That idea naturally raises the next and more important question. Even if the financing concept makes sense, how would the state operationalize it?
In my experience, financing tools succeed or fail based less on the instrument itself and more on the governance wrapped around it. That’s especially true for technology. Without strong and credible oversight, better financing can simply accelerate bad outcomes. With the right structure, however, financing reinforces discipline rather than undermining it.
The encouraging part is that California does not have to start from scratch. We already have models that work.
DON’T REINVENT THE WHEEL
I have had the opportunity to serve on both the State Public Works Board and the State Allocation Board. Each offers a useful model for how an IT infrastructure board could be designed.
The Public Works Board operates primarily as a financing and readiness body. It does not manage projects day to day. Instead, it focuses on whether scope is sufficiently defined, financing assumptions are credible and the state is ready to move forward. Its expert staff within the Department of Finance performs deep technical and fiscal review long before items ever reach the board.
The State Allocation Board plays a different but equally important role. It functions as a policy and prioritization body, setting program rules, establishing eligibility and allocating funding across competing needs. Its work is supported by the Office of Public School Construction, which administers programs and prepares recommendations.
Both models are effective. They simply emphasize different functions. That distinction is especially helpful when thinking about how technology investments should be governed.
CONSIDER A HYBRID APPROACH FOR AN IT INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD
Technology projects rarely fail for a single reason. Some struggle because priorities shift. Others because risks are underestimated. Still others because governance breaks down over time. That reality suggests an IT infrastructure board should not mirror any single model. Instead, it should borrow the strongest elements of both.
Like the State Allocation Board, the IT infrastructure board could play a meaningful role in setting statewide priorities. That would allow the state to define what truly qualifies as infrastructure, how limited bond capacity should be allocated and which outcomes matter most across departments.
At the same time, like the Public Works Board, the IT infrastructure board could rely on staff who engage deeply with project readiness, scope clarity, delivery risk and financing assumptions before funding decisions are made. The goal would not be micromanagement, but informed judgment.
This hybrid approach reflects the reality that digital infrastructure is both a policy investment and an execution challenge. A board that sets priorities without understanding delivery risk is flying blind. A board that focuses only on financing mechanics without shaping direction misses the broader opportunity.
FORM A BOARD THAT IS REPRESENTATIVE AND SERIOUS
A strong board has representation from key stakeholders who bring different types of authority and expertise to the table. For the IT infrastructure board, I would recommend that the director of Finance serve as chair, consistent with the Public Works Board. The state treasurer would bring expertise in bond issuance, and the secretary of Government Operations could provide operational alignment. To ensure transparency and accountability, the legislative leadership in both houses could each appoint one member, and the governor could appoint a public member with deep technology and delivery experience. A rotating cabinet secretary could serve on a fixed term to bring programmatic perspective.
This type of composition would balance fiscal discipline, executive accountability, legislative oversight and technical credibility. Just as important, it would signal that this board is intended to make real decisions, not simply review reports.
GRANT THE BOARD REAL AUTHORITY
Authority must match responsibility. California’s capital governance bodies offer clear examples. The Public Works Board and the State Allocation Board can delay funding, impose conditions and require corrective action. Other state boards exercise even more direct control over policy and operational direction.
An IT infrastructure board should sit somewhere along this spectrum. If its role is purely advisory, it risks becoming another reporting forum. But if it has the authority to suspend funding, reallocate unused capacity or require corrective action when projects drift, it becomes a true accountability mechanism.
That kind of authority also changes behavior. Departments prepare more thoroughly. Risks are surfaced earlier. Trade-offs are made more explicitly.
THE BOARD IS ONLY AS STRONG AS ITS STAFF
Even the best governance structure will fail without the right staff support. Boards depend on professional teams who bring technical insight, financial rigor and independent judgment.
One practical option would be to house this capability within the California Department of Technology (CDT). In that model, CDT would play a role similar to Finance’s capital outlay unit for the Public Works Board. Rather than focusing primarily on procedural compliance, a dedicated unit could focus on readiness, delivery risk and whether an investment truly functions as long-term infrastructure.
This approach may raise questions about independence given CDT’s central role in technology policy and oversight. But the state can manage this through transparency, clearly defined roles and open decision-making.
To succeed, this function would need to be staffed with highly skilled professionals, compensated competitively and supported with the ability to bring in outside expertise when needed. That investment would pay for itself many times over in avoided risk and improved outcomes.
VISION WITHOUT EXECUTION IS HALLUCINATION
I recognize that any IT infrastructure bond and corresponding IT infrastructure board would require legislation to codify. But the good news is we already have long-standing examples within the state. California already allocates billions of dollars in bond funding through structured, disciplined processes. We know how to do this. The challenge is not invention, but application.
If the state wants to fund digital systems like infrastructure, it must also be willing to govern them like infrastructure. That means clarity, discipline and sustained accountability.
That is where real modernization begins.
