State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > North-carolina > Chapter_147 > GS_147-33_72D

§ 147‑33.72D. Agency/State CIO Dispute Resolution.

(a)        Agency Request forReview. – In any instance where the State CIO has denied or suspended theapproval of an information technology project, or has denied an agency'srequest for deviation pursuant to G.S. 147‑33.84, the agency may requesta committee review of the State CIO's decision. The agency shall submit awritten request for review to the State Controller within 15 working daysfollowing the agency's receipt of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension. The agency's request for review shall specify the grounds for itsdisagreement with the State CIO's determination. The agency shall include withits request for review a copy of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension.

(b)        Review Process. – Thereview committee shall consist of the State Controller, the State BudgetOfficer, and the Secretary of Administration. The State Controller shall serveas the chair of the review committee. If the chair or one of the members of thereview committee is an official of the agency that has requested the review,that person is deemed to have a conflict of interest and is ineligible toparticipate in the consideration of the matter, and the two remaining membersof the review committee shall select an alternate official to serve as a memberof the review committee for that specific matter. Within 10 business daysfollowing receipt of an agency's request for review, the committee shall meetto consider the matter. The committee shall review the information provided,and may request additional information from either the agency or the State CIO.The committee may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the State CIO, ormay remand the matter back to the State CIO for additional findings. Within 30days after initial receipt of the agency's request for review, the committeeshall notify the agency and the State CIO of its decision in the matter. Thenotification shall be in writing, and shall specify the grounds for thecommittee's decision. The committee may reverse or modify a decision of theState CIO when the committee finds at least one of the following:

(1)        The decision of theState CIO is unsupported by substantial evidence that the agency project failsto meet one or more standards of efficiency and quality of State governmentinformation technology as required under this Article.

(2)        The State CIO didnot have the requisite statutory authority or jurisdiction to render thedecision.

(3)        The decision of theState CIO was rendered in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, orindicative of an abuse of discretion. (2004‑129, s. 2; 2007‑282, s. 1.)

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > North-carolina > Chapter_147 > GS_147-33_72D

§ 147‑33.72D. Agency/State CIO Dispute Resolution.

(a)        Agency Request forReview. – In any instance where the State CIO has denied or suspended theapproval of an information technology project, or has denied an agency'srequest for deviation pursuant to G.S. 147‑33.84, the agency may requesta committee review of the State CIO's decision. The agency shall submit awritten request for review to the State Controller within 15 working daysfollowing the agency's receipt of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension. The agency's request for review shall specify the grounds for itsdisagreement with the State CIO's determination. The agency shall include withits request for review a copy of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension.

(b)        Review Process. – Thereview committee shall consist of the State Controller, the State BudgetOfficer, and the Secretary of Administration. The State Controller shall serveas the chair of the review committee. If the chair or one of the members of thereview committee is an official of the agency that has requested the review,that person is deemed to have a conflict of interest and is ineligible toparticipate in the consideration of the matter, and the two remaining membersof the review committee shall select an alternate official to serve as a memberof the review committee for that specific matter. Within 10 business daysfollowing receipt of an agency's request for review, the committee shall meetto consider the matter. The committee shall review the information provided,and may request additional information from either the agency or the State CIO.The committee may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the State CIO, ormay remand the matter back to the State CIO for additional findings. Within 30days after initial receipt of the agency's request for review, the committeeshall notify the agency and the State CIO of its decision in the matter. Thenotification shall be in writing, and shall specify the grounds for thecommittee's decision. The committee may reverse or modify a decision of theState CIO when the committee finds at least one of the following:

(1)        The decision of theState CIO is unsupported by substantial evidence that the agency project failsto meet one or more standards of efficiency and quality of State governmentinformation technology as required under this Article.

(2)        The State CIO didnot have the requisite statutory authority or jurisdiction to render thedecision.

(3)        The decision of theState CIO was rendered in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, orindicative of an abuse of discretion. (2004‑129, s. 2; 2007‑282, s. 1.)


State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > North-carolina > Chapter_147 > GS_147-33_72D

§ 147‑33.72D. Agency/State CIO Dispute Resolution.

(a)        Agency Request forReview. – In any instance where the State CIO has denied or suspended theapproval of an information technology project, or has denied an agency'srequest for deviation pursuant to G.S. 147‑33.84, the agency may requesta committee review of the State CIO's decision. The agency shall submit awritten request for review to the State Controller within 15 working daysfollowing the agency's receipt of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension. The agency's request for review shall specify the grounds for itsdisagreement with the State CIO's determination. The agency shall include withits request for review a copy of the State CIO's written grounds for denial orsuspension.

(b)        Review Process. – Thereview committee shall consist of the State Controller, the State BudgetOfficer, and the Secretary of Administration. The State Controller shall serveas the chair of the review committee. If the chair or one of the members of thereview committee is an official of the agency that has requested the review,that person is deemed to have a conflict of interest and is ineligible toparticipate in the consideration of the matter, and the two remaining membersof the review committee shall select an alternate official to serve as a memberof the review committee for that specific matter. Within 10 business daysfollowing receipt of an agency's request for review, the committee shall meetto consider the matter. The committee shall review the information provided,and may request additional information from either the agency or the State CIO.The committee may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the State CIO, ormay remand the matter back to the State CIO for additional findings. Within 30days after initial receipt of the agency's request for review, the committeeshall notify the agency and the State CIO of its decision in the matter. Thenotification shall be in writing, and shall specify the grounds for thecommittee's decision. The committee may reverse or modify a decision of theState CIO when the committee finds at least one of the following:

(1)        The decision of theState CIO is unsupported by substantial evidence that the agency project failsto meet one or more standards of efficiency and quality of State governmentinformation technology as required under this Article.

(2)        The State CIO didnot have the requisite statutory authority or jurisdiction to render thedecision.

(3)        The decision of theState CIO was rendered in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, orindicative of an abuse of discretion. (2004‑129, s. 2; 2007‑282, s. 1.)

Categories