Members Present: Hon. Gail Hagerty, Chair; Susan Hoffer; Petra Mandigo Hulm; Hon. Carol
Ronning Kapsner, Hon. Lisa Fair McEvers; Ross Munns; and Rod Olson
Members Absent: Ted Smith
Others Present: Larry Zubke, guest Sally Holewa, ex offico Amy Klein, staff Renee Barnaby, minutes
Chair Gail Hagerty called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. and welcomed new member, Susan
Hoffer, and guest, Larry Zubke, Director of Technology.
Review Request to Create New Position of Business Analyst Larry Zubke thanked the Board for allowing him to appear and discuss the business analyst
position on short notice. He explained his request is three fold. The first is to approve the
creation of a new job classification series of business analyst I, II and III. The second part is to
include that series in the accelerated pay plan as a way to advance the employee and retain them.
The last part of the request is to be able to substitute a business analyst position for one of the
vacant programmer analyst positions. There would be no change in total FTEs or impact on the
Mr. Zubke explained the UCIS system was a home grown system, and we owned the source code
and managed and maintained it to fit our needs. UCIS has since been replaced with the Odyssey
system, which is an off-the-shelf system. With an off-the-shelf system, the source code is
retained by the owner or the developer, which is Tyler Technologies. They maintain and enhance
it for us and we pay an annual maintenance contract. Thus, the need for system programming has
been reduced. However, there is a strong need for someone to serve as a liaison between the
business users, the IT department, and the vendors. A business analyst works directly with the
users to learn their needs and translate those needs to the programmers and the vendors of the
off-the-shelf system. They would manage the problem resolution from start to finish whether it
involves a business process change, an organizational change, or a system change. This would
improve the overall effectiveness of the computer systems and bridge the gap that currently
Mr. Zubke indicated in his past position, the company had 38,000 people worldwide, and the
ratio of programmers to business analysts was 1 programmer to about 50 business analysts.
In response to a question from Ross Munns asking if the position would be working primarily
with Odyssey or if it would also include the jury program and the juvenile case management
system, Mr. Zubke responded initially they would work solely with the Odyssey program. As
time progresses, it is his hope to branch out to the jury and juvenile case management system
because they are also off-the-shelf systems. The programmers are still going to be heavily
involved with all the systems in developing ad hoc queries for reporting deficiencies that exist in
the systems for developing interfaces to other state agencies and just general support of the
Justice Kapsner stated in speaking with Mr. Zubke, it is not the concept to have multiple levels of
business analysts but instead the purpose of the series is to allow a business analyst to progress
through the series to be able to retain the person.
Chair Hagerty noted the business analyst position parallels the programmer series, and the pay
grade would be the same except for the second level of the position.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Ross Munns, to approve the series. A roll call
vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Rod Olson, to add the business analyst series to
the accelerated pay plan. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Ross Munns, seconded by Susan Hoffer, to substitute a business analyst
position for one of the vacant programmer positions. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion carried unanimously.
It was determined that no formal action was needed on the policies affected.
Policy 120 Personnel Records Sally Holewa said she recently had a request for access from an outside entity to look at the
records. While the policy explains what should be in the record, it does not state who should
have access. Her draft proposal is divided up by employee access, supervisor access, and other
access, which includes anyone who is not the subject of the file or an outside person not
employed by the court system. She said Ross Munns had suggested we also consider removal of
records wherein after three years, an employee could ask that parts of the file be taken out and
shredded or discarded. Chair Hagerty noted there is also a second proposal that would amend
section B. She stated she will review each section separately.
Justice Kapsner referred the members to section A.3. and suggested the word “only” be removed
from the second line because we have other procedures in place. It was the consensus of the
Board to remove the word “only” from the second line in section A.3.
With regard to the changes in section B, Working Files, Rod Olson said that is the procedure
currently followed and it seems to be working well.
With regard to the changes in section C, Removal of Records, Petra Hulm asked if the requests to
remove or shred certain documents will automatically be granted. Ms. Klein responded an
employee will need to make a request but it will not necessarily be granted.
It was noted that the wrong section letter was listed under section D, Review of Personnel Files,
and it was the consensus of the Board to change it to section E.
In response to a question from Chair Hagerty asking why the new language under section E is
being expedited, Ms. Holewa explained she recently received a request from a state’s attorney to
review personnel files of court employees who are testifying. She said the state’s attorney
requested to see not only any formal discipline, but also any notes or any suggestions that they
may have been involved in an incident or something that would relate to their veracity. Since the
court is not bound to follow the open records law, she did not want to make a random decision
without consulting the Board. Ms. Holewa stated she would have no objection going through the
regular comment process.
In response to a question from Judge McEvers asking if the state’s attorney subpoenaed the
records, Ms. Holewa responded no, they were requested. Chair Hagerty noted if the records were
provided to the state’s attorney, they would also have to be shared with the defense counsel.
It was moved by Rod Olson, seconded by Judge McEvers, to adopt the amendments to
Policy 120 and refer it directly to the Supreme Court for consideration. The policy will not
be sent out for comment by the Personnel Policy Board. A roll call vote was taken and the
motion carried with Justice Kapsner and Petra Hulm voting no.