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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT