ILNews

Kenley appears warm to boost in Odyssey funding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, on Thursday signaled he supported a boost in funding for the Odyssey case management system and other court technology functions, after proposed funding was reduced in the House budget plan.

Kenley said the Indiana Supreme Court and the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, in particular, had done their part absorbing budget cuts in recent years, and he believed their efforts should be rewarded.

“We’ve come off an extremely lean time, and we’ve had your cooperation in that regard,” Kenley told Chief Justice Brent Dickson during a committee hearing on the court’s budget.

“We’ll do our best,” Kenley said. “We think we have a little (money). We don’t know if we have very much.”

Dickson earlier told Senators that funding for Odyssey “remains our top priority.”

Odyssey was installed in 28 courts in 2012 and now has a presence in 45 counties, Director and Counsel for Trial Court Technology Mary DePrez told committee members.

A proposal to increase the automated record keeping case-filing fee that supports JTAC from $5 to $7 passed the House in House Bill 1393. The bill moved through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. The bill as originally proposed would have increased the fee to $10, but the boost to $7 would restore the fee to the level it was at before being cut several years ago.

HB 1393 also creates a JTAC oversight committee, and the Senate Judiciary panel amended the bill to define its members and specify that private vendors in non-Odyssey jurisdictions have equitable access to send and receive information.

Kenley said even “the most vociferous opponents” of Odyssey agreed the proposed committee “is going to give them a way to solve this problem.”

Dickson said other requested budget increases for court programs would fund upgrades and increasing costs of existing contracts and obligations.

The court also hopes to receive funding to develop an appellate case management system, Dickson said, calling the current system “antiquated” and “paper-based.”

Dickson also pressed for funding for juvenile detention alternatives. Staff support at the courts would help foster implementation of programs being pursued in concert with the Department of Correction and the Criminal Justice Institute, he said.



 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT