DTI’s Growing Pains: A Measured Take on Internal and External Challenge
Guest Post By Another Frustrated but Hopeful Anonymous DTI Insider
The recent op-ed published in Delaware Liberal paints a damning picture of the Department of Technology and Information (DTI). While it is true that DTI is not without its flaws, the piece leans heavily on hyperbole, personal attacks, and omissions that make it easy for leadership to dismiss. I want to offer a more balanced and fact-based perspective, one that does not let DTI leadership off the hook but also does not discredit the agency’s hard-working employees who make the best of a difficult situation.
Clarifications on Personal Claims
Some of the claims made about internal hiring decisions are misleading. For example, the previous op-ed implied that the Chief Operating Officer’s wife was unfairly promoted. In reality, she has been with DTI for over 15 years, worked in various roles, and had to continue fulfilling the responsibilities of her previous position until a backfill was found. Another employee accused of being appointed to a role after less than a year at DTI has actually worked with the state for over a decade and was appointed to a new Director role while still maintaining their previous Director role due to ongoing staffing shortages. Suggesting otherwise ignores the reality that many employees in leadership roles at DTI must wear multiple hats due to staffing shortages.
The Real Issue: Chronic Underfunding
The main issue with DTI is not corruption or incompetence—it is systemic underfunding. Since its inception over 20 years ago, DTI has taken on more and more responsibilities without the legislative support needed to match its expanding mandate. However, this is not an excuse for inefficiency. Every state agency faces funding and staffing constraints; the real test is how effectively leadership can deliver services with the resources available.
To DTI’s credit, the agency often makes the difficult task of keeping state systems running look easy. However, the reality is that technology infrastructure requires ongoing investment, and much of DTI’s work is invisible to those who do not understand the complexity of maintaining secure, efficient IT systems across state government.
DTI’s Political Handicaps
DTI’s struggles are exacerbated by two major political disadvantages:
A Lack of Political Clout – Unlike the Department of Education or DelDOT, DTI does not wield significant influence within the General Assembly. The current CIO, having come from the private sector, clearly lacks political instincts, political maneuverability, or the desire to politic. This results in a dynamic where legislators treat DTI leadership as lucky to even be confirmed, rather than as a critical voice in the Governor’s Cabinet.
Low Public Visibility – Because DTI does not provide direct public services, it is shielded from scrutiny but also deprived of political capital. Agencies like the Department of Health and Social Services can leverage public opinion to demand funding; DTI does not have that advantage. Legislators live and die by public perception, and because the average Delawarean is unaware of DTI’s impact, there is little incentive for lawmakers to prioritize its needs.
This is indicative of a broader leadership issue within DTI, spanning from the Chief level to Directors and Managers. The prevailing notion of a “good leader” often falls into one of two categories: someone who has been with the agency since before sliced bread was invented or someone with extensive technical expertise. Unfortunately, little to no value is placed on actual leadership skills or on fostering relationships with legislators to advocate for DTI’s needs. Leadership development within DTI is virtually nonexistent—not because the agency lacks the time to develop its employees, but because it lacks the knowledge and strategy to do so effectively.
Legislative Indifference or Calculated Silence?
The previous op-ed claimed that letters were sent to Delaware legislators detailing DTI’s failures, yet these concerns were not raised during the CIO’s confirmation hearing (Editor’s Note: I wondered about this myself.) This could mean one of two things: either legislators did not find the claims credible enough to act on, or—more concerningly—they are waiting for the upcoming Joint Finance Committee (JFC) hearings to launch a more strategic, partisan rebuke. If the latter is true, DTI leadership should brace for a reckoning.
The SEUS Controversy: A Management, Not Malice, Issue
One of the loudest criticisms in the original op-ed was about the SEUS cost recovery initiative, which resulted in agencies being charged for services they did not explicitly request. This was indeed a poorly handled rollout that damaged DTI’s credibility with other state agencies. However, it is incorrect to frame this as deliberate malfeasance—it was a mismanaged financial recovery effort driven by the need to address years of unbilled IT services. Transparency and better communication could have prevented the backlash, and DTI leadership should own this failure rather than dismiss agency frustrations as resistance to change.
The Delaware Liberal as a Safe Space for Employee Grievances
One of the most revealing aspects of this situation is that Delaware Liberal has become a more comfortable platform for DTI employees to voice concerns than any internal mechanism within the agency. This reflects a deeper issue: the absence of a meaningful feedback loop between leadership and staff. DTI leadership frequently holds conferences and discussion forums, but these often result in circular discussions that yield no real outcomes rather than tangible change.
If DTI wants to improve morale and rebuild trust, leadership must:
Reinstate Customer Satisfaction Surveys – These were quietly discontinued after agencies reported more frustration with DTI leadership than with frontline employees. Honest feedback must be welcomed, not avoided.
Implement an Anonymous Employee Survey – Before another op-ed drops with more damaging allegations, DTI should proactively solicit employee feedback in a way that ensures anonymity and encourages candid responses.
Prioritize Transparency Over Optics – Leadership must stop relying on performative initiatives that generate discussion but produce little real change. Employees and agency partners need to see action, not just rhetoric.
I know for a fact that members of DTI leadership read the previous op-ed. I hope they take this one just as seriously. Employees are speaking out because they care, not because they want to see the agency fail. If DTI leadership does not take proactive steps to address internal and external frustrations, it risks further eroding trust at a time when its credibility is already being questioned.
DTI has the talent and potential to be a leading technology agency, but that requires self-awareness, adaptability, and a willingness to listen. The next move is on leadership. Employees are watching, and so, it seems, are legislators.
Thanks Delaware Liberal for giving yet another DTI employee a voice. I believe many others from DTI will be writing in as well until DTI comes up with more initiatives aimed at its leadership being transparent toward its employees in a way that takes ownership and doesn’t seek to shirk responsibility through having an endless amount of leadership conferences and other forums that generate much conversation but lead to only more surface-level discussions without meaningful change.
A very well written OpEd.
Very nice to read this. As both a volunteer and a vendor with a division of DHSS, working with the state has felt underfunded and antiquated for decades.
This op-ed is also full of incorrect things. Personal Claims has wrong data on the employees in question. The COOs wife has not been with the state for 15 yrs. You cannot put people in a position to direct and manage the efforts of others if they do not understand the business in which they work. And unfortunately, that has happened all too many times within DTI. Managing and a complex business requires being able to see all sides, understand all sides and then make appropriate leading decisions. Unfortunately, people are put into these leadership positions and they fundamentally just don’t get their side let alone all sides.
There are others too but the thing it gets right is the underfunding- how is the estate agency tasked, by legislation, with providing IT for all state agencies and it’s not completely funded by the legislation? The concept of itself that DTI should have to bill back agencies for services. The Delaware code says it must provide is asinine. If anything that data should be used to show the legislation the consumption, usage, and basic cost of providing the services to all agencies and then by default the constituents. There are other states out there with similar populations whose IT budget far surpass what DTI is given. If DTI was funded appropriately, and staffed appropriately, it would make a world of difference.
There are so many qualified people who work at DTI that are true assets to the state. And they are overworked and underpaid. But many of them are in the positions because they feel working in a civil service job is their calling. And yes, many of them are on the verge of retiring, which will leave huge gaps within the agency. And a lot of historical knowledge will go right out the door with them. But yet, DTI is not in a position to be able to compensate for that upfront. And it’s true future workforces do not have the same types of mentality that the current workforce has. The enticement of having a pension is no longer a motivating factor, especially when you have to put in 10 years to become vested. The younger generations are looking for the higher salaries to pay back their student debts and just to be able to afford day-to-day living. And that is a problem. Most agencies within the state will face if they aren’t already facing it.
Look at the vacancy rates within many state agencies. DSCYF severely lacking in caseworkers. A job that is truly needed in our state and society, but how do you entice someone to come deal with dysfunctional families and sometimes horrible situations and put their life on a line in some cases for basically minimum wage? The same with DOC. Those individuals are tasked with guarding some of the most violent offenders within our state. They put their lies in jeopardy every day that they go to work and they are put in a situation where they have to work double shifts and extended hours due to lack of staff. And after watching the unfortunate events that unfolded a couple of years back in one of the prisons, most people value their life at more than the current rate of pay that DOC is offering for prison guards.
People often say that State workers sit on their ass and have cushy jobs. Sure there may be 2% of the population that don’t necessarily put in the same level of effort as others. But I would say as a general rule of thumb people don’t even begin to understand the level of work that State employees put in to make sure that their services are available for them when they need them.
It’s understandable to scrutinize the accuracy of an op-ed, but does it really matter if the writer got the exact number of years the COO’s wife has worked at DTI correct? That detail, while technically incorrect, is hardly the crux of the argument. However, if we’re talking about inaccuracies, let’s lay them out:
1. Misrepresentation of Leadership – The claim that people in leadership at DTI don’t understand the business they oversee is misleading. Many of DTI’s leaders come from technical and managerial backgrounds, and while no one is perfect, painting a broad picture that they “fundamentally just don’t get it” ignores the complexity of state IT governance. Leadership has to balance agency needs, legislative mandates, budget constraints, and technology trends, all while ensuring security and operational stability.
2. Oversimplification of Billing Structure – The idea that DTI’s billing system is “asinine” ignores the reality of how state government funding works. IT services across agencies aren’t free, nor should they be. The chargeback model ensures that agencies pay for what they use, rather than creating a bloated, one-size-fits-all funding model that could either overfund or underfund key services. The issue isn’t billing—it’s whether agencies are allocated enough funding to cover essential IT services. That’s a legislative issue, not a DTI issue.
3. Understaffing & Compensation Gaps – The article correctly identifies underfunding and understaffing as major issues, but this isn’t unique to DTI—it’s a problem across many state agencies. This isn’t just about IT; social workers, correctional officers, and other essential workers face the same struggles. But blaming DTI leadership for systemic funding and legislative challenges ignores the root cause.
4. Previous Inaccuracies Unaddressed – This op-ed, like the previous one, does not acknowledge the inaccuracy from an earlier piece on this site that claimed a 30-plus year employee retired after a week, when in reality, she only submitted her retirement papers that week and still currently works at DTI. It’s likely just a matter of semantics, but it does show how misinformation spreads. Some people seem to be getting their information from within DTI itself, and the classic “game of telephone” is at play.
That’s why I wouldn’t get caught up in minor details about years worked or exactly when someone is retiring. What really matters is the substance of the argument—and that’s where the real debate should be.
Now, let’s challenge the actual substance of the op-ed:
Yes, DTI is underfunded. But is that an internal failure or a legislative one?
Yes, many employees are overworked and underpaid. But is that the fault of leadership, or is it a broader challenge with state workforce policies and budget allocations?
Yes, vacancies and retirements create knowledge gaps. But how do you fix that without funding to increase salaries, training, and recruitment efforts?
If the op-ed’s goal is to push for better funding and policy changes to support state IT infrastructure, that’s a discussion worth having. But if it’s just an attempt to undermine DTI’s leadership without addressing the real systemic issues, then it’s missing the point.
At the end of the day, the people at DTI—leadership and employees alike—are working with the resources they have to keep the state’s critical technology running. That’s the reality, and that’s what needs to be addressed.
I see no discernible difference in your positions except theirs faults management while yours absolves it. Oh, and theirs offers solutions while yours indicates more money is all that’s needed.
I have no knowledge of any of this, but to this outsider yours looks like nothing but apologia.
A whole lot of scrambling going on. Love to see it and now Matt’s got an opportuniy early on to get his folks to evaluate and see what the best solutions are. Thank you to the gutsy state employees!
I’m eager to see what unfolds in the JFC hearings because I know someone who works at LegHall and several legislators have received letters from the DTI Employee Advocacy Coalition. The Governor, Lt. Governor, and Secretary of Human Resources were also sent letters, meaning the concerns have been placed directly in front of decision-makers.
The real question is whether those concerns will be addressed meaningfully or strategically ignored. Unfortunately, many Democratic legislators will likely avoid asking the hard questions for fear of making a Democratic Governor’s reappointees look bad. That leaves it up to Republican legislators to do the heavy lifting—not necessarily because they care about true reform, but because it’s a prime opportunity to make Democrats look bad.
If it plays out this way, Republicans will walk away looking like the only ones who called for accountability—whether or not their motives were genuine. Lord help us!
What’s frustrating is that when political dynamics take center stage, the real issues at DTI can get lost in the noise. It would be a shame if the conversation becomes more about political posturing than fixing problems and addressing employee concerns.
At the end of the day, DTI employees and the state as a whole deserve real solutions—not just partisan gamesmanship. Let’s hope that somewhere in the middle of the political theater, actual progress is made.
What’s often frustrating is that JFC members, regardless of Party, don’t ask tough questions.
When you look at the membership, I trust pretty much only Laura Sturgeon to ask tough questions. Here is the membership:
Chair: Kimberly Williams
Vice-Chair(s): Trey Paradee
Senators:
Darius J. Brown
Stephanie L. Hansen
Laura V. Sturgeon
Eric Buckson
Dave G. Lawson
Representatives:
Stephanie T. Bolden
Nnamdi O. Chukwuocha
Krista Griffith
Kevin S Hensley
Daniel B. Short
It looks like Delaware Technology and Information Department’s leader just acknowledged the impact of the articles published on the Delaware Liberal to the entire organization during an organization wide meeting. The chatter amongst DTI workers was very busy, with several of them asking about items covered in the articles and letters sent to legislators, such as public facing Dashboards highlighting DTIs projects to the public and if the concerns raised in the articles would be raised in the JFC Hearings. To DTIs leadership’s credit, they acknowledge that changes are needed and I think its fair to give them time to implement them. However, the clock is still running and it’s only a matter of time before agencies start speaking out publicly which WILL cause high level personnel charges. #Staytuned