ILNews

Justice: Fee hike could mean statewide case management system by 2017

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

If lawmakers during the next legislative session increase a statewide court fee an extra $3, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan believes the state can fully implement a case management system in all county courts by June 30, 2017.

That would be slightly less than a decade since Indiana’s judiciary hired a Texas company to implement the statewide system known as Odyssey – longer than the original six-year time period expected back in 2002, but it’s expected to cost less than the $92 million originally estimated.

Justice Sullivan briefed the Commission on Courts today about the progress in the past year since his last update and prepared them for what’s needed to move the project forward.

“The reason good technology costs so much is because the economic and intangible benefit is so great,” he said during his nearly two-hour presentation, which highlighted the project’s successes and emphasized that Indiana is standing out nationally because of this type of technology.

Since Tyler Technologies came on board with its Odyssey system in December 2007, more than 62 courts in nearly two-dozen counties have signed onto the public-access system – roughly 25 percent of the state’s total caseload.

The prime source of funding for the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee project, which Justice Sullivan chairs, is an automated fee generated in certain cases throughout the state. Lawmakers first put the fee in place in 2002, starting at $2 then increasing it to $5 the next year, before the current rate of $7 went into effect several years ago. As of last month, the court fees had brought in $55.7 million and JTAC has spent that amount, Justice Sullivan reported.

How the JTAC efforts move forward depend largely on the funding and resources, Justice Sullivan said.

During the past year, members of the General Assembly have publicly questioned the financial wisdom of spending so much money on this JTAC project. Proposed hikes in the automated record-keeping fee in the past two sessions haven’t gained enough support to become law, though the Commission on Courts has twice approved the increase to help pay for the case management system.

Justice Sullivan prepared this report on the heels of those concerns, and he noted that JTAC has also complied with mandates put in place last year: to track courts’ mental health adjudications for federal firearms databases; for connecting protective order registries and prosecutors’ offices; and county court case management systems.

He also noted that JTAC is working with the state Department of Revenue about possible tax-refund interception for any unpaid court costs, something similar to what the state agency already does with unpaid child support and license or permit reviews.

Justice Sullivan also discussed how people involved with the Odyssey implementation are contributing economically to the state by using local businesses, and that JTAC is interested in discussing potential revenue-generating ideas with the other branches of government.

At today’s meeting, Johnson County Clerk Jill Jackson was the only commission member voicing opposition to the JTAC project funding. She was the sole vote against a similar proposal last year when the commission voted 9-1 in favor of the fee increase, and she echoed the same concerns now on grounds that private vendors offering these systems don’t receive state funding and could go out of business.

Members didn’t vote on the fee increase but will likely do that at the commission’s final meeting next month.

The commission also heard requests from Johnson, Bartholomew, Hamilton, and Allen county officials for new judicial officers, converting courts, and changing a court official’s status.
 

Rehearing "Plugging in trial courts" IL Aug. 19-Sept. 1, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  2. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  3. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  4. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  5. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

ADVERTISEMENT