Proposed Computer Not for Politics, Brown Says

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), seeking to quell a growing controversy over the award of a multimillion-dollar legislative computer contract, intervened publicly for the first time Wednesday and insisted that the system is not intended for political campaign use.

The decision on awarding the $12-million to $16-million contract was postponed indefinitely after a lengthy and sometimes turbulent Assembly Rules Committee hearing highlighted by a surprise appearance by Brown.

Brown said he did not want the committee, which had planned to vote on the contract, to make a decision on a state-of-the-art computer system until all issues in the controversy have been given a thorough airing.

Just the day before, Brown’s office was accused by Republican Party officials of pushing one computer system over another and laying the groundwork for a system that could be converted to compile mailing lists and electronic dossiers on voters.

Brown called the assertion “a lie” and indicated that lawmakers could be counted on not to misuse the proposed new equipment, although at this stage, the controversial system contains no built-in safeguards.

“I think the only way to avoid the improper use of any piece of equipment is that the user has to be committed to do that,” Brown told reporters later. “When you buy a rifle and you intend to go hunting with it, only the user determines whether that rifle will be used legally, because clearly that piece of equipment can be used for other purposes.”

Brown added, “I don’t buy the argument that we ought to stay with pen and pencil and never go to the computer age because it possibly could be used for campaign purposes. So could pen and pencil.”

Currently, only two firms, Digital Equipment Corp. and Control Data, are being considered by the committee to supply the computer hardware that will be used in 40 Senate and 80 Assembly offices. Digital is the recommended choice of Brown’s staff, including Matthew Hogan, chief of the Assembly office of information services, and William Hauck, a special consultant on contract to the Speaker.

Officials of Control Data claimed during the hearing that in processing its contract proposal, Hogan changed key elements in such a way that Control Data executives almost did not recognize it.

Gerald Meeks, a senior sales representative for Control Data, said that when Hogan’s office was finished with his proposal, it contained “omissions,” “errors” and “misrepresentations.”

Meeks told the committee that he was “flunked” in a final staff recommendation on some elements of his proposal that were added after he submitted it to the Rules Committee.

Hogan said he was only trying to help Control Data “make the strongest possible case they could make.”

But Meeks told lawmakers, “I don’t believe that my best case is presented in this document.”

Meanwhile, other computer executives said they were completely shut out of the bidding process.

Richard Beedon of Prime Computer, which has landed several major state and federal government contracts, including one to automate the state Public Utilities Commission, said the original specifications for the system were drafted in such a way that his firm could not compete. But he said the request for contract proposals was amended later to call for a system based on minicomputers, which his firm handles, but then he was told it was too late to bid.

The Digital Equipment contract would cost an estimated $16.6 million for the entire Legislature, and Control Data’s $13 million for the Assembly only, according to one analysis.

The Senate voted last July to give its contract to Digital, but the final contracts have not been signed.

Lawmakers have been talking for two years about automating their district offices to speed such routine chores as putting together schedules for legislators, corresponding with constituents and keeping track of legislation.

On Tuesday, GOP officials raised questions about one of the computer software programs the Legislature is considering for purchase. The program has been developed by a firm partially owned by the wife of a Brown legislative ally. It would allow lawmakers to use public records to compile files that would give them a variety of information on constituents, such as party registration, what kind of home they live in or car they drive, even whether they have received traffic tickets or made contributions to a political campaign.

The software program, called VoteTech, was developed by Data + Imagination Inc., 25% owned by Marlene Bane, wife of Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana). Bane is Brown’s choice to take over as chairman of the Rules Committee when the new Legislature convenes Monday.

Postponement of the vote Wednesday means that Bane will be heading the Rules Committee when the contract for the computer hardware is finally decided.

The Speaker said Wednesday that he thought each individual office would be allowed to select its own software.