COURT TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
February 1, 2008
Dale Sandstrom, Chair
Jim Gienger, Project Manager for UCIS Replacement Project
Brandi Fagerland, ITD Large Project Oversight Analyst
Members of the Operations Oversight Group: Allan Schmalenberger and Rod Olson
UCIS Portfolio Leaders: Chris Iverson, Kim Nelsen, and Dennis Herbeck
Jerrold Arneson, Network Analyst
The chair called the meeting to order.
Approval of MinutesMinutes of the prior meeting were posted to the web but were not circulated to members, so the committee was not able to approve them. Sally Holewa will circulate the minutes immediately following this meeting.
Status Report - Unified Court Information System Replacement Project
Jim Gienger delivered the quarterly status report for the project. We are on schedule and on budget. The next required report is the Project Startup Report, which must be approved prior to its presentation to the State Information Technology Advisory Committee (SITAC) on March 26, 2008. The Operations Oversight Group expects to have the RFP developed and released by the end of April.
Each of the portfolio leaders delivered a status report. The caseflow management portfolio has completed its requirements gathering. The interface portfolio is in the process of reviewing and finalizing its requirements gathering. The administrative portfolio is in the process of posting the functional requirements it has gathered.
The committee discussed ways to ensure that we are getting input from our users. Two major obstacles seem to be the time commitment to reviewing functional requirements, and a sense of identification with the project. It was decided that Sally should send a short e-mail to let everyone know that the time to present comments is now.
Brandi Fagerland commented that the courts are handling the project well. She is pleased to see so much emphasis being placed on caseflow and our business needs, rather than focusing on the technology.
New Director of Technology
Sally Holewa reported that the position has been re-advertised and interviews are scheduled to begin on February 13, 2008.
Status Report - Bulk Data Distribution
Sally Holewa reported we have had two successful transfers of data. We are ready to release contracts and expect to do so in March.
Status Report - Wireless Technology Pilot Project
Sally Holewa reported that ITD is ready to wire the test sites in New Rockford and Jamestown, and we expect them to be functional by the end of March. The timeline of the pilot phase will be 1 year from the date the wireless capability is functional in New Rockford.
District Judge Appointment to the Committee
No suggestions for a replacement have been received by the Chair. Justice Sandstrom will work on recruiting a new member. The committee agreed that a new appointment should allow for representation from some of our under-represented districts.
Court Facilities Improvement Advisory Committee and Requests for Grants to Fund
Interactive Video Equipment
Sally Holewa was asked by the Court Facilities Improvement Advisory Committee to discuss this issue with the Court Technology Committee. During the last round of grant applications, two counties requested IVN systems. In both cases, the Court Technology Committee had reviewed the requests, and the court had committed to paying the wiring costs and monthly use fees for the systems, if the grants were approved.
The Court Facilities Improvement Advisory Committee denied both grants. The Adams County grant was denied because members felt that it was an attempt by the court to avoid holding court in the county. The McKenzie County grant was denied because the members felt that if the benefit was for the court, the court should pay the entire cost. Sally Holewa explained to the committee that the court has set a priority for purchasing ITV systems as first, placing them in chambered courts, and then placing them in courts with the highest volumes.
The Court Facilities Improvement Advisory Committee asked that the Court Technology Committee be notified of their concerns and that the committee review its priorities in light of the concerns raised.
The Court Technology Committee listened to the concerns and affirmed its intent to follow the priorities already in place.
Jerrold Arneson explained the bandwidth issues we are encountering in some areas of the state. The issues are most apparent within the jury system because it is a web-based system. It is indicative of a potential need to invest heavily in expanding our bandwidth in rural counties if we purchase a web-based case management system.
Jerrold Arneson reviewed the proposed changes in the digital audio servers. Under the proposal, most of the digital audio recordings will be backed up to regional servers. This should be easier for the court recorders and is along the lines of how we originally planned to use the systems.
The next meeting will be on April 11, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in the Supreme Court Front Conference Room.