Clerk's $115,489 grant paused after board raises legal, access and procurement concerns

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners on March 4 tabled action on a $115,489 grant from the Electronic Recording Technology Board after questions from commissioners and the county attorney about a recently purchased server, stewardship of county IT assets, and a proposed user agreement.

Why this matters: The grant would fund digitization, web hosting and a new server intended to support the county's land-records and recording systems. Commissioners and the county attorney said they needed to reduce legal risk, confirm that county procurement rules and the county's new grant policy were followed, and ensure that county IT assets remain governed by countywide IT policy and not by a single office.

County clerk Tracy Larson, who applied for the program grant and presented the item, said the funding covers last year's web hosting, additional digitizing and a new server. Larsson (Larson) said the county has already ordered a new server and that the grant would reimburse costs. Several commissioners questioned whether the county had already purchased hardware without following the new grant-review process that the board had recently implemented.

The meeting became contentious when the county attorney, Chris (last name not supplied in the record), advised that a user access agreement distributed by the clerk's office had not been reviewed by legal and may raise legal issues, including potential conflicts with state and federal law and with county policy on IT access and the protection of nonpublic records.

Chris told the board that county-owned IT assets should not be under the sole control of an elected official and recommended that any user agreement be drafted or reviewed by the county attorney's office. He also expressed concern after learning that a variety of users had already had access to the county's iCounty system and that access had been revoked for at least one attorney and other users. Commissioners pressed for access to be restored immediately for employees who needed it to do county business.

Larson acknowledged she had been pursuing upgrades and that certain actions had been taken without her direct involvement in procurement conversations; she said her office needs updated infrastructure and that the grant is timely for that work. The clerk and other staff reported friction between technology vendors (Applied Tech and an in-county contractor) about who would provide maintenance and support.

Action taken: After extended discussion, the board voted to table acceptance of the grant and set it for reconsideration at the March 18 meeting. Commissioners directed that legal counsel and county IT work with the clerk's office to (1) confirm the status of any equipment already ordered; (2) ensure county IT assets remain under county IT governance; and (3) return with a legal review of any user agreement or access policy.

Concerns cited by the board included the lack of legal review of the user agreement, the potential for county IT assets to be placed under a single office's exclusive control, and the timing of equipment purchases relative to the county's new grant-procurement policy. County staff and the clerk agreed to work with the county attorney to produce a revised approach and, per the county attorney's suggestion, to route access-related issues through Human Resources and IT rather than through ad hoc agreements.

Ending note: Commissioners expressed a desire to accept the grant so the clerk's office can complete modernization work; they said they would not approve the grant without a legal review and assurances about governance and access. The board scheduled the grant for March 18 so legal, IT and the clerk could resolve outstanding issues and present clear documentation to the commissioners.