Court Technology Committee
Supreme Court, Bismarck
March 11, 2016
Hon. Dan Crothers, Supreme Court Justice
Hon. Doug Mattson, Judge – Northwest Judicial District
Hon. Rhonda Ehlis, Judge – Southwest Judicial District
Hon. Jerod Tufte, Judge – Southeast Judicial District
Petra Hulm, Chief Deputy Clerk of Supreme Court
Sally Holewa, State Court Administrator
Susan Hoffer, Clerk of District Court – Ward County
Michele Bring, Clerk of District Court – Burleigh County
Rod Olson, District Court Administrator – Unit 2
Lee Ann Barnhardt, Director of Education & Communication
Hon. Daniel Narum, Judge – Southeast Judicial District
Hon. Richard Geiger, Judge - Northeast Judicial District
Chris Iverson, Assistant Court Administrator – Unit 2
Mike Hagburg, Staff Attorney
Larry Zubke, Director of Technology
Cammie Schock, Business Analyst
The meeting was called to order by Chair Crothers.
Approval of Minutes from November 20th, 2015 Meeting
Rod Olson moved to approve the November 20th, 2015 meeting minutes. Petra Hulm seconded the motion and the motion carried.
New Court Technology Committee appointments and welcome
Justice Crothers introduced the newly appointed members; Michele Bring, Judge Tufte, Judge Ehlis and Rod Olson who replaced Kathy Ouren, Judge Racek, Judge Herauf and Donna Wunderlich respectively.
Odyssey User Group update
New Membership Appointment
Tracy Hines, Becky Absey, Lois Scharnhorst, Justice Sandstrom and Ronda Colby were appointed as members of the Odyssey User Group. The User Group has recently changed their meeting format from shorter bi-monthly meetings to a longer quarterly meeting. Most issues are no longer critical in nature. Documentation is the majority of the discussions.
No Liability Insurance Process (2nd offense)
There were several questions that arose while trying to document the no liability insurance process including; who prepares the order to impound plates, what happens if the plates are not delivered and are the clerks supposed to track that, where is the $20 fee to be disbursed to, etc. The Odyssey User Group felt these were not decisions the group could make and needed to be referred to another group. The group agreed the order is to be prepared by the court and the fee should go to the court. Justice Crothers asked if a process could be automated. Cammie stated we could do something similar to the failure to comply process. Sally questioned if there is a report that could be generated that could then be forwarded to the prosecutor. Larry stated he would have his office look into it. Sally will check with Jody to see what fund the $20 fee should be disbursed to.
Chris asked the group how stricken documents should be reflected in Odyssey. In the paper files, those documents would get moved to the left hand of the file. Petra thought it needed to remain in the record in the event of an appeal. The group agreed the documents needed to be retained but labeled as stricken.
Rod Olson moved to mark the documents as stricken by the judge in the comment section as well as restrict the document. Judge Ehlis seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Susan asked for clarification on what security type to use since restrict is not an option. The group agreed the security type should be confidential so the attorneys on the case could still view them.
Mike Hagburg will review the scenarios in which a document can be stricken and address them with the appropriate committee if necessary.
File & Serve – Public Portal Sub-committee Update
Cammie reviewed the membership appointments with the group. Members include Judge McCullough, Judge Sjue, Jack McDonald, Annette Kirchenheiter, Lisa Rivinius, Lilie Schoenack, Britta Helland, Andi Schimke, Bev Stremick, Justice McEvers, Penny Miller and Cammie Schock
The committee has been working on streamlining the current rejection reasons and reviewing them for consistency and clarity. Several changes were made to the e-filing email notifications which made pertinent information more easily viewable. The rejection reason on e-served filings is now listed on the email to all parties. The group is also compiling a list of training issues and misconceptions for both attorneys and clerks. Cammie will be giving a presentation at the clerk’s conference on these updates.
Court Technology Committee Future Vision
Long-term Strategic Planning List
Justice Crothers asked the group if there were any additions needed and how to prioritize the items. The committee did not currently have any suggestions. Judge Ehlis stated that IVN is becoming more and more important with the tightening of the budget. She also stated that the digital audio recording equipment is a high priority. Judge Mattson questioned if it included the portable equipment. Larry said it didn’t but they could include it. Rod stated that there is frustration with the equipment in Unit 2 with the different failures that happen in various components. The group agreed this should be a high priority. Sally said the group should also explore low cost alternative solutions to our current IVN equipment.
Replacements for the Juvenile Court Case Management system and Appellate Court Management software were deemed to be a lower priority at this time.
The committee felt that network intrusion detection consulting is a high priority. Larry will check with ITD who uses Mantek to see if we could piggyback off them and what that cost would be.
With Justice Sandstrom’s retirement, the Supreme Court website maintenance and modifications is another high priority. Larry stated that nothing would need to be included within the budget. Meetings have already begun to document the current process and disseminate the workload accordingly.
Sally stated that our file retention policy has not been reviewed since the implementation of an electronic case management system. NCSC offered to assist with reviewing and development of a file retention policy. The committee agreed to make a recommendation to the Court to refer this issue to Court Services.
Larry explained the portable/mobile equipment data security protocol is an additional layer of security. If the portable equipment (laptops, tablets, cell phones, etc.) were to get lost or stolen, the data could be encrypted or require additional password requirements. The cost through ITD for multi-factor authentication is $4.30 per device per month along with a one-time $15 license fee and $15 key card. Hard-drive encryption through ITD is a one-time cost of $45.50 per user and a monthly cost of $2.00. Larry will get the numbers of how many mobile devices we currently have.
Developing internal cloud storage space was considered to be a low priority. It was agreed to informally monitor the progression of moving operating and/or software sources to the cloud.
The governor’s office has implemented a policy for state employees to watch a cybersecurity training video within 3 days of obtaining a PeopleSoft ID and every year thereafter. The committee agreed that we should adopt a similar policy. Sally will recommend the development of a policy to Amy Klein.
The microfilm replacement project for Grand Forks, Ward and McKenzie counties is somewhat urgent. Sally stated the microfilm in Ward is starting to deteriorate. The cost as of a year ago was $242,200 to convert all three counties to a digital format. The committee agreed this should be included as a high priority item in the budget.
Sally questioned if moving off of Internet Explorer (IE) due to security concerns should be looked into. Larry stated that due to Tyler’s use of IE for Odyssey we are unable to move away from it at this time.
Larry stated that he would put together the budget items such as license costs and incorporate the high priority items discussed. He will email the budget to the committee in the late June or early July timeframe in order to meet OMB’s deadline in August.
Initial criminal e-filing
The initial criminal e-filing project will allow for States Attorney’s using JustWare to electronically file initial criminal documents. Tyler Technologies has provided the software to allow for this. The stakeholders continue to meet twice a week to work on the JustWare portion.
Common Statute Table
The common statute table continues to progress.
National Act Record Improvement Project (NARIP)
NARIP is a federal grant the Attorney General’s office applied for and received. It is to improve the data flow from the courts to BCI and the FBI. We will be exporting criminal information out to a broker which will then give it to BCI who can pass it along to the FBI if needed. The project is in the beginning stages.
Larry received a few policies from his peers in other states. Mike stated that there is currently not a mechanism in Rule 41 that allows the court to implement a policy regulating access to the public search site. At their last meeting, the Joint Procedures Committee had approved a proposed amendment to Rule 41 that would allow such policies to be created.
Judge Mattson moved to make a recommendation to the Joint Procedures Committee to expedite the proposed amendment to Rule 41. Rod Olson seconded the motion and the motion carried.
For the Good of the Order
Larry shared an email from Judge Nelson requesting the costs associated with AVI and if there can be any cost savings by hiring internally to support IVN. Sally stated there currently isn’t anyone internal that has the knowledge to support it. We have also asked ITD to support it but they too have issues securing people with knowledge on the system. Larry stated that he has moved one of the tech coordinators to a network position and hopes to get him more focused towards these issues. Larry would also like to take an inventory of all the equipment across the state to see what potential issues we may encounter. Larry and Sally will follow up with Judge Nelson.
Sally stated that at our September meeting we submitted two recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding Rule 3.5. The first recommendation involved incorporating the rejection guidelines with the rule to resolve the questioning of guidelines that aren’t part of the rule. The second was requiring attorneys to utilize the attorney subscription management system which automatically emails them when something has been filed in one of their cases. The rejection guidelines were redirected to the File & Serve Committee to be cleaned up prior to being forwarded to the Supreme Court.
Rod moved to retroactively approve the redirection of the rejection guidelines to the File & Serve Committee. Judge Mattson seconded the motion and the motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned by Judge Tufte. The next meeting is scheduled for July 15th.