assessment.
In some cases, public comments on the draft 2021 Plan took issue with how PSD had interpreted statute. One member of the public felt PSD’s reading of statute was too narrow. In response to that comment, the project team wrote that the 2021 Plan was based on PSD’s belief about legislative intent but provided no indication that PSD sought legislative advice on these questions.
Matters of Concern Communicated to PSD
Below is a summary of the concerns I communicated to PSD. My main concern is that the telecommunications plan does not include any method to hold the PSD accountable for achieving the State’s telecommunications goals. Because PSD is using the same vendor to develop the new plan, and the contract’s scope of work is similar, the State’s next telecommunications plan may have similar shortcomings.
The Plan Does Not Ensure Measurable Progress Towards the State’s Telecommunications Policies and Goals
The 2021 Plan does not clearly identify all recommendations and does not establish meaningful measures that include baselines, targets, and timeframes. Without this information, it is impossible to measure progress towards the State’s goals.
The Plan Doesn’t Address Each of the State’s Telecommunications Policies and Goals
It does not appear that the current telecommunications plan addressed each of the State’s telecommunications goals as required by statute. According to the 2021 Plan, it is a “roadmap” to achieving six telecommunications goals which are “informed by” statute. However, these 6 goals do not align with all 10 of the State’s telecommunications goals outlined in 30 V.S.A. 202c(b). As an example, the State’s goal of supporting affordable services for transmitting voice and high-speed data is not covered by any of the six telecommunications goals in the current plan.
Does Not Appear All Statutory Requirements for Preparing the Telecommunications Plan Were Met
It is unclear if PSD met all the statutory requirements related to preparing the telecommunications plan.
For example, statute requires PSD to survey Vermont residents and businesses about future telecommunications needs with a specific focus on the education, health care, public safety, and workforce training and education sectors. While the vendor did survey residents and businesses, it does not appear that the survey focused on those four sectors, which were clearly high-priority constituencies for the Legislature. Additionally, the survey was conducted online which obviously presents issues if the goal is to identify telecommunication needs. The 2021 Plan even acknowledges this, noting that “there clearly are limitations to online surveys about telecommunications needs.”
PSD’s Contract for the New Telecommunications Plan May Result in Similar Shortcomings
As noted, PSD recently signed a contract to complete the next iteration of the telecommunications plan. This contract includes a verbatim list of the State’s telecommunications policies and goals and requires that the new plan be “implementable” and include “concrete steps” for achieving those goals. However, these were all elements of the Request for Proposals that served as the basis for PSD’s contract for the 2018 Plan. Since PSD is using the same vendor to develop the new telecommunications plan, and the terms for developing the plan are the same, it is likely that the next telecommunications plan will have similar shortcomings.
My staff and I will continue to monitor these issues and I look forward to seeing the results of PSD’s efforts to develop the State’s next 10-year telecommunication plan.
STATE OF VERMONT OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
To: June E. Tierney, Commissioner, Department of Public Service From: Doug Hoffer, State Auditor
Re: 10-Year Telecommunication Plan
Date: 29 September 2023
I recently asked my staff to research the State’s telecommunication planning efforts after hearing from members of the public who had concerns about Vermont’s 10-Year Telecommunications Plan. This research identified several shortcomings in the State’s current telecommunications plan, and I am concerned these may be repeated as your Department develops future versions of the plan. My main concern is that the plan does not clearly identify recommendations for achieving Vermont’s telecommunications goals and does not establish measures to evaluate progress towards those goals. As a result, there is no way to hold PSD accountable for achieving the State’s telecommunications goals.
PSD is currently developing a new version of the telecommunications plan using the same vendor that produced the current plan and under a similar scope of work. Because of that, I expect that the next State telecommunications plan will have similar shortcomings. However, by outlining my concerns in this memo I hope to ensure that PSD requires the vendor to produce a more effective and appropriate telecommunications plan.
Since the process to develop the new telecommunications plan is still underway, I have decided not to initiate an audit at this time. My office will continue to monitor this process, and I may decide to conduct an audit in the future.
Ensuring Measurable Progress Towards the State’s Telecommunications Policies and Goals
The State’s current telecommunications plan describes itself as a “roadmap,” but an effective roadmap should clearly identify specific recommendations and establish performance measures. The current plan does neither of those things. There is no complete list of recommendations, and it is sometimes unclear what specific actions the plan recommends. The plan also does not establish any meaningful performance measures with baselines, targets, and timeframes. Without meaningful measures, it is impossible to evaluate progress towards achieving the State’s telecommunications goals or hold PSD accountable if those goals are not met.
These deficiencies are more telling when the telecommunications plan is compared to the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan, which is also produced by PSD. That plan includes specific goals with quantified targets and timelines, such as meeting 10% of transportation energy needs from renewable energy by 2025.
Addressing Each of the State’s Telecommunications Policies and Goals
The current plan states it is intended to address six telecommunications goals which are “informed by” statute. However, statute requires that the telecommunications plan address each of the State’s ten telecommunications goals listed in 30 V.S.A. § 202c(b). It does not appear that the current plan does so. For example, the State’s goal of supporting affordable services for transmitting voice and high-speed data is not covered by any of the six telecommunications goals from the current plan.
Complying with Statutory Requirements for Preparing the Telecommunications Plan
Statute describes the tasks PSD must complete when preparing the telecommunication plan, and it is unclear whether PSD met all those requirements when preparing the current plan.
For example, statute requires a survey of Vermont residents and businesses about telecommunications needs. According to statute, surveys should specifically focus on the education, health care, public safety, and workforce training and development sectors. Statute also required relevant State officials to provide input, such as the Commissioner of Labor for the workforce training and development sectors.
The vendor did conduct surveys when preparing the current plan, and as part of our research we requested PSD provide details about the survey methodology and results. PSD staff were unable to provide that information, so the only information about the surveys that is available is what the vendor included in the telecommunications plan. Based on that, the surveys did not appear to focus on the specific sectors as required by statute. The surveys did not include specific questions about those sectors, and the current plan does not identify anyone from the Vermont Department of Labor in a list of State Agencies and Departments that provided input on the plan.
Additionally, the vendor only used online surveys to develop the plan, which obviously limits the ability to draw conclusions about Vermonter’s telecommunications needs. The current plan even acknowledges this, noting that “there clearly are limitations to online surveys about telecommunications needs.”
PSD’s Contract for the New Telecommunications Plan May Result in Similar Shortcomings
The contract for the next telecommunications plan states the plan must include “concrete steps” for achieving each of the State’s telecommunications goals and it includes a verbatim list of those goals. The contract also notes that the plan must be “implementable.” Lastly, the contract references each of the statutory requirements for preparing the telecommunications plan as specific tasks that must be accomplished. If the new plan is completed in line with the contract, it will represent an improvement over the current telecommunications plan and will address the issues noted above. However, the contract for the development of the current plan also included the same language and referenced the same statutory requirements. Since PSD is using the same vendor to develop the new telecommunications plan, and the terms for developing that plan are generally the same, it is likely that the next telecommunications plan will have similar shortcomings.
In addition to the areas of concern described above, we also identified instances where the relevant statute appeared unclear or were left open to PSD’s interpretation. For example, statute does not explicitly require that the telecommunications plan include recommendations. This is in contrast to the statute related to the Comprehensive Energy plan, which explicitly directs PSD to develop a plan that includes recommendations for State actions. I have communicated these issues, along with a summary of the issues noted here, in a separate memo to the Legislature.
My staff and I will continue to monitor these issues and I look forward to seeing the results of PSD’s efforts to develop the State’s next 10-year Telecommunication Plan.
