COURT TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
December 18, 1998
Judge Allan Schmalenberger, Chair
Justice Dale Sandstrom
Judge Joel Medd
Judge Benny Graff
Members Present via Conference Call
Kurt T. Schmidt
Judge Schmalenberger called the meeting to order.
Judge LeClerc moved that the minutes from the July 24, 1998 meeting be approved as distributed. Ted Gladden second the motion. There was no discussion.
THE MOTION PASSED.
Information Technology Plan
Kurt gave a brief update regarding the changes to the Information Technology plan. Several changes were made to the IT plan. As required, the IT plan matches the budget being proposed to the legislature.
Kurt expressed concerns that the additional FTE that was to be added for support of the Jury, Juvenile and SCDS systems was removed from the budget and IT plan. This removal effectively leaves the IT Staff without adequate resources to support these systems.
No action was required from the committee.
Search Group Update
Kurt discussed the report prepared by the Search Group. The original intent of the Search Group Review was for the Search group to provide some initial information and direction regarding an RFP to study the future direction of UCIS, including integration with other systems and future technologies. Kurt inquired as to what next steps the committee would like to take on this matter.
There was discussion regarding the budget cuts made. The RFP and this study were effectively separated into three separate budget items: One to fund the study of UCIS integration; One to fund the integration of Imaging; One to fund the integration of Electronic Filing. The funding for Imaging and Electronic Filing was removed from the Trial Court Budget. All that remained was the funding for UCIS integration.
Judge Medd moved to support analysis of future development of court information systems with a Request For Proposals (RFP) as a priority pending availability of funding. Becky Absey second the motion.
There was discussion regarding doing an RFP this biennium without funding for implementation next biennium and whether the RFP would recommend an obsolete solution. It was pointed out that there are funds in the budget for UCIS integration next biennium, just not Electronic Filing and Imaging.
To stress the short time frame, it was stated that all work regarding the RFP would have to be done this biennium if payment is from this biennial budget
THE MOTION PASSED. Kurt will begin work on the RFP.
Juvenile Management System Update
An update regarding the Juvenile System currently under development was not made due to information being unavailable from Greg Wallace.
Ted Gladden reported the status of the Byrne Grant. The system was installed in Grand Forks in early December. Several minor changes were requested based on testing in Grand Forks. Those changes and the grant will be completed this month.
Because of the completion of the grant the following have happened
We will be providing Criminal Judgement information in the form of an electronic file to BCI.
Scheduling component modifications are complete and working as efficiently as possible.
A graphical forms package has been purchased and installed. Forms development will begin shortly.
The Criminal Judgment process was 'cleaned up' and is now being done faster and more efficiently in the courtroom.
Data is being transferred between SAMS and UCIS.
Work under the grant is complete. The final report will be available by Mid January 1999.
There will be a meeting next week with BCI, the Association of Counties and the Judiciary to explore the possibilities of performing this type of data sharing when SAMS and UCIS reside on different AS400s.
Becky mentioned that the SAMS changes are not in 'production' (they are only in test) in Grand Forks and they would not be in production until the final changes to SAMS are completed, installed and tested, sometime in Mid-January.
Keithe raised concerns about why we were proceeding with a meeting with the other government entities without a significant announcement from IBM stating that such data sharing between AS400s that was not possible when this grant started is now possible. It was stated that several factors have changed 1) we now are dealing with only 2 or 3 AS400s instead of 6+. 2) The data communications across the state are much better and much more standardized. Ted also pointed out that it was possible then, it was just beyond the scope of the original grant.
Judge Medd inquired about whether or not additional systems integration was being pursued with such entities as the Department of Corrections.
Kurt stated that this issue was placed on the agenda as an effort to sensitize users to the fact that each building has a limited amount of bandwidth and that an individual's actions can and do affect the performance seen by others system wide.
Ted stated he would like to put this item on the agendas of other groups and committees such as the District Administrative Personnel's Meeting; Clerks meetings etc.
Kurt agreed to discus this issue with the Association of Counties in an effort to help them become more aware.
Kurt suggested changing the date for the September 1999 meeting from September 17, 1999 to September 24, 1999. CTC6 is the week of September 13-17 and it is probably not a good date for a Court Technology Committee meeting, as several of the members of the committee will most likely attend CTC6.
The committee agreed. The date for the September 1999 meeting will be September 24, 1999.
According to previous meeting minutes, policy 213 was to have been distributed for comment. Apparently it never was. What is the committee's desires regarding this policy?
There was discussion regarding changes and corrections to be made to the policy.
Judge Graff moved that the changes discussed be made and the policy be circulated for comment. Ted second the motion. There was no additional discussion.
THE MOTION PASSED. Kurt will make the changes and circulate the policy.
Kurt provided an updated copy of the policy that included the appropriate formatting.
As requested at the last meeting, Kurt re-drafted policy 215 to include language regarding access to the various levels within UCIS.
There was discussion regarding providing State's Attorneys with access to the Judges Calendar and whether or not it is appropriate.
Judge Graff moved to circulate the policy for comment. Keithe second the motion.
Discussion included: Becky Absey and Judge Leclerc should be sent the updated copy.
Justice Sandstrom indicated that "and/or" should be changed to "and". The circulation should include Carl Wigglesworth so he may review it for potential security concerns.
The agreement to request access to UCIS is incomplete at this time.
THE MOTION PASSED. Kurt will circulate the policy and complete the access request.
District Web Sites
Doug Johnson sent a request to Judge Schmalenberger asking this committee provide "guidance regarding development of a web page"
The consensus seemed to be that the idea of a central web site for all districts was better than each district or county developing their own.
Justice Sandstrom was willing to provide assistance to establish some 'static' information on the court web page, but was concerned about keeping pages current if the information changed frequently.
There was discussion about forming a 'web committee' to determine what information should be included. It was decided that this could be facilitated via the District Administrative Personnel meetings.
There was consensus that the state fee structure should go on the state web site .
Ted will follow up with trial court personnel to determine what they would like to see included.
County Access to UCIS
Judge Schmalenberger stated that Deb Kleven from NECJD requested that more, if not all counties should have access to UCIS. It appears that some counties that do not have access to UCIS feel abandoned and they would like access.
It was stated that we are planning on UCIS in 30 counties and that additional counties beyond those 30 would pose a significant support problem for existing resources and staff. It was also stated that the cost-benefit of implementing UCIS in counties with very low case activity does not support installing UCIS.
The committee felt that any action regarding this request should be taken after the legislative session. At that time, the committee would know what, if any legislation regarding consolidation has been passed and could better respond.
Judge Schmalenberger will respond to Deb Kleven.
Membership of the Court Technology Committee was discussed. As with some other committees, the members of this committee are to serve staggered 3-year terms.
Kurt will work with Judge Schmalenberger to establish terms for the respective members.
The Sixth national Court Technology Conference, CTC6, is scheduled for the week of September 13 17 in Los Angeles. Kurt and Ted suggested that the committee identify potential attendees and establish an informal agenda to ensure relevant topics are reviewed by the attendees.
Judge Schmalenberger verified that the funding to attend this is based on availability within each individual district budget.
Committee members that are planning to attend CTC6 should let Kurt know of their plans. Some type of informal planning based on attendees will be done as the conference nears.
Kurt reported: ISD is requiring significant Y2K reporting.
UCIS and the AS400 are compliant
Plans to verify the compliance of other equipment and systems are under development.
Counties: Some larger counties have dedicated IT staff to assist with compliance monitoring. Some county Register of Deeds offices have contracted with the Association of Counties to assist with their compliance testing. It appears that the majority of the rest of the counties have not made any plans or preparations.
Kurt questioned whether or not the Judiciary wanted to dedicate resources to assisting those counties that use UCIS and have no other plans. The committee agreed that the IT staff should provide appropriate assistance.
Child Support Program
Kurt asked if anyone had any knowledge of the Fully Automated Child Support Enforcement System (FACSES) being developed by the Department of Human Services. Kurt has heard conflicting statements about the program. Some have said it is a huge user of computer and bandwidth resources; others have said it is not.
Kurt and Ted will conduct some inquiries and review the connectivity cost sharing arrangements as appropriate with those counties using FACSES
Due to concerns regarding the quality of resources and facilities at this meeting, there next committee meeting will be held in the Judiciary Conference room at the Capitol.
Judge Schmalenberger adjourned the meeting.