March 10, 2000
10:00 am - 3:00 pm
Approval of the December 10, 1999 Minutes (Attachment 1)
Judicial Server Support Policy (Attachment 2) - Kurt
PCSS & UCIS integration proposal (Attachment 3) - Kurt
Training Issues (Attachment 4) - Kurt
Interactive Television Pilot Project update (Attachments 5 & 6)
Email Usage - (Attachment 7)
Juvenile system update Kurt
Digital Audio Recording project update and formal review plans - Judge Schmalenberger
Technology Impact from Clerks of Court Consolidation - Kurt
UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Policy ____ February 01, 2000
JUDICIAL SERVER SUPPORT PLANS
To ensure the most efficient, effective and functional network, all judicial servers should be placed under the general oversight of the State Court Administrators Office (SCAO) with the coordination of the Director of Technology. The following guidelines will be used regarding purchase, configuration, support and maintenance of Judicial servers.
Account: The name, password, and other individual attributes on a server that are necessary to access the network.
Contractor: Technical support personnel hired via contract to perform designated, specific tasks on selected computer equipment.
Locked account: Account that has been locked and is inaccessible. Common causes of locked accounts include five failed login attempts.
Server: A computer designated for use by a group of people for shared storage and use.
Shares: A folder on a server or workstation that is accessible from the network
Workstation: A computer designated for use by a single person.
1. New Purchases and Upgrades will be coordinated through the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff.
2. Setup, installation, and configuration will be coordinated through and performed by the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff.
3. Maintenance, Operating System Updates and Patches will be coordinated through and installed by the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff
3.1. New shares that are necessary will be added by or coordinated with the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff upon receipt of a request via the help desk.
3.2. Installation of network-based applications will be done by or coordinated with the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff.
3.3. Locked accounts will be reset by local support personnel according to local protocols, or alternatively, by help desk personnel.
3.4. Tape Backup procedures will be established and scheduled by the Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff. Local support personnel will be responsible for maintaining and rotating the tapes accordingly.
4. New user accounts can be authorized by district administrative staff and will be created by Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff upon request via the help desk.
5. Use computers designated as servers for workstation purposes degrades performance, is a security risk and will not be done.
6. Contractor assistance may be used for immediate or emergency hardware or software server repairs if Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff are not available. If contractor assistance is needed, it will only be retained with coordination between local support personnel and Judicial Branch Information Technology Staff.
7. Coordination with administrative staff. Prior coordination with administrative staff regarding all work to be performed to judicial servers will be done, if practical.
8. Problems with Judicial servers should be immediately reported to the Judicial Help Desk at 328-4218.
Approved by the Supreme Court_________
Date: February 18, 2000
To: PCSS and UCIS integration Committee, Keithe E. Nelson
From: Kurt T. Schmidt
Subject: Integration Concept
The technology departments of Cass County and the Judicial Branch have agreed to present the following concept for integration of PCSS and UCIS:
First, a functionality comparison of UCIS and PCSS would be conducted to identify any functionality that UCIS does not provide for the clerk of court's office. Programming enhancements would be performed to ensure that all current functionality of PCSS is included in UCIS. The report by Justice Served would serve as the starting point for that comparison.
Then, the clerk of courts office would begin using UCIS as their primary case management information system.
Once court information is entered into UCIS, it would be automatically posted or transferred to PCSS. This could be a real-time, interactive process, which would allow for individual oversight, not necessarily an overnight, batch process.
Once the information is transferred to PCSS, all existing functionality provided by PCSS and enjoyed by Cass County would remain intact.
Because the data would be replicated from UCIS to PCSS, this approach allows us to broadly integrate UCIS and PCSS while avoiding the need to duplicate any detailed integration that may be provided within PCSS.
However, there may be exceptions to this broad approach. For example, the State's Attorneys office. It is believed that for cases originating from the State's Attorneys office, initial case information should be transferred to UCIS from PCSS. Once court activities occur and are recorded in UCIS, that information should then be posted back to PCSS. This type of data transfer is very similar to the integration done between SAMS and UCIS in Grand Forks.
This approach seems to satisfy both stated goals of providing the Judicial Branch with the functionality of a single, integrated case management system while not reducing any county integration provided by PCSS.
I expect there will be many specific issues that will need to be addressed. It is my hope that we can begin identifying those issues and addressing them at our meeting on March 2nd.
March 2nd, 2000 10:30 a.m.
Cass County Courthouse
Commission Room, 1st Floor
Review integration proposal
Functionality comparison PCSS and UCIS
o Areas where detailed integration may be needed
o Security between systems
o Ownership of source code in PCSS
o Others to be identified
As the use of technology within the Judicial Branch increases, the training needs also increase. To ensure we make the most effective use of the technology in place, it is imperative that adequate training be provided to all users of judicial information systems. Specifically, immediate training needs include:
1. Clerks of Court
a. Training before state assumption of costs is important to ensure employees and potential employees are operating information systems efficiently and consistently.
a. Training for both county employee and state employees
b. Costs for both state employees and county employees would be paid by state court administrators office
c. Because of various experience levels, various levels of training are needed
d. Topics include
i. Windows 95 and Windows 98
ii. Email and calendar
a. Training for enhancements
b. Training for new counties added
c. Training to ensure statewide consistency
d. Training for law-enforcement in state attorneys
a. Training for new features
b. Training to ensure statewide consistency
4. Ongoing training
a. Refresher training for regular, off-the-shelf computer programs such as WordPerfect and Email;
b. Specific training classes as software programs are updated or added (WordPerfect; Email; Access)
Training approaches being explored include:
1. Computer-based training / web based training
a. PowerPoint type presentations converted to Web pages
b. Customized, in-house develop training
c. "Canned" training packages for commercially available software packages
2. Training room
a. Six to eight computers, all attached to state network
b. A class schedule would be created with various classes offered regularly
c. Centrally located in Bismarck or Regionally located
The two training approaches offered are not mutually exclusive. Both could be used to satisfy a specific training need. For example personnel unfamiliar with computers could not be expected to take computer-based training. Or, a single enhancement or changes to UCIS may not warrant a face-to-face, classroom training.
Additionally, one-to-one training or small group training conducted throughout the state has been discussed. However, this would require a computer lab to be setup wherever training is to be done. This seems to be impractical, unless the users and training needs of a given area are sufficient to justify the establishment of a permanent training room. Coordination with individual counties would need to be done to ensure the room's use would be maximized. Some counties have expressed interest in exploring this possibility.
Date: February 22, 2000
To: ITV Committee Members
From: Judge Vukelic
Subject: Final pricing from US West
We have received what we expect will be the final pricing from US West.
The Information Technology Department has expressed interest in working with us on this project. To ensure they have access to the equipment, they have offered to pay $10,000 towards the purchase of the gateway. The use of these funds combined with the pricing from US West, will be enable to do the fourth site, Mandan.
A summary of items to be purchased and associated pricing is:
Washburn, Stanton, Mandan:
Vtel Galaxy 755
35 inch monitor with cart
9 inch monitor for Clerk's station
1 pan-tilt-zoom camera
2 remote control units
Software to integrate the existing sound system
Cables, installation and first-year support
COST: $18,879 each
Vtel Galaxy 755
32 inch monitor with cart
43 inch monitor with cart
9 inch monitor for Clerk's station
2 pan-tilt-zoom cameras
2 remote control units
Software to integrate the existing sound system
Cables, installation and first-year support
Gateway to connect our IP-based system to ISDN-type systems with first-year support agreement
Total Cost: $103,762 less ITD investment ($10,000) = Total Court-paid cost: $93,762
Additionally, it should be mentioned that the monitors and carts would be covered only by a 'standard' warranty and are not covered by the maintenance agreements.
Also, at the Bismarck location, the quote was for cabling that ran across the floor. There will be an additional charge of approximately $700 for cabling that runs through the walls and ceiling to make the wiring less conspicuous.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this proposal please contact me by Friday February 25th. Presuming a majority of the committee agrees to this proposal, will initiate the purchase.
As email becomes a necessary tool for conducting day-to-day business, there has been an increase in the number of people using email and the amount of communication taking place via email. Because of the vast amounts of email flowing in and out of our systems, it seems wise to ensure we have an adequate email usage policy.
The January 2000 edition of the "North Dakota Employment Law Letter" included the following article.
Also attached is the Judiciary's Policy 213 which addresses email use.
Developing an Electronic Communication Policy
You should tailor your e-mail policies to your company's individual needs. How comprehensive a policy needs to be may depend on how widespread the use of e-mail is, the sophistication and motivation of employee users, and the availability and effectiveness of management information system oversight, among other factors. Consider addressing the following issues in your e-mail policy;
State that the e-mail system and all computers and other electronic or telephonic media such as facsimile or telex are the property of the company and should be used for company purposes only. State that offending employees are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
State that employees should disclose information or messages from the e-mail system only to authorized employees. This policy should assist in minimizing the possibility of damaging leads of sensitive corporate information.
State that the company reserves the right to monitor the e-mail system in order to ensure that its property is being used for business purposes only.
State that the employees do not have a personal privacy right in any matter created, received, or sent from the company's e-mail system.
State that nothing should be entered into the e-mail system without a good reason. This will help minimize the creation of potentially offensive e-mails.
Adopt a policy that retains e-mail files for a set period of time, then erases them on a systematic and timely basis.
Allow authorized personnel to gain access to important electronic documents in order to minimize the possibility of the dissemination of trade secrets to competing corporations.
Consider encrypting e-mail with digital signatures to verify senders. Such security measures minimize the ability of impostors to gain access to sensitive information. In addition, electronic security discourges eavesdroppers, maintains content integrity and limits electronic access to computer hackers.
Widely publicize and distribute the e-mail policy to all employees. In addition, incorporate the policy into the company manual.
Add a banner to each user's log in providing clear notice that monitoring occurs.
State that employee communications are not considered private and that by using the company's equipment, employees are consenting to have such use monitored by authorized company personnel at its discretion. Also, have employees sign a form acknowledging the companys right to access e-mail and other electronic messaging systems.
Sensitize employees to what is and is not appropriate use of e-mail. Include the topic in supervisory training. In addition, you should inform your employees that e-mail is not easly deleted and can be readily copied and forwarded. Thus, the company should note that their employees' e-mails reflect on the company as a whole.
Take active measures to filter out or ban unwanted Internet sites by using monitoring software. There are also software programs that automatically search and screen outgoing and/or incoming messages for words that trigger legal concern, including racial epithets, sexual slurs, and other profanities.
Some would argue that it is unfortunate that our workplaces have become so stifled and humorless. That likely is a fair commentary. Yet, employees have the right to work in a workplace free from discrimination.
Employees pay a price for those legal protections. In part, that price is your need to avoid the casual, more carefree email conversation that can be misinterpreted.
UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Policy 213 June 16, 1999
Microcomputers and peripheral equipment acquired by the Unified Judicial System will only be used for:
1. Financial administration;
2. Case information systems.
3. Legal research;
4. Word processing;
5. Development of new or enhancement of existing programs;
6. Other professional activities related to the Unified Judicial System.
This policy does not prohibit the limited use of state-owned computer equipment for non-governmental purposes if all the following requirements are met:
(a) The use does not interfere with the performance of the employee's public duties;
(b) The cost or value related to the use is nominal;
(c) The use does not create the appearance of impropriety;
(d) The use is not for a partisan political purposes; and
(e) The use is not for personal commercial purpose.
Only Unified Judicial System justices, judges, and judicial employees are authorized, after completing training, to use this hardware.
SOFTWARE AND DATA USAGE
The Unified Judicial System has acquired the right to use several proprietary software packages. A license agreement governs the use of the software. Copies of all software license agreements should be filed with the Office of State Court Administrator. People who use the proprietary software should be aware of the agreements between the vendor and the Unified Judicial System. Each person using proprietary software purchased by the unified judicial system is responsible for protecting against any violation of the software license agreements. Typically the agreement states the uses which are NOT permitted, such as:
- making copies of the user's manual
- making copies of the system diskettes, tapes or other media, unless specifically told to do so in the documentation
- making alterations to the software source code OR
- provide use of the software in a multiple CPU or user arrangement to users who are not individually licensed.
Violation of any part of these agreements may create legal and financial liabilities for the Unified Judicial System and the responsible individual(s).
The following conditions govern the use and care of microcomputer hardware and software assigned to the Unified Judicial System staff:
- The improper reproduction of proprietary software by any means is prohibited.
- The use of proprietary software which is not the property of the Unified Judicial System on any computing devices belonging to the Unified Judicial System is prohibited unless authorized to do so in writing by the director of technology.
- The safeguarding of hardware and software assigned is the responsibility of the individual.
- The staff assigned the proprietary software will abide by the contractual agreements between the vendor of the proprietary software and the Unified Judicial System.
Data and software which reside on the State's mainframe or agency's mini or microcomputer is the property of the Unified Judicial System or other government agency. Use, alteration or deletion by unauthorized personnel is prohibited. Therefore, Unified Judicial System personnel should not connect Unified Judicial System microcomputers to the State network without written approval from the director of technology.
Passwords and identifications used to access the mainframe are confidential and should not be written down and should not be shared unless it expedites the office operations. If the Unified Judicial System personnel have any question regarding these guidelines they should contact the supreme court's director of technology. Unified Judicial System personnel who violate any of these guidelines are subject to disciplinary actions including dismissal.
USE OF THE INTERNET AND REMOTE ACCESS
The Internet (World Wide Web) is a vast, global network linking computers at sites around the world and it is a vital source for researching and accessing information, communicating through electronic mail (E-mail), and using on-line services.
Remote Access is a process of connecting via a communication line to the state-wide network, which allows connection to the Microsoft NT and Exchange server, AS/400 and the Internet from a remote location.
Employees are encouraged to become familiar with and use the Internet's and the Remote Access resources to enhance productivity. The state court administrator's office is responsible for controlling the use of the Internet and Remote Access in a reasonable manner to prevent or detect abuse and avoid legal exposure.
1. Employees of the State Judicial System may use the Internet and Remote Access for a purpose related to their employment or official position. An employee may use the Internet and the Remote Access for a non-governmental purpose provided the use:
a. does not interfere with the performance of the employee's public duties;
b. is of nominal cost or value;
c. does not create the appearance of impropriety;
d. is not for personal commercial purpose;
e. is reasonable in time, duration, and frequency; and
f. makes only minimal use of hardware and software resources.
2. Training. The State Judicial System will offer training for employees on using the Internet and Remote Access so the employees become more informed, knowledgeable, and productive. The training will teach employees how to use the Internet and Remote Access effectively and avoid unlawful use. Training may include software, books, and off-site and in-house training.
3. Remote Access. The supervisor's approval is needed in order for Remote Access. In the districts, the Presiding Judge's approval is needed for Remote Access. This may be done in cases where it is necessary to carry out the work of the office or to facilitate the efficient use of equipment or employees. Without the supervisor's approval, a non-exempt employee may not use the Remote Access to work in excess of the standard 40-hour week.
4. Standards of Conduct. An employee's use of the Internet and Remote Access is a privilege, not a right. An employee is solely responsible and shall be personally liable, legally, financially, or otherwise, for the employee's use of the Internet and Remote Access outside the scope of the employee's employment. An employee's use within the scope of employment shall be treated as other activities undertaken by the employee within the scope of employment. An employee's inappropriate conduct may lead to disciplinary action, including restricting the employee's access and use of the Internet or other appropriate action. An employee:
a. must use the Internet in a professional and ethical manner;
b. may not create or distribute immoral, obscene, threatening, defrauding, or violent text or images or transmit inappropriate or unlawful materials through the Internet;
c. may not enter or send obscene or offensive material into or through the Internet;
d. may not create, distribute, or knowingly use unauthorized copies of copyrighted material on the Internet;
e. must use the Internet only to access files that are publicly available or to which the employee has authorized access;
f. must refrain from overloading the network with excessive data or wasting computer time, connect time, disc space, printer paper, or other resources;
g. is responsible for any charges associated with billable Internet services unless appropriate authorization has been obtained prior to accruing the charge;
h. may not use illegal copies of copyrighted software, store such copies on the State Judicial System computers, or transmit them over the state networks or the Internet;
i. may be aware that all E-mail communications maybe subject to disclosure. An employee must not use E-mail:
1) to harass, intimidate or annoy another person;
2) to send foul, inappropriate, or offensive messages;
3) to solicit outside business ventures; or
4) to send messages that may be interpreted as sexual harassment.
The Judiciary may install software to measure and manage Internet and Remote Access usage. No person may intercept confidential communication except as provided by law.
Approved by the Supreme Court 06/16/99