Greenville County clerk urges funding for courthouse security upgrades and pay reclassification to retain staff

Clerk of Court Jay Gresham urged Greenville County officials to fund upgrades to courthouse security and approve a targeted employee reclassification plan, saying both are necessary risk-management measures that support the county’s court operations and public safety.

"They're not wish list items, they are risk management issues," Gresham told the council, arguing that an updated security plan and pay adjustments are needed so the clerk's office can continue to process filings, warrants and court orders reliably.

Gresham framed the two requests as connected: the county needs both additional staffing capacity and a pay structure that retains experienced employees. He said the proposed FY2027 budget includes four new positions but that reclassification—raising starting pay grades for certain court staff—is intended to stop turnover that he described as costly in hiring and training expenses.

The clerk offered detailed caseload figures to underline the workload facing the office. He said the office expects to process more than 7,500 common pleas cases, handle more than 17,000 new warrants, process 7,000 domestic and juvenile cases and summon about 6,000 jurors in the targeted fiscal period. "In calendar year, this past calendar year, we processed almost 8,500 common pleas cases," he said, adding that the county has roughly "20,200-ish" pending general sessions cases handled by the solicitor’s office.

Gresham warned that courthouse security is also out of date. He said the courthouse’s surveillance system is ‘‘decades old’’ and has coverage gaps that could prevent reliable identification of who entered or where an incident occurred. He cited a March 14 letter from Chief Justice John Kittredge to county sheriffs urging review of courthouse security and referenced the Laurens County courthouse shooting as an example of volatile situations that can arise.

"We should not have a courthouse without a strong security plan," Gresham said, adding that cameras, access controls, perimeter protection and law-enforcement presence must be coordinated. He referenced a recent incident in which a suspect fled into the courthouse during a high‑speed pursuit and said the county was fortunate it was resolved without a worse outcome.

On personnel, Gresham described reclassification as a targeted retention tool rather than an expansion of government. He said some entry-level clerk positions are currently at pay grade 5 while entry-level positions in the solicitor’s and public defender’s offices are at pay grade 8, creating a natural incentive for employees to transfer. As an example, he said the plan would move certain entry-level legal service specialists from pay grade 5 to 7.

Council members asked for specific turnover figures, the average percentage increases the reclassification would produce and the estimated budget shortfall. Gresham said he would provide the requested staffing-loss numbers and cost estimates to the council and noted that final approval of pay changes runs through the county administrator and human resources, which may use state assessment tools.

No formal action was taken on Gresham’s requests during the meeting. The council approved routine minutes by voice vote earlier in the session and adjourned after asking the clerk to submit the requested follow-up data.

The clerk also referenced a January letter he said was submitted with judges and other court stakeholders documenting space and security concerns; he asked council members to conduct a deeper review and consider funding both the immediate security fixes and the reclassification plan while longer-term courthouse modernization efforts proceed.