Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It Cybersecurity Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cass County to review multi-factor authentication, texting and AI policies at April meeting
Summary
County IT staff told commissioners the multi-factor authentication policy is required by CJIS, the texting policy is needed to meet FCC notice requirements for cloud-based texting, and the acceptable-use AI policy is a flexible framework; all three were moved to the April 10 meeting for formal approval.
The Cass County Board of Commissioners voted to move three countywide IT policies — a multi-factor authentication (MFA) policy, a texting-privacy policy and an acceptable-use artificial intelligence (AI) policy — to its April 10 meeting after county IT staff described why each is needed.
Miss Nesditch, identified in the meeting as an IT staff member, told commissioners the MFA policy implements a Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) requirement for two-factor authentication on county systems that handle criminal justice information. "We discussed this with the policy committee meeting on multi factors education as required by CJIS... It basically is requiring 2 factors," Miss Nesditch said.
On the texting policy, staff said the county recently migrated to a cloud-based phone system (RingCentral) and must post an acceptable-use/texting privacy policy on its website to comply with Federal Communications Commission requirements for cloud texting services. An IT staff speaker said the policy creates the notice that must be publicly posted to permit county use of the service.
Commissioners also moved an acceptable-use AI policy to the April 10 meeting. IT staff characterized the AI policy as a broad, adaptable framework to document and vet county use of AI tools; the presenter said the policy is not intended to ban AI but to raise awareness and set vetting steps as the technology evolves.
All three policies were placed on the April 10 regular meeting agenda; motions and seconds were recorded but individual mover/second names were not identified in the meeting transcript. The board also asked staff to be available at the next meeting to answer questions and provide any supporting documentation.
