Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Branch It Fte topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears judicial branch request to prioritize IT positions and selected FTEs in budget
Summary
Senators and the State Court Administrator discussed the judicial branch’s priority list, emphasizing IT positions and certain FTEs the branch describes as critical to system operations; the administrator said much software is custom and requires in-house programming and interfaces.
Senator Thomas and other committee members reviewed a judicial branch priority list that ranks IT positions and other full‑time equivalent (FTE) requests the judicial branch says are necessary for operations.
Senator Thomas told the committee the IT column on the priority sheet was treated as the number‑one priority. He and committee members said several IT hires — including a programmer/technology coordinator, programmers, and network analysts focused on cybersecurity — were described as essential to maintain services the judicial branch relies on.
Sally Holeven, State Court Administrator, told the committee the judicial branch uses a mix of outside vendors for major products but relies on internal programming for many intermediate tools, interfaces and dashboards that connect the courts to other systems, support automatic notifications for attorneys, and produce custom reports. “These are all the little products that we need to really make things spin and work well,” she said, explaining why in‑house programmers are needed. She said those staff also write interfaces to CJIS and DOT systems and to the district court vendor’s product so internal workflows function efficiently.
Committee members asked about the current size of the judicial branch IT staff. The number was discussed on the record amid minor confusion; a figure of 13 was stated during the exchange (as read into the record). Senators Thomas and Connolly recommended the committee review the judiciary’s FTE priority list and consider funding the top IT priorities and some district‑court positions that the judiciary ranked as most important.
The committee did not adopt final appropriations or new FTEs during this hearing; members said the lists would be revisited in future meetings and that some items could be deferred to the next biennium if not critical this session.
