Commission approves resolution exempting certain elected officials from county cybersecurity training

The county's IT committee presented Resolution 2025-38, which would exempt certain elected officials from mandatory county cybersecurity training if they meet specified criteria (for example, no use of county network resources or county email). IT and legal staff explained that the committee had voted unanimously to forward the resolution and that its policy language requires an exempted official to have no network access and to accept any limits on county systems.

Attorney Mackey advised the commission the resolution was legally acceptable but noted caveats related to public-records requests and potential attorney-client privilege matters where he would prefer to brief commissioners in privilege if necessary. The principal practical concern discussed by commissioners was public-records access when an official uses a private email: the county can request relevant communications, but compliance depends on the official providing them; failure to supply records could create county exposure.

Commissioner Martin, who said he does not use county email, argued for exemption; Commissioner Madrid voted no during the roll call. The roll-call vote as read by the clerk recorded 'Yes' from Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Kane, Chairman Bender, Vice Chairman Leatherwood and Commissioner Martin (duplicate in the transcript reading), with Commissioner Madrid recorded as 'No.' The resolution passed on the majority vote.

County counsel offered to redraft or return with modifications if the commission wanted specific language changes; the IT committee said it would consider clarifications. "If you are simply exempting those individuals from the training, I certainly don't have a problem with that," the county attorney said, while flagging record-access caveats.