ILNews

After 5 years, state court data system Odyssey isn't halfway home

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the Greek epic “The Odyssey,” Homer’s hero Odysseus takes 10 years to return home after the Trojan War. Indiana’s Odyssey might take longer to reach its goal.

Odyssey, the state-backed court case management system that aims to connect and modernize more than 400 trial courts, is continuing its laborious progress, locality by locality.

State court administration staff has been at it for more than five years, and so far less than half of Indiana’s courts are connected to a system that users widely rave about it, but has been hindered in its implementation by a patchwork of court computer systems and funding uncertainty, among other things.

“If we had a unified court system, we’d be done,” said Mary DePrez. As director and counsel for trial court technology for the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee at the Division of State Court Administration, DePrez oversees installation of Odyssey in courts around the state.

But because local courts exercise discretion over the kind of case management systems they purchase and use, DePrez said JTAC faces unknowns with every installation it undertakes. “Indiana had 23 different court case management systems. We’ve only elimi-

nated one” by transferring to Odyssey, she said.

And then there are the few Indiana courts where clerks have never put dockets into any kind of computer, DePrez said.

Retired Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. had been the Indiana Supreme Court liaison to JTAC and the court’s leading advocate of Odyssey. He acknowledged, though, that it may never truly be adopted statewide because local court officials must agree to host the system.

“The Indiana Supreme Court was not of a mind to mandate counties adopt Odyssey,” Sullivan said. “Frankly, there’s a list of courts standing in line to get on. … I wasn’t going to get in a fight with somebody about whether there ought to be a mandate.”

Odyssey got under way when an $11 million contract was signed with vendor Tyler Technologies in June 2007. The first courts went live in December of that year. The idea for a statewide computerized case management system dates back to the early 2000s. An earlier project had to be scrapped in 2004 when it was discovered software the state spent millions of dollars to develop wouldn’t be able to provide the functions needed. That led the state to end its deal with Computer Associates in September 2005.

Of the state’s trial courts, 134 in 43 counties have gone on the system, according to JTAC, but only about one-third of countywide court systems are connected. DePrez said about 110 courts are on the waiting list for Odyssey, and more are in the process of signing agreements. Work is being done as staff and resources permit.

Sullivan said progress for Odyssey’s adoption never was intended to be on a particular schedule. He noted that the Odyssey database now contains more than 7 million case files and is approaching 40 percent of the state’s total caseload.

“Given how decentralized our court system is and each of these deployments is kind of a one-off task,” Sullivan said, “I’m very proud of what the JTAC staff has done.

“Given the resources the Supreme Court has available, the rollout has progressed at a highly acceptable rate,” he said. “It’s been a gargantuan task.”

Odyssey is supported largely by case-filing fees, and until 2011, $7 per case went to JTAC for that purpose. The Legislature cut that to less than $5 in 2011, but Sullivan said grant money partially made up the difference.

Courting change

The change to Odyssey has to take place without disrupting the work of courts, and JTAC staff is responsible for managing that change. A court switching over has to have the hardware and Internet requirements to support Odyssey, and those analyses are done by JTAC, as is an assessment of each court’s business practices before a conversion begins.

JTAC employs a team of about 15 staff and/or contractors for each transition from a court’s current system. The tech crews must translate and move all the court’s existing computerized case files into Odyssey and train court personnel and others who will use the system.

odyssey-map.jpgCourts typically bear no direct cost for the installation, DePrez said, and they save money when they no longer have to pay for maintenance or licensing on their old systems.

Odyssey is the state’s technology of choice for managing chronological case summaries. Sullivan said it’s among the best and most adaptable systems of its kind in the nation.

It connects courts with one another, reduces duplication of data entry, and has an online interface – mycase.in.gov – that allows public access to court records. It also has functionalities that can share data with agencies such as law enforcement, local probation offices, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Department of Child Services and others.

The system’s capabilities continue to expand through other JTAC initiatives that include e-tickets in which a police officer’s electronic citation data can populate forms in multiple systems.

“From a judge’s perspective, I love the forms feature,” said Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis. “Most of the commonly used forms are interfaced, and once I pull up a case, let’s say I need a transfer order on a criminal case, the system populates that form” in required data fields. The judge merely has to write orders particular to the case, she said.

Willis said that when the courthouse in New Castle went live with Odyssey on Jan. 1, there were few concerns other than those that accompany change from the familiar. But then-Prosecutor Kit Crane had reservations, particularly when the system went live and dates of events showed up in error. JTAC quickly fixed the bug, and Crane said he had a change of heart after he was appointed in June to fill the judicial vacancy in Henry Circuit Court 2.

“I never thought I would embrace Odyssey, but it’s an amazing tool,” Crane said. “I suppose I’m in my mid-50s, and I don’t like change, but also, when you hear ‘We’re from Indianapolis, we’re here to help you,’ really, historically, that hasn’t panned out so well.”

But Odyssey won Crane over with its capabilities and time-saving records functions. “It seems like every week the JTAC folks are populating a new asset within Odyssey,” he said. “It’s a great product, and I’m thrilled with it. I encourage every court, if they have the ability to convert to Odyssey, to do so.”

Not everyone shares that view.

Elkhart County is the most recent court system to switch to Odyssey, doing so over Labor Day weekend.

“I was against it. There are many problems with the conversion,” Clerk Wendy Hudson said, but she declined to elaborate.

“I’m hearing Odyssey is working quite well in other counties, but I don’t feel it was the right choice for my county. We had a system that was due for an upgrade, and the upgrade would have been much better than Odyssey,” she said.

DePrez acknowledged resistance in some courts.

Meanwhile, she said JTAC is gearing up for its biggest challenge, and has begun work to connect the Marion County court system. DePrez believes in time the system’s benefits, capabilities and reduced costs for localities will increase Odyssey’s acceptance.

“I think it will be a statewide system someday,” she said. “That’s ultimately what makes it so valuable.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Government Waste
    Dear David, you forgot to mention that JTAC started on this odyssey over 12 years ago against a national consulting recommendation and now at a cost of over $80 MILLION and climbing. Odyssey is no improvement over the competitive marketplace and 10 times more expensive. JTAC & Supreme Court want a monopoly over court record keeping that by state law is supposed to be by the local clerk as a check and balance to the judges. We need jobs in Indiana but JTAC is government jobs that unnecessarily cost Hoosier taxpayers millions per year.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT