ICCES Oversight Committee Minutes of Meeting

Transcription

1 ICCES Oversight Committee Minutes of Meeting Facilitator: Chad Cornelius Date: May 11, 2012 Location: Grandview Arvada, CO Attendees: Chad Cornelius, SCAO CIO; Jerry Marroney, State Court Administrator; Tracy Walter, Senior JBITS Manager; Diana Coffey, Manager of Application Development; Linda Bowers, Court Services Manager; Brian Medina, JBITS - ICCES/PAS; Danielle Stecco, JBITS JPOD; Chris Meints, JBITS JPOD; Tom Romola, Private Collections; Sabino Romano, 17 th Judicial District Judge; Mike Sullivan, Division of Water Resources; Jody Grantham, Division of Water Resources; Amber Roth, 1 st Judicial District Clerk of Court; Sabra Millett, 2 nd Judicial District Clerk of Court; Rita Trujillo, Denver County Court; John Kuenhold, Water Court Judge; Jacques Machol, Machol and Johannes, LLC; Julie Hernandez, Public Pro- Se Litigants Rep (Colorado Springs); Ellen Walker, 4 th Judicial District Probation; Julie Hernandez, Public Pro-Se Litigants Rep (Colorado Springs); Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman, 20 th Judicial District Magistrate Via phone: Deborah Sather-Stringari, 11 th Judicial District Clerk of Court; Andy Toft, Colorado Bar Association; Terri Cook, Public Defender Note Taker: Jon Libid JBITS ICCES/PAS 9:08 AM Pilot Locations Chad Cornelius We are looking at starting at a mid-sized location that handles water case types, hopefully on October 1 st, as well as being able to handle filings from collection agencies. We may bring in another location two weeks after that, but we want to make sure things run smoothly first before adding another location. We will be solidifying training materials and gathering logistics for the pilot locations first, and we will have more information at the next meeting. The jpod thin-client (web app) will be rolled out to the 1 st and 17 th Judicial Districts for testing once initial development is complete.

2 We have been meeting with Denver County Court for the past four to six months. They will not be part of the initial project launch because of time and staffing. We will continue working with Denver County to determine the best approach for system integration. Our goal is to have the system up and running by October 1 st so that we can begin piloting the system with law firms and collection agencies once the pilot districts have been determined. 9:12AM Call Center Chad Cornelius We have several current employees in the Department who have worked previously with developing and managing call centers. We would like to have a central phone number and location to contact for help. However, to establish an enterprise call center infrastructure by October 2012 that is operated by the Judicial Department will take additional time that we currently do not have. Therefore, we are looking at other local alternatives. The current plan is to outsource but remain in the state of Colorado for Tier 1 support (password resets, first point of contact for issues), and looking at coverage from 6 am to midnight. We have a good phone infrastructure in place today, but we would also like to see what the majority help calls will be and the volume. The long-term vision is to bring the call center into the Department that will also provide tier 1 support for the courts and probation. Sabra Millett: will this number be for everyone to call into, including the courts? o Chad Cornelius: Only for ICCES as of now. Software and hardware support will still handle internal judicial issues. We are also looking to visit a LexisNexis s call center in the first part of June to see how they are handling and managing these calls. 9:20 AM Lexis Transition Update Chad Cornelius LexisNexis is looking to charge us to get original documents, service data and security data for documents accepted w/o docketing. The price range for original documents is

3 $60,000 to $80,000, while the price range for service data is between $80,000 and $100,000. The question was presented to the committee as to whether or not purchasing security data for documents accepted w/o docketing will be necessary. We realize this information is critical and are currently looking at other alternatives or purchasing. One option would be to seal or suppress all accepted w/o docketing documents at public access terminals, and change the security on an individual basis going forward. Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: Each district handles accepted w/o docketing exhibits differently; can we just accept these documents instead for the next six months? o Chad Cornelius/Jerry Marroney: This is a good suggestion. There is a Chief Judge meeting on the 18 th, and maybe we can advise them of that at that point. Brian Medina: (explanation of problem) LexisNexis currently sends us all documents, which we back up. However, for all accepted w/o docketing documents, LexisNexis does not send us the security flag, and we do not know what level of security should be assigned to that document since it is not being docketed to Eclipse. Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: We are currently paperless at our court. Will we see these documents? What will it look like to the courts? Brian Medina: The court will see everything. It is the attorneys who will not be able to see them initially. Our thought was to suppress these documents, and review and update the status individually as attorneys need access to these documents. Judge Kuenhold: What are valid reasons for accepting w/o docketing? Brian Medina: To minimize clutter in the Register of Actions (mass exhibits, proposed orders). Exhibits are the most important to this discussion because of the varying security levels assigned to them. Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: Can the courts look at the documents and revise them? Chad Cornelius: Not if we don t pay for original documents. All will be in PDF format. Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: At minimum, exhibits are okay to have as PDF, but we need to be able to revise those original documents. Having a messy register of actions for six months is a better tradeoff to have these documents. The problem is more for the attorneys and the public, because they cannot see their documents. Jerry Marroney: What else, other than proposed orders and exhibits, are accepted without docketing? Can we separate out proposed orders from exhibits programmatically? (Brian Medina has a significant list of documents that are accepted w/o docketing) There appears to be a lot of types of documents and circumstances where we accept w/o docketing. The overall consensus of the committee is to go ahead and pay for these documents. Chad Cornelius: Service data is the next issue. This is critical data and we will probably need to pay for this information as well.

4 Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: Can a surcharge be added on to ICCES service to recoup some of this? Jerry Marroney: We will not raise prices. We will pay for that internally. People are already paying for the system. This is a one-time payment and the cost of doing business. We will purchase the security data for documents accepted without docketing as well as service data. 9:46 New Manager of Application Services Chad Cornelius Diana Coffey has been hired as the new manager of application services, replacing Tracy Walter. 9:46 AM Rejection of E-Filings Chad Cornelius Feedback from demos to user groups indicates that there are still many inconsistencies in terms of rejecting e-filed documents in each jurisdiction, including rejections that are not based on the Chief Justice Directive on what can be rejected. Internally, we are looking at incorporating functionality within jpod that requires a rejecting clerk to select one or multiple categories in the CJD that apply to the rejected as well as the rejecting clerk s contact information. Debbie Sather-Stringari: Can clerks run a report to find out who is rejecting the documents and why? Brian Medina: We have reached out to clerks of court, and they are aware of the standardization issues, and attempts are being made to rectify this. One clerk of court has had all rejections first be approved by the clerk of court. Chad Cornelius: We can currently run those reports, but only on ICCES-filed small claims documents. We should be able to do this for other case types in the future. Jerry Marroney: The report should include the rejecting clerk as well as the filer in the firm, so the problem can be addressed on both sides. Tom Romola: Is there a way to display for collection agencies on the first page of the filing process whether or not a judgment has been entered in a case? A majority of collections agencies rejections are on garnishments filed in cases where there is no judgment entered, or an answer has been entered.

5 Jerry Marroney: Can we stop users programmatically from filing a Writ of Garnishment in cases where there is no judgment? The same for Requests for Transcript of Judgment? Chad Cornelius: We can look into this. Debbie Sather-Stringari: This is also a court data integrity issue; clerks must keep up on entering judgments. Sabra Millett: Will we be able to manipulate the contact information that is sent out to the firm about the rejecting clerk? Denver currently has a dedicated e-file phone, and if the rejection is tied to a specific clerk s information and that clerk happens to be out of the office, this will simply add to the filer s frustration. Chad Cornelius: This should not be an issue as the information will be pre-populated in an editable note field. 10:20 AM Break 10:37 Pre-Registration for ICCES Tracy Walter We are adding a pre-registration piece to our Web site to get as much staff registered ahead of time; this will probably be available within the next month. 10:40 User Group Meetings Brian Medina A lot of groups were not aware that the ICCES project was in process. We have been setting up information sessions for large groups in Weld, El Paso, Larimer, Jefferson and Summit Counties. Our meetings at the Colorado Bar Association with user groups indicated that there was a lot of negative feedback regarding the system being circulated. When the system was shown to the large user groups, the feedback was very positive, and most questions were procedural (i.e. registration or viewing minute orders). We are trying to get the word out there. Many people are coming to these sessions expecting training, even though the meetings are informational only. We are addressing their questions about training in those sessions.

6 Most people feel the system is intuitive and easy to navigate thus far. 10:43 ICCES Demonstration Brian Medina Demonstrated: Filing a new district civil case. Groups have liked: multiple attorney addition; the file builder process; the manage filing screen; pre-populating document titles and security The Service Tab will be renamed to Courtesy Copies with a disclaimer on this page that this is not Rule 4 service. 10:59 jpod Demonstration Chris Meints Demonstrated: Accepting a new case in Clerk Review, Register of Actions, Service Information Screen, and Filing Location Mag. Hamilton-Fieldman: Is there a unique case numbering sequence for each district? Tracy Walter: Yes, each case has a unique identifier. J. Machol: Can we eliminate adding 20 in front of the year when searching for cases? Chris Meints: It is possible to develop short or wild card search criteria, but may not occur during the initial phase. We are looking to implement this functionality within jpod. Register of Actions: All registers of actions will appear the same except for the casespecific section. 11:30 ICCES Demonstration Brian Medina Demonstrated: Alerts (from Chris acceptance of filing), Act On, Rejected Filings (Chris Meints then re-accepted a rejected filing) 11:34 Miscellaneous Items from Demonstration

7 J. Machol: How will court transition and look at old cases? Tracy Walter: We ran and are running a conversion that is bi-directional, between our old and new systems. Eclipse, ICCES and jpod will all be in sync. Chad Cornelius: We are also working on migrating all PDF documents received from LexisNexis into our document management system. J. Machol: Our IT person has been working with JBITS batch programmers and says progress is going very well so far. What is the status of Denver County? Chad Cornelius: Rita Trujillo and other Denver County IT staff have been meeting with analysts and others to get screenshots in order to help with their interface. However, the main focus right now is deploying ICCES statewide as there are different technologies being used by Denver County Court. Jerry Marroney: We have been giving Denver County Court IT staff screenshots so that they can create similar screens to what ICCES has now so users will work within similar screens when that module is up. 11:43 Rule Changes Linda Bowers All rule changes proposed to the Rules Committee went through and are currently in front of the Supreme Court (Rules 121 and 305). Things to Remember: Concerns/Fears: Meeting Adjourned: 11:54 Next Meeting Date: June 15, 2012, Grandview (tentative)