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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT