Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cybersecurity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners Vote 3–2 to Remove IT Director After Missed Cybersecurity Deadline
Summary
After weeks of concern over missed cybersecurity measures required by the Texas Association of Counties, the commissioners court voted 3–2 to terminate the county IT director following testimony that multi-factor authentication and other protections were late or only recently deployed.
The county commissioners court voted 3–2 to terminate the county IT director after a contentious special session focused on delayed cybersecurity measures and insurance compliance.
The presiding official opened the session by saying the court would consider “cybersecurity and insurance coverage with the Texas Association of Counties and personnel issues related to the current status.” Commissioners said they had attested to the association that required protections would be in place by Oct. 1, but learned months later that key measures were not fully implemented.
A commissioner (Speaker 6) pressed the director repeatedly over the missed deadline, saying, “we submitted a document to TAC based on our level of insurance coverage, cybersecurity insurance coverage,” and later, “these measures still aren't in place.” The commissioner argued the lapse exposed the county to potentially “millions of dollars” in liability if a cyber incident had occurred.
The county’s IT director in the meeting (Speaker 7) said RSA (the multi-factor solution) is live and defended the department’s workload, noting that "we did 21 countywide projects from June to now" and that deploying RSA required diverting staff from other priorities. The director said the department had executed the plan and that the implementation was complete.
Other commissioners pressed that it was the director’s responsibility to notify the court earlier if the department could not meet the Oct. 1 attestation. One commissioner (Speaker 3) told the director, “it is your job as the Director of IT to let us know these things,” arguing the lack of earlier communication denied the court an opportunity to assign higher priority or provide resources.
During debate, a commissioner (Speaker 8) cited a January 2025 staffing assessment that identified 11 IT personnel countywide and recommended that adequate support could be provided by 3 to 5 support staff, saying the county’s headcount was “approximately 275% above average” compared with industry-calculated norms. The director responded that counties vary in structure and pointed to the volume of service requests and cross-county support provided by the department.
A motion to terminate the IT director (motion text named Drew Whitaker) was made by Speaker 6 and seconded by Commissioner Eagle. The presiding official called for the vote and later stated the motion passed “3 to 2.” The roll-call language during the vote included an apparent name mismatch — the roll call referenced "terminating June Winters," while the motion cited Drew Whitaker; the court recorded the tally as 3–2 for termination.
The court returned from executive session and stated that no action was taken during that session prior to the public debate and vote. With the termination vote concluded, the presiding official asked for any further business and adjourned the special session.
The court did not identify next steps for personnel processing, severance, or appeal in open session; those details were not specified in the transcript.
