Kurt T. Schmidt
The Chair called the meeting to order.
Penny Miller/Justice Sandstrom moved/second that the minutes of the previous meeting be approved with 2 typographical corrections on page 1.
The motion passed.
Kurt provided an update regarding the ongoing ERMS (Enhanced Records Management System) project.
The project is ongoing with ITD as the infrastructure provider (Filenet) and Enterprise Solutions Inc. as the contractor assisting with integration of UCIS.
No action was required.
Update regarding end-of-biennium purchases
Kurt gave a brief overview about items purchased at the end of the 2003-2005 biennium. He expressed his desire to be more proactive in purchasing items to avoid an end-of-biennium rush on PC purchases and will be working on efforts to accomplish that.
Sally Holewa asked if there is a “standard replacement cycle” for copiers as there is for PC’s. Kurt said there is not.
No action required.
Policy 213 revisions
Kurt discussed the draft revisions to policy 213. The current policy has not been updated for several years. Kurt felt it should be updated to reflect what are considered “best practices” in usage policies and to reflect and formalize some of the informal practices that the IT staff currently performs.
In general, the committee was not receptive to the suggested changes to policy 213 for several reasons.
∙Penny Miller indicated that the rule establishing the Court Technology Committee allows for the committee to determine “practices” and that formalizing these practices into “policy” is not necessary. The committee could simply validate current practices, if documented.
∙Justice Sandstrom indicated that he felt the tenor of the policy was too negative and that the policy should reflect different needs among court personnel.
∙Sally Holewa stated that judges and justices have a different standing from employees and that the policy should reflect the difference in position.
Kurt further explained that many of the items being discussed in the draft policy are currently being done within the IT department and that he is looking for the policy modifications to legitimize those current practices.
The committee stated it did not have any concerns with the practices the IT department was currently performing. However, the committee indicated it felt that these practices should not be enshrined in policy.
The committee directed Kurt to review the modifications to Policy 213 and divide the draft policy into 2 documents: One document being a new draft policy 213; one document being an IT practices document. Kurt is to bring both documents to a future meeting for the committee’s review.
Kurt will continue updates as the committee requested.
Draft policy on provision of computers
Kurt presented Attachment 3, which is a draft policy regarding provision of computers.
Kurt stated that the current method of budgeting for computers, computer replacements and related software is based on the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE’s) plus “unassigned” computers such as in-courtroom computers, public terminals etc. Recently, it seems that this method is inappropriate as several people within the Judicial Branch have more than one computer assigned to them.
Kurt explained that attachment 3 is an attempt to build a framework around which we can develop an appropriate and accurate budget, as the currently used method is inaccurate.
The committee asked if Kurt or the Technology Department had done a formal needs-assessment survey of the judges. Kurt stated they had not done a formal survey, but prior to each computer purchased, the end-user who is to receive the computer is contacted to ask if they have special needs or requirements of their PC.
There was discussion over what the term “computers” was meant to include. For example, a cell phone and palm computer have computing ability, are they to be included in the definition?
Penny Miller/Judge Nelson moved/second that Kurt survey the judges on what their computer and technology needs are and how well they are being met.
The motion passed unanimously.
Kurt will develop a survey instrument and present it to the committee at a future meeting.
Kurt mentioned to the committee that the draft version of the policy regarding electronic access was referred by the Supreme Court to the Joint Procedure Committee, where several changes were made. The Joint Procedure Committee has returned the revised document to the Supreme Court for its further action.
Kurt mentioned that until the order is finalized and approved, he is not actively working on implementing the necessary technology steps to accommodate electronic access.
No action required
Court Technology Conference 9 (CTC9) reports
Several members of the committee attended CTC9 and shared their thoughts on the conference and on sessions attended.
No action required
For the good of the order
Judge Medd asked about the status of implementing the acceptance of credit cards within the Judicial Branch. Kurt stated that the project is within the fiscal department and he would check with Susan Sisk on status.
Related to holding the meeting via video conference: With the exception of “passing the microphone” around the table in Grand Forks, most attendees were pleased with the meeting being held via video conference. As possible and practical, future meetings will be held similarly.
Kurt was asked if the Judicial Branch is causing delays in the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) efforts. He mentioned that he and his office were reviewing a draft report related to court system integration with to the CJIS system and that that process took longer than it should have, but the report was returned to the CJIS personnel and we are awaiting their action.
Kurt will check with Mark Hawks, CJIS director to ensure things are in process.