ILNews

Dickson makes pitch for Odyssey funding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT