July 5th, 2006
Mass. switch to OpenDoc illegal, charges state Sen.
The Massachusetts state senate is pressuring Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration to postpone its big switch to Open Document Format, the Boston Globe reports. Accusing former adminstration officials of cramming the changeover down employees’ throats, state Sen. Marc R. Pacheco issued a committee report that found officials" did not pursue this policy in an open, collaborative, or lawful manner."
Pacheco said two ex-state officials — Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss and ITD director Peter Quinn — violated state law by mandating the new standard without the required approval of the supervisor of public records or the records conservation board.
“This process, quite frankly, was driven by one individual in a very powerful position," Pacheco said, referring to Kriss. He said Kriss issued a memo to Quinn that, in effect, said “just get it done."
Political trickery, responded Kriss. The report is "filled with inaccurate claims, innuendoes, and unsubstantiated charges" about the process. “His charges are false and his recommendations deeply flawed."
Just dead wrong, said the administration. “We are committed to an open standards approach that fully takes into account all accessibility, cost, and statutory requirements," said a spokesman, who reiterated that the change will go forward on Jan. 1, 2007.
A key issue with the format is whether it supports disable users. Disabled advocates say the administration did not take disabled users into account.
In mandating the open document format, state technology officials made no effort to ensure that it allows disabled state employees to operate screen readers, voice synthesizers, and screen enlarging and enhancing software, all of which work with Microsoft Office, said John Winske , chairman of the Disabled Policy Consortium, a nonprofit advocacy group. While the new Information Technology Division officials are working to address those concerns for the new format, Winske said, the consortium doesn’t think a Jan. 1 deadline is “achievable."
