Maybe saving taxpayer money with open source software.

I thought I would post the testimony I submitted to the Government Administration and Election Committee on a bill that I introduced. It is not a hugely important piece of legislation, but it is designed to encourage state agencies to do something that could save taxpayers a lot of money.

Here is the testimony:

I am Rep. Tim O'Brien of the Twenty-Fourth District and I would like to testify in support of H.B. No. 5299 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING COMPUTER SOFTWARE PURCHASED BY STATE AGENCIES.

This legislation is intended to require state agencies to consider the use of open source software when they are considering the purchase of proprietary software. The purpose is for agencies to consider the costs and benefits of downloading free open source software instead of buying proprietary software. I think that this legislation could save the state a considerable about of money.

What “open source” means is computer software that is not owned by anyone. It has been placed by its creators into the public domain, where anyone can read, experiment with and change it. And, usually, it can be downloaded for free on the Internet. You can often donate to the organizations and individuals who create and maintain open source software, and I have, but it is not generally required.

Of course, open source is the opposite “proprietary” software, which is owned by a person or corporation under copyright. Most of the software you are probably familiar with is proprietary, and usually proprietary software must either be purchased from a vendor, at potentially great cost.

The first advantage of open source software is on the cost of acquiring it. It is certainly hard to beat a price of $0. But there are other advantages. Since open source software is not restricted by copyright, like proprietary software, if your business or, in our case, state agency, has information technology professionals on staff, they can customize the software to the needs of the agency without having to either create new software from scratch, at create cost, or accept the inflexibility of having to accept what “out of the box” proprietary software can or cannot do.

In the case of many open sourced software, there are businesses that offer customer support, for a fee, to people using open source software. But, to be sure, one of the advantages of proprietary software is that there is more likely to be customer support available from the owner of the software copyright. This means that open source will be best suited for state agencies with IT professionals on staff, who will be capable of locating, online, discussion of how the programs work and how to correct problems.

Another advantage of proprietary software is that, in terms of technical innovation, they are typically a step or two ahead of their open source alternatives. But this is not aways true. I believe that the Mozilla Firefox Internet browser is better in quality than the Microsoft Internet Explorer.

You might think that it is hard to find open source software, since it might seem counterintuitive that someone would go through the trouble of creating a software package and then give it away for free. But the number of open source applications available is staggering.

This website has links to many of the better programs available:
http://www.opensourcewindows.org/

Most open source downloads that I have seen seem to go through the company that runs this website:
http://sourceforge.net/

In fact, I wrote this testimony on an open source program called “OpenOffice.org”, which serves a similar function as the Microsoft Office suite.

It is important to note that this legislation would not require state agencies to use open source software. It only requires them make some modicum of cost and benefits comparison before spending taxpayer money, needlessly, when a free or low cost alternative can be simply downloaded from the Internet.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Legislation to keep Boys and Girls Club summer programs open.

Today the Public Health Committee held a hearing on a number of different topics. One of them was legislation to address a problem that the Boys and Girls Club of New Britain has been having with licensing at the state Department of Public Health.

The issue is that the Department, in 2003, told the Boys and Girls Club that their programs would be considered as a summer camp during the summer months. This was apparently a new interpretation of the law. The interpretation seems strange, given that the programs that Club makes available to kids during the summer are pretty much the same as what they offer the rest of the year. But they were told that they needed to meet extra requirements, only during the summer, as a "youth camp".

The result of this, unless changes are made, is that the Club would be able to offer its services to hundreds fewer kids during the summer because it would not be able to afford that extra cost of serving the same number of kids.

The legislation proposed by Sen. Donald DeFronzo, Senate Bill 80, would address this problem by allowing the Club to operate as a "drop in center" with regulations that are better suited to what the Club actually does.

Mayor Tim Stewart and Sen. DeFronzo testified together in support of this legislation. Rep. Peter Tercyak and I are both on the Public Health Committee, and the whole New Britain legislative delegation will be working to get this legislation approved.

The 20-Year Rule.

I hold no claim to being a wise philosopher, but I thought I would share something that I often mention to other legislators when we are discussing an especially important or controversial vote we are taking.

I call it the "20-Year Rule."

It is so easy to get caught up in the heat on the moment in politics or to view things through the short-term lens of the next election. And immediate considerations are important and cannot be ignored. But, in my experience, too many decisions in government are made based on things that seem so important today, but are so clearly irrelevant with the benefit of hindsight.

That is where the 20-year rule comes in.

I try to imagine myself twenty years from now (now, meaning when I am making the decision). Aside from imagining that my joints hurt more than they do now, I imagine myself looking back on what I am doing in the present, and think about how I would judge my own actions.

If vote for the legislation, would I, twenty years from now, be proud of what I did? Would I, instead, regret it? If I voted the other way, what would I think of myself twenty years from now? Is there something I should be doing better, like working harder for more compromise or not compromising principle as much, that would make me prouder, twenty years from now, with the decision that I make.

That is it. It is very simple, but I have found it helpful.

I think it helps me to see the best choices to make. It lets me apply the benefit of hindsight before I make a decision, instead of after, when it is too late.