Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court approves SAR Data Analytics add-on and a one-time amendment to IT support agreement
Summary
The court approved a discounted, view-only SAR Data Analytics subscription for district court data and approved a one-time amendment to the Russ Wallace IT support agreement to cover compliance and security items; both actions were unanimous and within budget as reported by staff.
Maverick County Commissioners Court on Nov. 25 approved two separate items to support court technology and IT operations.
District court staff requested a month-to-month, view-only add-on to the SAR Data Analytics platform (referred to in the meeting as "SARAH") to allow the district clerk and court staff to produce court-case metrics and trend reports more efficiently. The vendor offered the county a discounted rate of $250 per month (normally $450); the district clerk said her budget would cover the subscription. Commissioner Ramos moved to approve the subscription add-on; Commissioner Rios seconded and the court voted unanimously to approve.
Separately, the court approved a first amendment to the existing IT support agreement with Russ Wallace to cover additional, one-time compliance and security items needed to support court operations. Staff said Russ Wallace functions as the court's dedicated IT administrator and listed services he provides, including system maintenance of desktops and mobile devices, VPN and remote access, vendor liaison work (e.g., RingCentral), and rapid response for urgent matters. The proposed amendment would authorize payment for ShareFile unlimited storage (listed at $22.75) and unified device monitoring and security ($1,100) as one-time items. Staff stated these enhancements are necessary for HIPAA and government-compliance purposes and that funds are available in the budget. A motion to approve the amendment passed unanimously.
Both items were framed as operational, budgeted expenditures; the court recorded that any ongoing contract obligations or future purchases would follow normal procurement and budgetary controls.
