ILNews

Dickson makes pitch for Odyssey funding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Procuring money to expand the Odyssey case management system is “one of our most urgent priorities,” Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson told the General Assembly on Wednesday in his first State of the Judiciary address.

“The court intends to do everything we can to bring our Odyssey system as soon as possible to every county that wants it,” Dickson told a joint session of the Indiana House and Senate. “But this requires more resources. The court really needs help from the General Assembly this session to upgrade the necessary filing fee revenue stream.”

About 40 percent of Indiana’s caseload is managed by Odyssey, whose expansion has been funded with civil case filing fees. Until 2011, $7 per case went to the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee for that purpose. The Legislature cut that to less than $5 in 2011.

Dickson said juvenile justice reform also is a priority for the court, particularly the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative that he said has rolled out in eight counties and serves 34 percent of the state’s at-risk youth.

“This is a proven model that really works to improve community safety, to get more kids on the right track, to reduce school dropout rates, to reduce juvenile detention and to lower incarceration rates,” Dickson said.

Dickson also made a plea for attorneys to serve Hoosiers of limited means. “We want to encourage and empower Indiana lawyers to more fully realize the vision of their oaths and the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that they serve ‘the cause of the defenseless, the oppressed, or those who cannot afford adequate legal assistance.’”

Dickson noted the “massive change” for the court, in which he succeeded retired Chief Justice Randall Shepard, and the appointments of justices Steven David, Mark Massa and Loretta Rush in the past two-plus years.

“We intend that the ‘new’ court will be a continuance, and even an enhancement, of the things admired in the ‘old’ one,” Dickson said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Odyssey funding
    Last session, the Legislature drilled down into the extremely high cost associated with the Odyssey that Indiana has been on. The Legilature decisively came down on the side of greater competition and autonomy of the clerks of Indiana's 92 Counties to select a system that is functional for the respective courts and clerks. In so doing, the legislature rejected the monopolistic one-size fits all prescription of the Texas firm to which tens of millions of Hoosier dollars have been funnelled. For a system that has never performed as promised. Of course, Odyssey involves a large measure of overkill, as there really is no need for all of Indiana to have statewide access to the parking tickets amassed by my three daughters while in college in Bloomington, nor to those of hundereds of thousands of other college students there (or in W.Laf., S. Bend, etc.). The other benefit of the Legislatuere's curtailing the cash drain to Texas is thet an entrepreneur domiciled in Indiana is provideing the services actually desired by a majority of Indiana's ocunties. At a fraction of Odyssey's cost. It is reassuring to know the legislature has shown concerned about a "good to great" ROI. (another factoid-After a $200,000 consultant's report declared the project ready for a final push, the Judicial Council of California scrapped the Odyssey program after $500 million in costs).Krigsman, Michael (2 April 2012). "California abandons $2 billion court management system". ZDNet.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT