Erie County courts seek IT autonomy, propose reclassifications and additional staff
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Court officials told the finance committee they are seeking pay‑grade reclassifications for court IT positions, the addition of two staff, and the authority or arrangements to absorb IT responsibilities for several elected offices; they described security separations and asked for action before early May.
Representatives of the Erie County courts explained to the finance committee that the courts operate a separate IT infrastructure and are asking for reclassifications and staffing changes to bring pay parity with the county administration's IT staff.
Court representatives said their IT operation has six total employees and currently supports roughly one‑third of county employees; the county administration's IT function was described as having roughly 30 staff. The courts proposed reclassifying the court IT director from NB‑17 to NB‑23 and adding two positions to handle additional responsibilities. The NB‑17-to‑NB‑23 adjustment was described in committee papers as a significant raise for the position.
"We have 6 total people in our IT department," a court official said, explaining the reclassifications are intended to bring "separate and equal" pay and classification parity with administration IT staff. The courts also asked the committee to consider transferring the IT responsibilities of county counsel, the election bureau, and other offices to the courts' IT before early May so the courts could plan staffing and budget changes.
Committee members raised security and operational questions. Brie, a courts staffer, described technical options for separation and said logical and physical separations are possible: separate servers, separate domains, and separated machines to prevent cross‑contamination. "Those things can all be managed under the same IT department," she said, noting that domain joins and machine separation can preserve security while allowing consolidated administration.
Finance members asked for additional cost verification. The courts' presentation included a rough per‑user comparison that the court representative said currently equates to about $1,700 per employee for the court IT budget versus roughly $3,000 per employee under the county administration's IT budget; the speaker encouraged finance and personnel to verify the numbers.
The committee did not take a final vote on the proposed reclassifications. Court representatives said some exhibit figures were preliminary because paperwork was provided late in the budget cycle and required additional personnel office review. The courts asked the committee to allow implementation planning and staffing changes to proceed in time for elections and other priorities.
No formal action was recorded; staff and committee members agreed to further follow‑up and verification of the figures and any required supplemental appropriations or transfers.