Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cybersecurity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates whether cybersecurity contract costs belong in NDIT or higher‑education budget
Summary
House Appropriations members and NDIT officials debated whether contractual cybersecurity increases should be booked in the Information Technology Department budget or moved into the North Dakota University System budget, seeking to avoid double accounting and to make costs clearer for future appropriations.
Representative Bosch and officials from the state Information Technology Department pressed members of the House Appropriations Government Operations Division to decide where to place roughly $4.1 million in cybersecurity contract increases: in NDIT’s budget or the North Dakota University System (NDUS) budget.
Committee members followed testimony from Greg Hoffman, deputy chief information officer for the state Information Technology Department, and Chris Gergen, interim chief information security officer for NDIT, who said NDIT and NDUS share the same cybersecurity tool sets and that the expense currently appears in both places.
"We're all in agreeance for what we're using," Hoffman said during the discussion, describing a roughly $4 million total that included current chargebacks and an anticipated increase in contract cost and utilization by NDUS. Hoffman's testimony said one piece was the roughly $1 million currently charged back and another roughly $3 million that represented an increase in vendor contracts and utilization.
Representative Bosch argued the contractual cost that belongs to NDUS should be shown in the NDUS budget rather than in NDIT’s lines. "Either somebody has to pay this. So either we have to restore it back the way Armstrong budget have, and not how the Senate has, or go the whole way," he said, framing two options: keep the funding in NDIT and charge NDUS, or place the NDUS share directly in the higher‑education budget.
Committee members generally favored moving the NDUS portion into the NDUS budget so each agency’s long sheet reflects its own costs and to avoid repeated explanations on the House floor. Representative Meyer said the split is "cleaner" and makes it easier for the agencies and legislators to understand where costs sit. Hoffman and Gergen cautioned the committee that splitting the lines adds an accounting step but said they preferred clarity for future appropriations and oversight.
The committee indicated support for removing the NDUS contractual portion from NDIT’s operational lines and adding a note on the long sheet showing the NDUS cost in the higher‑education budget; members directed staff to coordinate the change with higher‑education budget managers and to reflect the change on the amendment to the long sheet.
Ending
Committee staff were asked to update the long sheet to show two distinct line items: the NDIT contractual increases to remain in NDIT and the NDUS cybersecurity contractual costs to move to the higher‑education budget, and to add a footnote explaining the split and the planned chargeback approach if NDUS does not take the appropriation directly.
