Annual Reports of the Judicial Support Agencies
1998 Fiscal Year

Activities, Accomplishments, Recommendations

Texas Judicial Council
Office of Court Administration
Judicial Committee on Information Technology



Section I
Introduction to the Reports

The three agencies most responsible for supporting and representing the Texas Judicial System are the Texas Judicial Council, the Office of Court Administration, and the Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

The 22-member Texas Judicial Council is composed of appointees of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of Texas, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House. As appointees of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, the Council is the most representative body responsible for studying and recommending changes to the current and future state of the judiciary and the delivery of justice in the state. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals respectively serve as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Council.

The annual report of the Texas Judicial Council is included in Section II below. The statutory provisions for the Council, Chapter 71 of the Texas Government Code, are included in Section V.A. below.

The staff of the Office of Court Administration, currently numbering approximately 45 full-time equivalents, provides administrative support and technical assistance to the Texas Judicial Council, the Judicial Committee on Information Technology, other judicial boards and commissions, and all courts of the state. Acting under the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, and managed by an Administrative Director, the Office of Court Administration conducts research and studies as well as provides management and technical assistance to provide uniform administration of the courts and efficient administration of justice throughout the state judicial system.

The annual report of the Office of Court Administration is included in Section III below. The statutory provisions for the Office, Chapter 72 of the Texas Government Code, are included in Section V. B. below.

The 15-member Judicial Committee on Information Technology is charged with developing and overseeing the design and implementation of a coordinated statewide computer communication network and comprehensive justice information system. Established in 1997 by the 75^th Texas Legislature, the committee is appointed by and operates under the direction and supervision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The annual report of the activities of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology is included in Section IV below. The statutory provisions for the Committee, Chapter 77 of the Texas Government Code, are included in Section V. C. below.

Section V. below delineates the statutory duties and responsibilities of the three agencies as adopted by the Texas Legislature.

Section II

Report of Texas Judicial Council

A. INTRODUCTION

The Texas Judicial Council was created in 1929 by the 41^st Legislature to study and make recommendations for improving the administration of the Texas judicial system. Since its inception, the Council has collected comprehensive statewide statistics on the operation of Texas' courts. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) helps the Council fulfill its functions by collecting and annually publishing information on the docket activities of each appellate, district, county, justice, and municipal court in the state.

In 1997, the 75^th Legislature passed House Bill 2297 which restructured the membership of the Council and placed it under the direct supervision of the Chief Justice. These changes, along with legislative appropriations for the hiring of two full-time staff persons, have substantially improved the Council's ability to address the most pressing issues facing Texas' judicial system.

This report discusses the activities, findings, and recommendations of the Texas Judicial Council since September 1, 1997. In addition, this report is being included in the Texas Judicial Council's 70^th Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is to be published by the Office of Court Administration and made available in January 1999.

B. DUTIES, MEMBERSHIP, AND MEETINGS

1. Duties. Chapter 71, Government Code, charges the Council with the following duties:

a. Continuously study the organization, rules, procedures and practice, work accomplished, results, and uniformity of the discretionary powers of the state courts and methods for their improvement;

b. Receive and consider advice from judges, public officials, members of the Bar, and citizens concerning remedies for faults in the administration of justice;

c. Design methods for simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and correcting faults in the administration of justice;

d. File a complete detailed report with the Governor and the Supreme Court before December 2 of each year on Council activities, information from the Council's study, and Council recommendations;

e. Investigate and report on matters concerning the administration of justice that the supreme court or the legislature refers to the council; and

f. Gather judicial statistics and other pertinent information from the several state judges and other court officials of the state.

2. Membership. The Council consists of 22 members. Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips serve ex officio as chair, and Presiding Judge Michael J. McCormick of the Court of Criminal Appeals serves ex officio as vice-chair. Chief Justice Phillips appointed the following judges to serve on the Council:

Justice Marilyn Aboussie (3^rd Court of Appeals);

Chief Justice John H. Cayce (2^nd Court of Appeals);

Judge Jim Parsons (3^rd Judicial District);

Judge David Peeples (224^th District Court);

Judge Martin Chiuminatto, Jr. (Kleberg County Court-at-Law);

Judge Mike Wood (Harris County Probate Court No. 2);

Judge David Patronella (Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Harris County);

Judge Penny L. Pope (Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Galveston County);

Judge Stella Ortiz-Kyle (Presiding Judge, City of San Antonio, Municipal Court); and

Judge Robin Smith (Presiding Judge, City of Midland, Municipal Court).

Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock appointed Senator Rodney Ellis of Houston (serving in his capacity as chair of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee) and Senator Robert Duncan of Lubbock to the Council. Speaker Pete Laney appointed Representative Senfronia Thompson of Houston (serving in her capacity as chair of the House Committee on Judicial Affairs) and Representative Pete Gallego of Alpine to represent the Texas House of Representatives on the Council.

Governor George W. Bush appointed the following members to the Council:

Mr. James Boswell (Plano);

Mr. James R. Brickman (Dallas);

Mr. Joseph A. Callier, Esq. (Houston);

Mr. Kathleen Cardone, Esq. (El Paso);

Mr. Diego Pena, Esq. (San Antonio); and

Ms. Sharon Warfield Wilkes (Bastrop).

3. Meetings. The Council has met six times since September 1, 1997:

October 30, 1997 (Austin)

February 19, 1998 (Austin)

April 16, 1998 (Austin)

June 25, 1998 (Austin)

September 29, 1998 (Austin)

November 20, 1998 (Austin)

C. 1997-1998 COUNCIL ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Appointment of Judicial Council Committees. The Council has accomplished much of its work through its nine committees, each with distinct functions. Each committee is directed to obtain input from the public and all interested parties and submit its work and recommendations to the Council for consideration. The following committees have been established by the Council:

a. Committee on Court Records

b. Committee on Visiting and Retired Judges

c. Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform/Impact on the Courts

d. Committee on Judicial Redistricting

e. Committee on Judicial Selection

f. Committee on Trial Court Reorganization

g. Committee on Strategic Planning

h. Committee on Judicial Law Clerk Recruitment

i. Committee on Appellate Criminal Records Storage and Retention

2. Development of Proposed Judicial Records Rule. In September 1997, questions arising from a request under the Public Information Act prompted the Supreme Court of Texas to ask the Texas Judicial Council to study ways to improve access to court administrative records and to propose a rule to the Court for promulgation. In October 1997, the Texas Judicial Council appointed several of its members to the Committee on Court Records and asked the committee to examine open records' statutes and rules as they apply to courts in other states and to use this information to develop language for a proposed rule governing access to judicial records in Texas.

The committee conducted eight public hearings around the state to obtain input from members of the general public about each change to the proposed rule. Drafts of the rule were published on the internet, and input was solicited from the general public, the media, freedom of information organizations, and other public interest groups. The diverse composition of the Council also provided a constructive forum for developing a proposed rule. A number of Council members not on the Committee also made significant contributions to the discussion, drafting, and publication of the rule.

In addition to devoting the bulk of three of its meetings to revising and discussing the Committee's draft, members of the Council attended the regional judicial conferences, the annual convention of the State Bar of Texas, and the annual convention of the Texas Municipal Courts Association to solicit suggestions for improving the rule's language. Many of the suggestions from each of these groups and from the general public were included in the Council's final draft of the rule which was submitted to the Supreme Court in September 1998.

In October 1998, the Supreme Court revised the judicial records rule (now Rule 12, Rules of Judicial Administration), and pursuant to Section 74.024, Government Code, began taking public comment. Rule 12 is scheduled to take effect on April 1, 1999.

3. Recommendations for Improving the Visiting Judges' Program. Although the visiting judge program is vital to the operation of the state's justice system and has been a substantial savings to the taxpayer, it has been criticized recently by the general public and the bar. These concerns and the general desire to increase public confidence in the visiting judge program, prompted the Council to create the Committee on Visiting and Retired Judges with the charge to study the current visiting judge program and make recommendations to the Texas Judicial council on ways the program could be improved. To meet this charge, the Committee has held six public meetings and obtained valuable input on recommended legislative and rule changes from all interested parties, including members of the general public.

Legislative Recommendations. At its November 20^th meeting, the Council agreed to submit the following recommendations of the committee to the 76^th Legislature:

a. Extension of years-of-service qualification. The Council's proposal would amend current law to require a judge to have served as an active judge for at least 96 months, as opposed to 48 months before being eligible for assignment. Under the proposal, a judge who is currently eligible to sit by assignment would not be affected by the new eligibility provisions. However, a defeated judge who is eligible to sit by assignment under existing law would still be subject to unlimited strikes under § Section 74.053, Government Code.

b. New qualifications for assignment to appellate court. The Council's legislative recommendations would also establish new qualifications for the assignment of visiting judges at the appellate level. Like the trial court provision summarized above, this change would not apply to former judges who are currently qualified to be listed for assignment.

c. Procedures for notice and objections to the assignment of a visiting judge. Presently, a party in a civil case may object to the assignment of a visiting judge. If the objection or "strike" is to a "retired" judge, each party to the case is entitled to only one objection for that case. However, if the strike is against a "former" judge who is not a retired judge, each party may exercise an unlimited number of strikes. The Council's legislative recommendation would change current procedure by:

• Requiring notice of the assignment to each party's attorney, if it is reasonable and practicable and if time permits.
• Extending the statutory procedures for notice and objections to the assignment of visiting judges to criminal cases.
• Tightening the strike provisions in multiple party cases by allowing aligned parties to exercise only one strike.
• Requiring a party who wishes to object to the assignment of a judge to do so within seven days of receiving actual notice or before the commencement of the first hearing or trial, whichever comes first. This time period may be extended upon a showing of good cause.
• Allowing for unlimited strikes against an assigned judge who was defeated for reelecting in the last primary or general election for which the judge stood for judicial office.
• Extending the above-mentioned procedures for notice and objection to the assignment of a judge or justice to an appellate court.

Proposed Rules for Monitoring and Supervision of Visiting Judges. Visiting judge activities are presently supervised by the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions. There are, however, no rules or statutes that require presiding judges to monitor the performance of visiting judges.

The Committee on Visiting and Retired Judges has proposed that the Council recommend amending Rule 5 of the Rules of Judicial Administration to expressly require that the presiding judge periodically monitor and evaluate the performance of assigned judges who are chosen for service on the bench. In addition, the committee has drafted a proposed rule that would require each administrative judicial region to conduct periodic peer reviews of visiting judges.

The committee's amendment to Rule 5 and its proposed rule for the peer review of visiting judges will be considered by the Council in 1999.

4. Better Use of Juvenile Laws by Justice and Municipal Courts. The Council has also dedicated a substantial amount of time to studying and improving the administration of the juvenile justice system in Texas. In the Fall of 1997, the Council created the Committee on Juvenile Reform/Impact on the Courts and asked the committee to report on the impact on the courts of recent juvenile justice legislation, with particular emphasis on justice and municipal courts. To meet its charge, the committee drafted a report with legislative recommendations that were developed after obtaining input from the bench, the bar, and the general public in a series of 10 open meetings throughout the state.

At its September 29^th meeting, the Council agreed to submit the following recommendations to the 76^th Legislature:

a. Amend existing law to clarify that justice and municipal courts have jurisdiction over all Class C misdemeanors for completion of teen court, including Class C offenses that carry an additional sanction as well as a fine;

b. Amend Article 45.55, Code of Criminal Procedure, to give justice and municipal courts the discretion to transfer enrollment in a teen court program to teen court in another jurisdiction;

c. Amend the statutes to place fewer restrictions on the type of community service that a justice or municipal court may order for a child who is convicted of an alcohol-related offense that is punishable as a Class C misdemeanor;

d. Amend Section 52.027, Family Code, to make the age provisions for taking a child into custody consistent by providing that a child can be treated as an adult at the age of 17, regardless of the age at which the child engaged in criminal conduct;

e. Establish a clearinghouse to inform courts with jurisdiction over juvenile cases of available community services for at-risk youth. In addition, require a service provider under Chapter 264, Family Code, to, as a condition of receiving state funds, to inform courts in the community served by the provider of the availability of the provider's services;

f. Authorize justice and municipal courts to order a child to be tested for GED exams without being required to maintain continuing jurisdiction over the child; and

g. Amend Sections 54.022(a)(3), Family Code and 106.071(e) Alcoholic Beverage Code to create a provision that, like juvenile courts, allows justice and municipal courts to attribute more of the responsibility for compliance with court orders to parents of juveniles.

In addition to developing legislative recommendations for Council approval, the Committee on Juvenile Justice Reform/Impact on the Courts assisted the staff of the Office of Court Administration in revising reporting requirements for justice and municipal courts. These modifications will reflect more accurately the number of cases that are actually heard by justice and municipal courts. The committee is also working with the Judicial Committee on Information Technology to develop a pilot program for a centralized reporting system for juvenile cases in justice and municipal courts.

5. Abolition of the Judicial Districts Board. The state's district courts have not been comprehensively redistricted since 1883, and the work of the Judicial Districts Board after the last census was not addressed by the Legislature. The Committee on Judicial Redistricting was created by the Council to study and make recommendations for improving the method of reapportioning judicial districts in Texas.

The committee has developed a legislative proposal that would abolish the Judicial Districts Board but retain the constitutional provision that requires the Legislative Redistricting Board to reapportion state judicial districts. The Council will consider this legislative proposal in 1999.

6. Study of Proposed Methods for Judicial Selection in Texas. In January 1997, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency submitted two proposals for selecting and retaining judges in Texas to the 75^th Legislature: (1) Appoint-Elect-Retain; and (2) the Modified Bullock-Ellis-Duncan Plan. Despite the Commission's recommendations and the efforts of several legislators in both the House and the Senate, only one bill, House Bill 1175, by Representative Senfronia Thompson, successfully passed either chamber.

In September 1997, the Council created the Committee on Judicial Selection and asked the committee to determine which method of judicial selection could enhance the diversity of Texas courts. The committee is studying recent legislative proposals for Texas and methods of judicial selection in other states and will present its recommendations to the Council in 1999 during the 76^th Legislature.

7. Streamlining Texas' Trial Courts. The Texas judicial system is one of the most decentralized in the nation. It includes two courts of last resort, 14 intermediate appellate courts, 396 state district courts, 254 constitutional county courts, 194 statutory county courts, 843 justice courts, and 850 municipal courts - a total of nearly 2,600 courts. A study by the Texas Research League indicated that the jurisdictional overlap of statutory county and district courts is overly-complex and is an inefficient use of judicial resources.

In June 1998, the Council created the Committee on Trial Court Reorganization and asked the committee to develop legislative recommendations for unifying and simplifying the organization of trial courts in Texas. Since its first meeting in August, the committee has researched the trial court unification efforts in other states, and has discussed the following issues relating to the unification of trial courts in Texas:

a. the jurisdiction of county courts-at-law;
b. the costs associated with merging county courts-at-law with district courts;
c. the funding and revenue sources of county courts-at-law; and
d. the statutory and constitutional implications (at both the state and federal levels) of merging the county courts-at-law and the district courts.

At its November 20^th meeting, the Council directed the committee to identify specific issues relating to a merger of the county courts-at-law and the district courts and to begin developing a legislative proposal for consideration by the Council.

8. Development of a Strategic Plan; Judicial Impact Statements. In November 1996, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency recommended that a permanent long-range and strategic planning function in the Texas judicial branch be established to:

"develop strategic plans, assist in the development of strategies for change, continually evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies, and actively consult with all levels of the Texas court system and other branches of government."

The Commission further recommended that this planning function be "established as an arm of OCA and operated under the direction of the Texas Judicial Council." The Commission's findings were echoed when, in March 1998, three highly-respected state court administrators visited OCA to evaluate the agency's strategic planning and recommended:

a. that the Texas Judicial Council develop a strategic plan for both itself and for the Texas Judicial System; and
b. that the Office of Court Administration's mission and goals be guided by the Council's strategic plan.

The Council believes that the strategic planning process will help the Council identify and solve important issues in judicial administration; it will help judges, court personnel, judicial agencies, and the Texas Legislature set and meet priorities. In September 1998, the Council created the Committee on Strategic Planning and asked the committee to examine the strategic planning efforts of judicial councils in other states and to report its findings to the Council. In November 1998, the committee made three preliminary recommendations to the Council:

a. The committee should first develop a strategic plan for the Texas Judicial Council with practical goals and strategies.

b. After the development of a strategic plan for the Council, a strategic plan for the judicial system should be developed. The planning process would involve judges, legislators, court personnel, administrators of judicial agencies and the bar.

c. The committee should develop criteria for judicial impact statements that can be used by legislators.

The committee will make a full report to the Council in early 1999.

9. Expanding Opportunities for Judicial Clerkships. In November 1996, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency recommended that the judicial branch increase its efforts to encourage and expand the applicant pool for judicial clerkship positions. In 1997, the 74^th Legislature responded to these recommendations by:

a. requiring the judges of the supreme court, court of criminal appeals, and courts of appeals to "encourage the recruitment of judicial law clerks and staff attorneys that reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of this state"; and

b. requiring the Office of Court Administration to "annually publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of this state."

In September 1998, the Council established the Committee on Judicial Law Clerk Recruitment to provide policy direction to the Office of Court Administration and to assist both OCA and the courts in meeting these statutory mandates. In the upcoming year, the committee will seek assistance from each of the Texas law schools, judges, and the bar to develop recommendations for expanding the pool of applicants for judicial clerkships in Texas courts.

10. Storage and Retention of Criminal Records in Appellate Courts. Currently, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides no clear guidance for the destruction of criminal case records by the courts of appeals. As a result, it has been the practice of the Texas courts of appeals to retain criminal case records permanently.

By the end of the next biennium, these courts will store 20 years' worth of criminal case records and a minimum of 10 years' worth of civil case records. Due to the volume of criminal and civil case records, most of the appellate courts are encountering difficulty in obtaining storage space. Current space is often provided at the discretion of the county where the court is located. In addition, there is the concern that counties will stop providing storage space altogether or substantially increase the charges for storing appellate case records.

At the request of the Office of Court Administration the Council has created the Committee on Appellate Criminal Records Storage and Retention and asked the committee to determine whether intermediate appellate criminal case records should continue to be stored permanently. The committee and the staff of OCA's Research and Court Services Division will present their recommendations to the Council early in 1999.

D. OTHER COUNCIL ACTIVITIES

1. Study and Research for the Texas Legislature. The Texas Judicial Council has worked closely with legislative committees this legislative interim on matters that impact the judiciary.

a. Juvenile Case Processing Study. At the request of the Senate Interim Committee on Gangs and Juvenile Justice, staff from the Texas Judicial Council and the Office of Court Administration conducted a comprehensive study of juvenile courts and juvenile probation departments to analyze the efficiency of processing cases in Texas. The TJC/OCA study was intended to assist the Senate Interim Committee on Gangs and Juvenile Justice in addressing the following charge:

"Study the need, if any, for additional juvenile court masters to assist courts with juvenile jurisdiction in providing speedy and effective justice for juvenile offenders and their victims."

On October 1, 1998, after extensively evaluating the TJC/OCA study and its conclusions, the Senate Interim Committee on Gangs and Juvenile Justice made the following recommendation:

"The Legislature should charge the Texas Judicial Council with the responsibility of developing objective criteria for determining the need for additional juvenile court masters. These criteria should be developed with substantial input from judges, legislators, the Governor's Office, and juvenile justice system personnel"

b. Judicial Selection; Judicial Redistricting. In addition to providing the Senate Jurisprudence Committee with demographic information about Texas judges, members of the Council testified before the Committee on judicial selection, appellate redistricting, and judicial campaign finance reform. With the assistance of staff from the Office of Court Administration, information relating to civil court filing fees was also provided to assist the Committee in meeting the following charge:

"Study the costs assessed on parties filing civil lawsuits and appeals in district county appellate courts and evaluate whether those costs are unreasonable or overly burdensome."

In its interim report, the Jurisprudence Committee made the following recommendation:

"Amend Senate rules so that any bill filed to change the amount of civil and criminal court fees include information in the fiscal note that identifies the number and amount of such fees being assessed by the state and each affected county. The Legislative Budget Board shall work with the Texas Judicial Council in completing the fiscal notes. The Committee encourages the Texas House of Representatives to adopt similar rules."

c. Public Access to Court Information. While the Senate Interim Committee on Public Information devoted most of its time to addressing problems related to public information held by state agencies, the issue of public access to judicial records was also within the Committee's jurisdiction.

Members and staff of the Texas Judicial Council testified at several public hearings on the Council's proposed court rule for public access to judicial records and on the legal and fiscal implications of placing the entire judiciary under the Public Information Act. After considerable study of the issue and receipt of public testimony, the Senate Interim Committee on Public Information made the following recommendation:

"The Legislature should let the Judicial Records Rule, if adopted without substantive changes that would diminish the accessibility of judicial records, stand. The Committee however, recommends one addition to the Judicial Records Rule. The Committee recommends that the Judicial Records Rule and the Code of Judicial Conduct contain language clearly stating that the State Commission on Judicial conduct shall have the ability to take disciplinary action against judges who violate the rule."

2. 70^th Annual Report of the Texas Judicial Council . The Texas Judicial Council's 70^th Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is published by the Office of Court Administration, will be available in January 1999. The Council's annual report has historically been a valuable source of judicial information for courts, government agencies, legislators, and the general public. In addition to containing judicial statistics and useful information about the structure, jurisdiction, and administration of Texas courts, the 70^th Annual Report will discuss the activities of the Texas Judicial Council, the Office of Court Administration, and the Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

Section III.

Report of Office of Court Administration

A. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Court Administration was created in 1977 by the 65^th Legislature to provide support and technical assistance to Texas courts at all levels, thereby providing the public access to a judicial system which is efficient and just.

In an effort to better address several critical needs -- both current and emerging -- of the courts, the 75^th Legislature provided to the Office of Court Administration new responsibilities and resources to upgrade and expand its services supporting all levels of the judiciary in Texas. An agency reorganization with both new and expanded departments was implemented to help the courts of the state function more efficiently and effectively. Research and Court Services, Help Desk, and Judicial Planning departments were created and staffed, and new resources were used to enhance these departments already in place at the agency: Technology Services, Legal Counsel, Judicial Information, and Finance and Operations departments.

The agency modified its Mission Statement, first adopted in 1996, to reflect the new vision of its leadership as well as the new responsibilities adopted by the Legislature. Following is the Mission Statement of the Office of Court Administration in effect during the 1998-99 biennium:

To Provide Resources and Information for the Efficient Administration of the Judicial Branch of Texas

The Office will provide Leadership by facilitating the development and implementation of policies which enhance the Texas Judicial System, fostering court adaptation to future changes, securing sufficient resources for state and local courts, strengthening the leadership role of the courts, providing innovative models of the organization and administration of the courts, and encouraging collaboration with and within state courts.

The Office will provide Service by offering technical assistance, promoting knowledge, informing, educating, and generally supporting courts and judicial organizations.

The agency institutionalized an internal strategic planning process to assure that its goals and objectives are relevant to the judicial community. To this end, it will periodically communicate with judicial officers, judicial personnel, and related organizations, especially through the Texas Judicial Council's Strategic Planning Committee.

B. SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES

Following is a brief synopsis of the duties and activities of each department at the Office of Court Administration. The three newly created departments and a descriptions of their services are presented first, followed by description of the four previously existing departments which have realized expanded services and staffing.

New Departments:

1. Research and Court Services. The Research and Court Services Department serves as a resource for the courts in key areas of judicial administration. It provides consultation on recommended best practices in administrative operations and works to establish innovative court programs and increase public accessibility to the courts. The Department's Collections Unit helps develop and implement programs designed to increase the collection of fines and court costs. An expanded discussion of the activities and accomplishments of the Research and Court Services Department is included in Section III C below.

2. Help Desk. The Help Desk ensures timely and efficient assistance and access to all agency information. It is the first point of contact for general information requests about the judiciary and for computer support. This team responds to public inquiries and user telephone trouble-calls, helps resolve operational problems with Case Management and word processor software, and provides computer training and on-site technical support. A complete listing of Seminars on Case Management Systems conducted by the Help Desk during 1998 is provided in Section III. G. below.

3. Judicial Planning. The Judicial Planning Department directs strategic and long range planning for OCA and for the Texas Judicial System. It provides staff support for the Texas Judicial Council in its effort to study the organization and work accomplished by the state's courts and methods for their improvement. The Department consults with all levels of courts and the other branches of government to evaluate the effectiveness of planning and operational strategies. A more comprehensive presentation of the work products of the Judicial Planning Department is included in the annual report of the Texas Judicial Council in Section II above.

Expanded Departments:

4. Technology Services. The Technology Services Department develops case management software systems and designs and maintains computer network hardware and software for the Texas Judiciary. It serves as staff support for the new Judicial Committee on Information Technology which is charged with developing and implementing a statewide computer communication network and comprehensive justice information system. A more complete report of the goals, activities, and accomplishments Technology Services Department is included in the annual report of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology in Section IV below.

5. Legal Counsel. The Legal Counsel staff advises agency management and judicial officers on administrative issues and employment law matters. The staff takes a leadership role in identifying legal issues which may affect the agency or courts. This team assists in administering Title IV-D Masters Program by providing legal advice and administrative support to the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions and to the Title IV-D court masters and their assistants in the administration of child support cases. It drafts procedures manuals for court clerks and produces a Judicial Services Handbook. It also maintains a legal staff recruiting program for the appellate courts, discussed further in Section III. F. below, and assists in operating internship/clerkship programs.

6. Judicial Information. The Judicial Information Department collects and analyzes court activity statistics in a manner which focuses on significant issues and accomplishments in the judicial arena, and identifies opportunities for changes or improvements. This team publishes the Texas Judicial System Directory and the Texas Judicial System Annual Report, which reflects court case activity throughout the state. For the first time, the agency was able to allocate staff efforts to analyze and improve the quality of data being submitted by the courts, particularly the 16 appellate courts.

7. Finance and Operations. The Finance Department provides technical assistance to appellate courts and other judicial entities in their business operations. The department also provides administrative, personnel, accounting and budgetary support to agency management and employees, as well as to other individual boards and commissions.

C. RESEARCH AND COURT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -EXPANDED DISCUSSION OF PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

During fiscal year 1998, the Department's activities included launching numerous programs and projects to increase the collection of fines and court costs, and to improve the administrative operation of and increase public accessibility to the courts. The highlights of the key programs and projects are as follows:

1. Collections Improvement Project. Assisted El Paso and Kerr counties in implementing the model program for the collection of fines and court costs in county-level courts, which was developed by the state Office of Court Administration (OCA) during fiscal year 1997. In addition, provided technical assistance to the fine collections programs in Brazoria, Brazos, Cameron, Dallas, Denton, Galveston, Harris, Harrison, Montgomery, Nueces, and San Patricio counties, including assisting Cameron, Dallas, and Montgomery counties in expanding their collections programs to the justice courts.

2. Rural Court Delay Reduction Program. Obtained a $134,597 Anti-Drug Abuse Act grant to implement a rural court delay reduction program in six district courts, which serve a total of 18 counties. The program centers on hiring and training court coordinators to assist judges in drug and criminal case management, through the use of OCA's case management software and the implementation of innovative case management techniques, including differentiated case management. The participating counties agreed to provide a cash match of $44,868, resulting in a total project cost of $179,465 in addition to OCA in kind research and management contributions. The grant period is from June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999.

3. Study of the Public's Trust and Confidence in the Texas Courts and Legal Profession. Obtained a $28,458 grant from the State Justice Institute to study public trust and confidence in the courts and the legal profession in Texas. The study is intended to obtain baseline information on the degree of trust and confidence the citizens of Texas have in the courts and the legal profession. This information can then be used by judicial and bar leaders and policymakers to create programs and initiatives which will improve the Texas justice system and the perception of the courts and legal profession in Texas. The information will be gathered from a telephone survey of the general public, a mail survey of judges, a mail survey of court personnel, and a mail survey of attorneys. The study is being conducted jointly by OCA and the State Bar of Texas. The grant period is from July 15, 1998 through January 31, 1999. A report of findings is expected to be released in January 1999.

4. Crime Victims' Services Education Program. Received a $47,417 grant from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to provide an employee to assist in the development of educational curriculum and materials for judicial instruction relating to family violence, sexual assault, and child abuse; and assist in the instruction of judges, based upon the developed curriculum. The grant period is from August 1, 1998 through August 31, 1999;

5. Records Management Improvement Program for the 14 Intermediate Appellate Courts. Conducted a study of records management in the 14 intermediate appellate courts, which resulted in the development of improved procedures and guidelines for records management in these courts. On this project, the department has worked closely with and provided staff support to the Texas Judicial Council's committee on this subject.

6. Assistance to the Senate Interim Committee on Gangs and Juvenile Justice. Conducted a statewide mail survey of juvenile probation departments and a follow-up fax survey of the 50 most populous counties to analyze the efficiency of processing juvenile cases in Texas. The surveys were conducted to assist the Senate Interim Committee on Gangs and Juvenile Justice in addressing the following charge: Study the need, if any, for additional juvenile court masters to assist courts with juvenile jurisdiction in providing speedy and effective justice for juvenile offenders and their victims. A more complete discussion of this project is included in the annual report of the Texas Judicial Council, in Section II above.

D. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM

A comprehensive report on the Texas Judicial System has been compiled and published on an annual basis since 1929. The 1997 report contained 436 pages of case information and analysis of court activity at all levels of courts in the State of Texas and the activities of the Texas Judicial Council. OCA compiled and validated approximately 25,000 monthly reports on court activity in 1996 to produce this annual report. The annual report includes information on the variances in subject-matter jurisdiction of Texas trial courts, the assignments of visiting judges by presiding judges of the nine Administrative Judicial Regions and a thorough, descriptive analysis of the judicial system. Approximately 2,300 copies of this report were distributed to judges and clerks, members of the legislature, state and federal agencies, criminal justice planning units, local officials, and libraries. The primary staff responsible for collecting court statistics throughout the year and for preparing the Annual Report is the Judicial Information Department.

E. CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

Through a cooperative agreement with the Office of the Attorney General, OCA obtained state and federal funds to administer the Title IV-D child support master program in Texas. OCA paid the salaries and expenses of 41 masters and 39 administrative assistants throughout the state. OCA coordinated an annual training seminar for the IV-D masters on July 23-24, 1998.

OCA also maintained an automated system previously developed by OCA to support the child support enforcement responsibilities of the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions, the IV-D masters and the individual courts. The system is a case management program for all IV-D cases and enables the IV-D masters to communicate child support enforcement information between their offices and the presiding judges in their regions. OCA provided system training and technical assistance to the IV-D masters and their administrative assistants throughout the year.

Because state law imposes on the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions various duties in connection with the IV-D master program, the judges entered into a separate cooperative agreement with the Office of the Attorney General to administer the Title IV-D master program. The presiding judges met as a board to administer the program eight times between September 1, 1997, and August 31, 1998. The Legal Counsel Department provided primary administrative support to the board.

F. LAW CLERK RECRUITMENT

The 75^th Legislature enacted Government Code Sec. 72.042 requiring OCA to annually publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of the state. OCA surveyed the state's appellate courts and the district courts of Bexar, Dallas, Harris, El Paso, Tarrant and Travis counties. The report required under Section 72.042 is included on page 41 of this annual report.

Additionally, OCA, in conjunction with the Texas Judicial Council's Committee for Recruitment of Court Clerks, is working to establish programs that will enhance the courts' recruitment efforts to encourage the employment of judicial law clerks and staff attorneys that reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of this state.

The Legal Counsel and Judicial Planning departments provided primary staff support to this project.

G. SEMINARS ON CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The Help Desk Department has conducted a series of one-day seminars to train judges and court personnel in the use of the automated case management systems. Seminar participants included trial judges, district and county clerks, court coordinators, data processing personnel, and other trial court personnel from a geographical cross-section of the state, including both urban and rural counties.

During the year ended August 31, 1998, the Help Desk conducted 36 seminars, with a total attendance of 218 persons, including 38 judges, 166 District, County, Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court clerks and their deputies, 7 trial court coordinators, 5 judges' secretaries, one county auditor, and one IV-D Assistant.

User manuals have been developed for each of the automated computer programs and are provided to court personnel to aid in the use of these programs.

All seminars were held in Austin unless otherwise noted.

District and County
Trial Court Case Management

Seminar Type

December 5, 1997 Reports & Calendars

(Lynn & Dawson Counties)

February 11, 1998 Basic

(DeWitt & El Paso Counties)

June 8-9, 1998 Basic

(Kimble County)

July 6-8, 1998 Basic

(Lamar, Howard, Haskell, Floyd Counties)

Aug. 3-5, 1998 Basic

(Burleson County)

July 6 - August 8, 1998 Basic

(Floyd, Haskell, Howard & Lamar Counties)

District and County
Collections Programs

July 16, 1998 Basic

(Kerr County)

Nov. 3 - 5, 1997 Basic

(Montgomery County)

Dec. 8 - 10, 1997 Advanced

(Montgomery County)

Justice of the Peace and Municipal
Case Management

Oct. 16 - 17, 1997 Basic

(Crandall & Giddings Cities)

Oct. 23 - 24, 1997 Basic

(Sanger, Tye, Tolar, & George West Cities; Brooks Counties)

Nov. 6, 1997 Merge Documents

(Coldspring, Tye and Giddings Cities; San Jacinto & Goliad Counties)

Nov. 7, 1997 Reports and Calendars

(Coldspring, Tye and Giddings Cities; San Jacinto, Medina & ValVerde Counties)

Nov. 18 - 19, 1997 Basic

(Clarksville, Marshall & RioGrande Cities; Dallam, Hartley and Wood Counties)

Dec. 1-2, 1997 Basic(Texas Tech)

(New Deal, Perryton, Ropesville & O'Donnell Cities; Sherman, Ochiltree & Lynn Counties)

Dec. 3, 1997 Reports and Calendars (Texas Tech)

(New Deal, Perryton, Ropesville & O'Donnell Cities; Sherman, Ochiltree, Lynn & Lubbock Counties)

Dec. 4, 1997 Merge Documents (Texas Tech)

(New Deal, Perryton, Ropesville & O'Donnell Cities; Sherman & Ochiltree Counties)

Dec. 18 - 19, 1997 Basic

(West Lake Hills & Stagecoach Cities; Lee, Nacogdoches, Duval, Erath Counties)

Jan. 29-30, 1998 Basic

(Milford, Clyde, Luling & Crandall Cities; Webb & Jim Hogg Counties)

Feb. 3-4, 1998 Basic

(Clear Lake Shores, Summerville, Old River Winfree, Bruceville-Eddy, Rusk, Alto, Orange Grove, & Calvert Cities; Callahan County.)

Feb. 12-13, 1998 Basic

(Breckenridge, Orange Grove, Grapeland, Smithville, Leonard & Robstown Cities; Nueces County)

Feb. 26, 1998 Merge Documents

(West Lake Hills, Somerville & Rusk Cities; Lee, Medina Counties)

Feb. 27, 1998 Reports and Calendars

(West Lake Hills, Somerville & Rusk Cities; Lee, Medina Counties)

March 11-13, 1998 Reports and Calendars

(Tolar & Terral Hills Cities)March 25, 1998 Reports & Calendars

(Caldwell, Starr, McLennan & Stephens Cities; Hidalgo County)

March 26-27 1998 Merge Documents

(Caldwell, Starr, McLennan & Stephens Cities; Hidalgo County)

April 14-16, 1998 Basic

(Madison, Karnes & DeWitt Counties)

April 29, 1998 Reports and Calendars

(Tolar & Terrall Hills Cities; DeWitt County)

April 30-May 1, 1998 Merge Documents

(Eden, Tolar & Terrell Hills Cities; Concho County)

May 13-15, 1998 Basic

(Somerset & Easton Cities; Nueces & San Jacinto Counties)

June 1-3, 1998 Basic (Texas Tech)

(Spearman, Stinnett & NewDeal; Shackelford, Hansford, Hartley, Lynn, & Dallam Counties)

June 4, 1999 Merge Documents (Texas Tech)

(New Deal & Spearman Cities; Shackelford, Hansford, Hartley, Lynn, & Dallam Counties)

June 5, 1998 Reports & Calendars (Texas Tech)

(New Deal & Spearman Cities; Shackelford, Hansford, Hartley, Lynn, & Dallam Counties)

June 30 - July 2, 1998 Basic

(New Deal & Spearman Cities; Shackelford, Hansford, Hartley, Lynn, & Dallam Counties)

July 22 - 24, 1998 Basic

(Brazoria & Nueces Counties)

August 11 - 13, 1998 Basic

(Celina, Somerville, RioHondo, Crandall, & Somerset Cities; Burnet, Kleberg & Fannin Counties)

August 19, 1998 Reports and Calendars

(Domino City & Medina County)

August 20, 1998 Instruments

(Domino City)

Title IV-D Software

July 24, 1998 Basic

(Odessa)

Appellate Courts

October 20 & 21, 1998 Lotus 123 & WordPerfect 7.0

(10^th and 12^th Courts of Appeals)

Section IV.

Report of Judicial Committee on Information Technology

A. INTRODUCTION

The Judicial Committee on Information Technology was established in 1997 through Senate Bill 1417, now Chapter 77 of the Texas Government Code. The Committee is charged with drafting standards and recommending funding for the systematic implementation and integration of information technology in the trial and appellate courts of Texas. OCA serves as staff to the Committee to implement projects and provide technical assistance and support to the courts.

Creation of the Committee and other charges included in Senate Bill 1417 were based on recommendations by the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, a body formed by the Legislature in 1995 to conduct a statewide, comprehensive study of the Texas Judicial System. The Commission's Information Technology Task Force assessed technology in state courts, and that assessment served as the basis for establishing state judicial technology goals and elements of the agenda for reform. The Commission recommended and the Legislature approved in Senate Bill 1417 the creation of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology as the vehicle for that reform.

B. DUTIES, MEMBERSHIP, AND MEETINGS

1. Duties as Recommended by the Information Technology Task Force of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency

a. Recommend minimum standards for e-mail, software (word processing, case management, etc.), information transfer, local area networks, Internet access, electronic data interchange (EDI), data dictionary and other technological needs of the judicial system.

b. Recommend standardized guidelines for moving to a user friendly electronic based document system, including the creation of documents, court filings and flow of information within the judicial system in electronic form.

c. Recommend minimum security guidelines for controlling access to and protecting the integrity and confidentiality of appropriate information.

d. Recommend minimum standards for paperless litigation.

e. Recommend guidelines for a State Judicial System Web Home Page.

f. Recommend minimum standards for a Court Intranet (a private and secure internal Court network that makes specific court information available only to the Court staff).

g. Recommend the necessary Court-related Statutes and Rules changes for the electronic filing of cases and supporting documents.

h. Recommend pilot programs to be funded in order to test and demonstrate the application of emerging technologies to the judicial system, such as video conferencing facilities, EDI application requirements, client/server information access applications and court room technologies.

i. Recommend priorities regarding funding for the various information technology needs of the judicial system.

2. Statutory Duties, Chapter 77.031, Texas Government Code.

a. Develop programs to implement the recommendations of the Information Technology Task Force of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency;

b. Develop minimum standards for voice storage and retrieval services, including voice messaging and electronic mail services, local area networks, Internet access, electronic data interchange, data dictionaries, and other technological needs of the judicial system;

c. Develop a coordinated statewide computer and communication network that is capable of linking all courts in this state;

d. Encourage efficiency and planning coordination by researching the possible uses of existing computer and communication networks developed by other state agencies;

e. Develop minimum standards for an electronically based document system to provide for the flow of information within the judicial system in electronic form and recommend rules relating to the electronic filing of documents with courts;

f. Develop security guidelines for controlling access to and protecting the integrity and confidentiality of information available in electronic form;

g. Develop a state judicial system web page for use on the Internet accessible to the public for a reasonable access fee set by the supreme court after consultation with the committee;

h. Develop minimum standards for an internal computer and communication network available only to court staff;

i. Recommend pilot programs relating to the testing and demonstration of new technologies as applied to the judicial system;

j. Recommend programs to provide training and technical assistance to users of the coordinated statewide computer and communication network;

k. Develop funding priorities regarding the various technological needs of the judicial system; and

l. Recommend distributions to courts from the judicial technology account in the judicial fund.

3. Membership. Pursuant to Section 77.011, Texas Government Code, the following fifteen persons are appointed members of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology, being "representative, but not limited to, appellate court judges, appellate court clerks, district court judges, county court judges, statutory probate judges, justices of the peace, municipal court judges, district attorneys, court reporters, court administrators, district or county clerks, members of the legislature, attorneys, and the general public." The members serve for two-year terms ending August 31, 1999.

Chair - Peter Vogel, Esq., Dallas

Vice-chair - Dr. Don Hardcastle, Professor, Baylor University, Waco

Honorable Rodney G. Ellis, State Senator, Houston

Honorable Peter P. Gallego, State Representative, Alpine

Honorable Lamar McCorkle, Judge 133rd Judicial District, Houston

Honorable Steve M. King, Judge, Tarrant County Probate Court No. 1, Fort Worth

Honorable Jay Johnson, former Swisher County Judge, Austin

Honorable Patricia A. Ott, Williamson County Justice of the Peace Pct. 1, Round Rock

Honorable Michael L. O'Neal, Presiding Judge, City of Dallas Municipal Court, Dallas

Honorable Jaime Esparza, District Attorney, 34th Judicial District, El Paso

Honorable Dianne Wilson, Fort Bend County Clerk, Richmond

Honorable Michael N. Milby, Clerk, U.S. District Court for the So. D. Tx., Houston

Peggy Culp, Clerk, 7th Court of Appeals, Amarillo

Bob Wessels, Harris County Criminal Courts Administrator, Houston

Judy Miller, Past President, Texas Court Reporters Association, Dallas

Additionally, the following individuals were designated by the Chief Justice as non-voting liaison members of the Committee:

Hon. Nathan Hecht, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Austin

Hon. Sharon Keller, Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Austin

Hon. Bill Vance, Justice, Tenth Court of Appeals, Waco

4. Meetings. The Judicial Committee on Information Technology met five times in Austin, Texas, during fiscal year 1998:

September 17, 1997

November 13, 1997

April 7, 1998

May 18, 1998

June 29, 1998

Additionally, the following Subcommittees and working groups met at various locations throughout the state during FY1998:

Appellate Courts

District and County Courts

Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts

Local Governments

Internet

Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Filing

Telecommunications

Training

C. VISION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

In its first year of operation, the Committee adopted goals and statewide projects patterned after those of the Commission of Judicial Efficiency and sought to validate the Commission's conclusions. Where appropriate and necessary, it sought to expand upon the Commission's findings and recommendations through its structure of subcommittees, staff research, and pilot projects.

Improving the efficiency of judicial technology in Texas is challenging because the Texas court system is decentralized and each of Texas' 2,800 courts operates autonomously, as do the state's approximately 430 district and county clerks and approximately 325 district and county attorneys. Approximately 20,000 officers and staff comprise the Texas Judicial System. Currently some courts have adopted new information technology but an integrated system is not available for access to court data and documents within and across court jurisdictions.

The Committee's work supports the statewide information resources goals as established by the Department of Information Resources:

1. Integrate government services via statewide information resources infrastructure

2. Adopt and apply information resources standards and guidelines

3. Enable sharing and interoperability through a common framework

4. Ensure that user needs drive the information technology efforts

If successfully accomplished, these goals will allow the realization of the Committee's vision that, in the new environment, the integrated justice system will ensure that data related to a case or person flows logically from one government entity to the next as the administration of that case or person proceeds. The system will speed the administration of cases, limit redundant data entry, and limit data entry errors. The system will also help the state meet the federal government's requirements for data sharing across states.

The Committee, working with staff of the Office of Court Administration, established a clear strategic direction for the implementation of information technology in the courts. The key themes of this strategic direction of integrated justice and improved public access are:

1. Universal access to information in a consistent manner across every court in the state

2. Move the courts to the mainstream of information technology to minimize support and training costs and maximize the massive investment made at all government levels

3. Eliminate the building of information "silos" in court information systems that service only a single executive branch function thereby increasing the effectiveness of the courts' process and data exchange in these important functions

4. Increase the compliance rate and effectiveness of the courts in the areas of data sharing and revenue collection

D. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The committee work is generally organized around statewide project initiatives and pilot projects. The statewide projects represent the major components of the information technology system being designed and developed by the committee. Pilot projects are being conducted for the purpose of investigating specific needs and / or evaluating potential solutions relevant to one ore more of the committee's major statewide projects.

Statewide Projects:

The seven major statewide projects adopted by the Committee, including a brief description of each along with its accomplishments to date, are as follows.

1. Judicial Help Desk. The OCA Help Desk is responsible for the support of existing technology within the Texas courts. With the creation of the JCIT and the implementation of its projects and programs, the role of the Help Desk has significantly expanded. The Help Desk provides technical assistance to the courts (regarding hardware and software questions and training; primarily in the areas of OCA Case Management, Windows 95, word processing, E-mail, Internet browsers). The OCA Help Desk is staffed, trained, and providing better and more services to Texas courts.

2. General Technology Training. The purpose of this initiative is to train court personnel, elected prosecutors and judicial officers on the effective use of information technology in the judicial system. The court system currently includes a wide variety of automation and skill sets. A standard training approach based on user needs should encourage more effective use of available technology. OCA is working with judicial education training centers to deliver training to our common customers.

3. Judicial Internet Server. The Judicial Internet Server was established by OCA to be a central focus for information for and about Texas courts current components are as follows. The Texas Appellate Court Case Information Search is an index to status information about cases pending and recently disposed in the appellate courts. The Texas Judicial Directory Online is a search tool to find name, address, and phone number information about court officials statewide. An electronic benchbook is being developed by OCA and the Municipal Courts Education Center for use by municipal judges. Court webpages and links to court webpages are hosted on the server. Information and publications about Texas courts are available, the Code of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics Opinions, links to other resources for and about courts are available on the server, and electronic mail service will be established for Texas courts. The Judicial Internet Server was installed in October 1997 and the content is being expanded on a regular basis. The website address is http://www.courts.state.tx.us/.

4. Statewide Telecommunications Network Infrastructure. The JCIT is charged with developing a statewide network for use by the courts and to make use of existing infrastructure from existing state owned and operated networks. The JCIT determined the most appropriate network for sharing resources will be with the Department of Public Safety's Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (TLETS) network, once it is upgraded. The Department's roll-out to their current clients will be complete at the end of the current biennium, the courts should be linked in the next biennium. This infrastructure has been identified to provide a channel for communication among the courts and with other public and private entities; planning is underway to connect the courts statewide. No money was appropriated for the 1998-99 biennium; funding is being sought to implement the judiciary's portion of the network beginning in the 2000-01 biennium.

5. Judicial Information Management System (JIMS). The JCIT is charged with setting standards for the exchange of information among the courts and with other government and private entities. JIMS is a data standards and software development initiative for the trial and appellate courts. The purpose is to reconstruct OCA databases to capture statistical data from the courts swiftly and accurately. Two major goals are the development of data integration and interchange standards and the development of uniform software application design and standards. OCA is developing a case management software package that meets those standards. The standards will enable the exchange of data with the other justice agencies so that the entire justice process works better and faster. JCIT and OCA are working with the National Center for State Courts, municipalities, counties, information technology departments, and private vendors to ensure the standards and software are applicable to the courts' needs. Standards will complete by August 31, 1999.

6. Trial Court Technology. The purpose of this initiative is to ensure that accurate and timely data is gathered and shared within and across jurisdictional and agency boundaries. A pilot project will test and demonstrate the computing and telecommunication technology for the judicial system. The initial pilot sites were chosen for the relative simplicity of the jurisdictional make up. OCA will expand the project to jurisdictions across Texas, increasing the complexity of the project slowly. The initial pilot project is scheduled to be installed in early 1999. Assistance to the trial courts is being accomplished by providing some equipment and software as well as technical support, to install and maintain local area networks in the various locations across the state.

7. Appellate Court Technology. While the sixteen appellate courts continue to be supported through the OCA, the courts want to update their hardware to improve the level of service provided to the public. OCA staff is developing the standards for the computer hardware and telecommunications equipment. The OCA is also developing windows case management for the courts and deployment will begin in February 1999. The courts have combined their technology budget requests into a single request for 2000-01 biennium for consideration by the 76^th Legislature beginning in January 1999.

KEY PILOT PROJECTS UNDERWAY

Following are descriptions of three key pilot projects of the committee which have been completed or are currently under way.

1. Study of Rural Court Needs. A study of the computing and telecommunication needs in Texas rural courts was commissioned by the Committee and conducted by Professor Sanda Erdelez and Philip Doty, of the University of Texas Graduate School of Library and Information Science. The professors studied the district, county, justice of the peace and municipal courts in the 31^st and 143^rd judicial districts (Wheeler, Gray, Hemphill, Lipscomb, Roberts, Ward, Reeves, and Loving counties).

This study sought to identify the most appropriate method to assist Texas courts with the Committee's limited resources. The pilot projects identified in the Trial Court Technology section above are based on this study. A major finding was that rural courts need technical assistance, on-going support, training, and local area network and internet connectivity more than they need new computers. The report is available at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/jcit/rcourt.htm.

2. Case Management Software Standards. OCA has been working with the systems analysis class taught by Professor Ronald Wyllys, of the University of Texas Graduate School of Library and Information Science, to study the flow of data in the court systems in Hays, Travis, and Williamson counties. The study will assist OCA and the Committee in drafting data standards, case management functionality standards, and standards for data interchange with other government agencies and attorneys.

The work of this pilot project is important because the Committee has found through its work a great need to exchange electronic data and documents that is currently difficult and, in most cases, impossible because of a lack of commonality of information structures. The establishment of standards will also facilitate the Committee's goal of reducing the impact of state and federal reporting requirements on Texas courts. These standards are expected to be completed by August 31, 1999.

3. Dallas County Juvenile Justice Project. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) through the Judicial Committee on Information Technology (JCIT) is working cooperatively with Dallas County to establish a juvenile justice information system that allows for the effective flow of information between all agencies (e.g., schools, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, court clerks along with municipal, justice and juvenile judges) that handle juvenile justice offenders. In Dallas County there are 25 municipal courts , 14 justice courts, two juvenile courts and numerous local law enforcement entities. Under the current system the flow of information between these agencies is often lacking in paper form and nonexistent in electronic form.

The OCA and JCIT's joint effort with Dallas County and the federal government to build a regional (extending eventually statewide) juvenile justice information system embraces the state's telecommunication goals of interoperability and the meaningful exchange of government information and services. The primary funding for this project is through a federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. The prototype developed in Dallas will then be offered through JCIT to any local governments in Texas interested in automating its juvenile justice process.

Section V

Enabling Legislation for the Three Judicial Support Agencies

A. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Chapter 71, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 71.001. Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Chair" means the chair of the council.

(2) "Council" means the Texas Judicial Council.

Sec. 71.002. Sunset Provisions.

The council is subject to the Texas Sunset Act (Chapter 325). Unless continued in existence as provided by that Act, the council is abolished and this chapter expires effective September 1, 2001.

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 71.011. Number and Classes of Members.

The Texas Judicial Council is an agency of the state composed of 16 ex officio and six appointive members.

Sec. 71.012. Ex Officio Members.

The ex officio members are:

(1) the chief justice of the supreme court;

(2) the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals;

(3) the chair of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee;

(4) one member of the senate, appointed by the lieutenant governor;

(5) the chair of the House Judicial Affairs Committee;

(6) one member of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house;

(7) two justices of the courts of appeals designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(8) two district judges designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(9) two judges of county courts, statutory county, or statutory probate courts designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(10) two justices of the peace designated by the chief justice of the supreme court; and

(11) two municipal court judges designated by the chief justice of the supreme court.

Sec. 71.013. Terms of Ex Officio Members; Delegation of Functions.

(a) The chief justice of the supreme court and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals are members of the council as long as they hold those offices.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (a), all members of the judiciary appointed to the council serve staggered terms of four years with the term of one member from each judicial group expiring on February 1 of each odd-number year.

(c) A legislative member whose membership in the legislature ceases continues as a member of the council at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

(d) A vacancy in a judicial membership must be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment.

(e) A judicial or legislative member of the council serves until his successor is chosen and has qualified.

(f) The chief justice of the supreme court and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals may each designate a member of his court to act in his stead under this chapter. The designated person serves at the will of the official who chose him for service.

Sec. 71.014. Citizen Members.

(a) The governor shall appoint the six citizen members on the council.

(b) A citizen member must be a resident citizen of the state. Three of the six citizen members must be members of the State Bar of Texas and two must be persons who are not licensed to practice law.

Sec. 71.015. Terms of Citizen Members.

(a) Citizen members serve for staggered terms of six years with two members' terms expiring on June 30 of each odd-numbered year.

(b) A vacancy in citizen membership is filled for the unexpired term by appointment by the governor.

(c) A citizen member serves on the council until his successor is appointed and has qualified.

Sec. 71.016. Meetings.

(a) The council shall meet at least once in each calendar year and may meet at other times as ordered by the council or under its authority.

(b) The council may meet at a place and time designated by it or under its authority.

Sec. 71.017. Quorum.

Eleven members of the council constitute a quorum.

Sec. 71.018. Officers; Committees.

(a) The chief justice of the supreme court shall serve as chair and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals shall serve as vice chair of the council. Other officers of the council shall be elected by the council.

(b) The council may prescribe the duties of an officer of the council.

(c) The council may appoint committees from its membership. It may prescribe the duties of and delegate powers under this chapter to a committee except as otherwise Limited by this chapter.

(d) The chair may appoint committees for two-year terms that he considers necessary for the organization of the council.

Sec. 71.019. Rules.

The council may adopt rules expedient for the administration of its functions.

Sec. 71.020. Expenses.

(a) A member of the council may not receive compensation for service on the council.

(b) A member is entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in performing the duties of the council and approved for payment as provided by this section.

(c) The council, its officers, and its committees are entitled to reimbursement for the actual and necessary clerical expenses incurred in performing functions under this chapter and approved for payment as provided by this section.

(d) Before any expenses incurred by the council, its members or officers, or its committees may be paid, the chair of the council or the vice chair, if authorized by the chair in writing to do so, must approve a verified and itemized account of the expenses.

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties

Sec. 71.031. Continuous Study.

The council continuously shall study the organization, rules, procedures and practice, work accomplished, results, and uniformity of the discretionary powers of the state courts and methods for their improvement.

Sec. 71.032. Receipt of Advice on Remedies.

The council shall receive and consider advice from judges, public officials, members of the bar, and citizens concerning remedies for faults in the administration of justice.

Sec. 71.033. Methods for Improvement.

The council shall design methods for simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and correcting faults in or improving the administration of justice.

Sec. 71.034. Reports; Investigations.

(a) The council shall file a complete detailed report with the governor and the supreme court before December 2 of each year on council activities, information from the council's study, and council recommendations.

(b) The council may file a supplemental report on council activities, findings, or recommendations at a time it considers advisable.

(c) The council shall investigate and report on a matter concerning the administration of justice that the supreme court or the legislature refers to the council.

(d) The yearly or supplemental reports of the council are public information and may be given to the press when filed.

Sec. 71.035. Statistics; Enforcement by Mandamus.

(a) The council shall gather judicial statistics and other pertinent information from the several state judges and other court officials of this state.

(b) The council may require a state justice, judge, clerk, or other court official, as an official duty, to comply with reasonable requirements for supplying statistics pertaining to the amount and character of the civil and criminal business transacted by the court or other information on the conduct, operation, or business of his court or the office of the clerk of his court that is within the scope of the functions of the council. If the official does not supply the information within a reasonable time after the request, he is presumed to have willfully refused the request. The council shall prescribe procedures, definitions of terms, and forms for supplying the statistics and other information.

(c) The duty provided by this section to supply information may be enforced by writ of mandamus in:

(1) the district court of the county of residence of the respondent if the petition for mandamus is filed against a district clerk or a clerk, judge, or other official of a trial court other than a district court;

(2) the court of appeals for the court of appeals district in which the respondent resides if the petition for mandamus is filed against a district judge or a clerk of a court of appeals; or

(3) the supreme court in any other case.

(d) Except as provided by this subsection, the attorney general shall file and prosecute an action for mandamus on behalf of the council if requested to do so in writing by the council. To be valid, the written request must be signed by the chair or by at least 11 members of the council. The attorney general may refuse to file an action if he certifies in writing that the action is without merit.

Sec. 71.036. Public Hearings.

(a) The council may appoint a committee of at least three members to hold a public hearing.

(b) The committee may:

(1) order the production of books or other documents;

(2) require a report from a state court, including a court that is not a court of record;

(3) administer oaths; or

(4) take testimony.

(c) An officer of the council, either prior to or while sitting at a hearing, or a member of the council sitting at a hearing may issue a subpoena or similar order to a prospective witness under his official signature.

(d) The subpoena or similar order may be served by registered or certified mail or by an adult person.

(e) If a witness fails to comply with a subpoena or similar order issued as provided by this section, the council or its committee holding the hearing may request in writing that a district judge of the county of residence of the witness enforce a subpoena or order as provided by this section, the district judge shall order compliance with the council's order by the same means that the judge may compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses in a trial in his own court.

B. OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 72, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 72.001. Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary.

(2) "Director" means the administrative director of the courts appointed as provided by this chapter.

(3) "Office" means the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System.

(4) "Trial court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary, except the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, and the courts of appeals, but does not include the commissioners court of a county 

Sec. 72.002. Effect on Jurisdiction or Judicial Discretion.

This chapter or a rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 74.024 does not authorize:

(1) a judge to act in a case over which his court would not have potential jurisdiction under the Texas Constitution or other state law; or

(2) an infringement of the judicial discretion of a judge in the trying of a case properly before his court

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 72.011. Office of Court Administration.

(a) The office of court administration is an agency of the state and operates under the direction and supervision of the supreme court and the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The office shall exercise the powers and perform the duties or functions imposed on the office by this chapter or the supreme court.

Sec. 72.012. Director.

(a) The director shall:

(1) implement this chapter and direct the operations of the office of court administration; and

(2) as an additional duty of his office, serve as the executive director of the Texas Judicial Council.

(b) The director shall devote full time to his official duties.

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties

Sec. 72.021. Budget; Expenditures.

(a) The director shall prepare and submit an estimated budget for the appropriation of funds necessary for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system.

(b) The director shall study and recommend expenditures and savings of funds appropriated for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system.

Sec. 72.022. Personnel.

(a) The director, with the approval of the chief justice of the supreme court, shall employ the personnel needed to administer the office, including personnel needed for the Texas Judicial Council.

(b) The office shall provide staff functions necessary for the efficient operation of the Texas Judicial Council.

(c) This chapter does not limit the authority of a court to appoint clerical personnel.

Sec. 72.023. Consultation and Assistance.

(a) The director shall assist the justices and judges in discharging their administrative duties.

(b) The director shall consult with the regional presiding judges and local administrative judges and assist them in discharging duties imposed by law or by a rule adopted by the supreme court.

(c) The director, to provide for the efficient administration of justice, shall consult with and assist:

(1) court clerks;

(2) other court officers or employees; and

(3) clerks or other officers or employees of offices related to and serving a court.

(d) The director, to provide for uniform administration of the courts and efficient administration of justice, shall consult with and make recommendations to administrators and coordinators of the courts.

Sec. 72.024. Methods; Recommendations.

(a) The director shall examine the judicial dockets, practices, and procedures of the courts and the administrative and business methods or systems used in the office of a clerk of a court or in an office related to and serving a court.

(b) The director shall recommend:

(1) a necessary improvement to a method or system;

(2) a form or other document used to record judicial business; or

(3) any other change that will promote the efficient administration of justice.

(c) The director shall recommend to the supreme court appropriate means to implement this chapter.

Sec. 72.025. Annual Report.

(a) The director shall prepare an annual report of the activities of the office.

(b) The report must be published in the annual report of the Texas Judicial Council.

Sec. 72.026. Rules.

The director, under the supervision of the chief justice, shall implement a rule of administration or other rules adopted by the supreme court for the efficient administration of justice.

Sec. 72.027. Additional Duties.

The supreme court or the chief justice of the supreme court may assign the director duties in addition to those imposed by this chapter.

Sec. 72.028. Gifts, Grants, and Donations.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the office may request, accept, and administer gifts, grants, and donations from any source to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(b) The office may not request, accept, or administer a gift, grant, or donation from a law firm, an attorney, an employee of a law firm or attorney, or the spouse of an attorney or of an employee of a law firm or an attorney.

(c) In this section, "law firm" means a partnership, limited liability partnership, or professional corporation organized for the private practice of law.

Subchapter D. Judicial Law Clerk and Staff Attorney Recruitment

Sec. 72.041.  Diversity.

The judges of the supreme court, court of criminal appeals, and courts of appeals shall encourage the recruitment of judicial law clerks and staff attorneys that reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of this state.

Sec. 72.042.  Demographic Census.

(a) The office shall annually publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of this state.

(b) The office may request that a court provide demographic information to the office.

Subchapter E. Court Performance Standards

Sec. 72.081.  Rules.

The office shall adopt rules and forms for administering this subchapter and for obtaining information under this subchapter.

Sec. 72.082.  Performance Report.

The office shall annually collect and publish a performance report of information regarding the efficiency of the courts of this state.

Sec. 72.083.  Trial Courts.

The office shall report the aggregate clearance rate of cases for the district courts. In this section, "clearance rate" means the number of cases disposed of by the district courts divided by the number of cases added to the dockets of the district courts.

Sec. 72.084.  Court of Appeals.

A court of appeals shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year;

(3) for active cases on the docket of the court on the reporting date, the average number of days from the date of submission of the case to the court until the reporting date; and

(4) for each case disposed of during the reporting year by the court, the number of days from the date of submission of the case to the court until the date of disposition of the case by the court.

Sec. 72.085.  Court of Criminal Appeals.

The court of criminal appeals shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year involving:

(A) capital punishment;

(B) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(C) a petition for discretionary review;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year involving:

(A) capital punishment;

(B) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(C) a petition for discretionary review

(3) the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the reporting date, for each active case on the docket of the court on the reporting date involving:

(A) capital punishment;

(B) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(C) a petition for discretionary review; and

(4) the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the date the case was disposed of by the court, for each case disposed of during the reporting year by the court involving:

(A) capital punishment;

(B) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(C) a petition for discretionary review.

Sec. 72.086.  Supreme Court.

(a) The supreme court shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year;

(3) for the active cases on the docket of the court on the reporting date, the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the reporting date; and

(4) for the cases disposed of during the reporting year by the court, the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the date of release of the court's opinion for the case or the date the case was otherwise disposed of by the court.

(b) For cases on the docket of the court during the reporting year, the supreme court shall annually report to the office:

(1) the average number of days from the date a case is filed with the court until the date the court releases an order announcing its decision granting, overruling, denying, or dismissing an application, petition, or motion;

(2) the average number of days from the date of the granting of an application, petition, or motion until the date of oral argument of the case;

(3) the average number of days from the date of the oral argument of the case until the date the court issues a signed opinion and judgment for the case; and

(4) the average number of days from the date of filing of a case with the court until the date of the release of a per curiam opinion.

C. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 77, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 77.001.  Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Committee" means the Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

(2) "Court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary.

(3) "Internet" means the largest nonproprietary nonprofit cooperative public computer network, popularly known as the Internet.

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 77.011.  Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

(a) The committee operates under the direction and supervision of the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The committee shall exercise the powers and perform the duties or functions imposed on the committee by this chapter or the supreme court.

Sec. 77.012.  Members.

(a) The committee is composed of 15 members appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The chief justice of the supreme court, in making appointments to the committee, shall attempt to select members who are representative of, but not limited to, appellate court judges, appellate court clerks, district court judges, county court judges, statutory probate judges, justices of the peace, municipal court judges, district attorneys, court reporters, court administrators, district or county clerks, members of the legislature, attorneys, and the general public. The members shall be selected based on their experience, expertise, or special interest in the use of technology in court. A representative from the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System shall serve as a nonvoting member of the committee.

(c) The chief justice of the supreme court shall designate the presiding officer of the committee. The presiding officer may form subcommittees as needed to accomplish the business of the committee.

(d) A person may not serve on the committee if the person is required to register as a lobbyist under Chapter 305 because of the person's activities for compensation on behalf of a profession related to the business of the committee.

Sec. 77.013.  Compensation.

A member of the committee is not entitled to compensation but is entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by the member while conducting the business of the committee, as provided in the General Appropriations Act.

Sec. 77.014.  Staff.

The Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System shall provide staff for the committee.

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties; Funding

Sec. 77.031.  General Powers and Duties. The committee shall:

(1) develop programs to implement the recommendations of the Information Technology Task Force of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency;

(2) develop minimum standards for voice storage and retrieval services, including voice messaging and electronic mail services, local area networks, Internet access, electronic data interchange, data dictionaries, and other technological needs of the judicial system;

(3) develop a coordinated statewide computer and communication network that is capable of linking all courts in this state;

(4) encourage efficiency and planning coordination by researching the possible uses of existing computer and communication networks developed by other state agencies;

(5) develop minimum standards for an electronically based document system to provide for the flow of information within the judicial system in electronic form and recommend rules relating to the electronic filing of documents with courts;

(6) develop security guidelines for controlling access to and protecting the integrity and confidentiality of information available in electronic form;

(7) develop a state judicial system web page for use on the Internet accessible to the public for a reasonable access fee set by the supreme court after consultation with the committee;

(8) develop minimum standards for an internal computer and communication network available only to court staff;

(9) recommend pilot programs relating to the testing and demonstration of new technologies as applied to the judicial system;

(10) recommend programs to provide training and technical assistance to users of the coordinated statewide computer and communication network;

(11) develop funding priorities regarding the various technological needs of the judicial system; and

(12) recommend distributions to courts from the judicial technology account in the judicial fund.

Sec. 77.032.  Judicial Technology Account.

(a) The judicial technology account is an account in the judicial fund administered by the committee.

(b) Money in the judicial technology account may only be used for the support of programs that are approved by the committee and that provide technological support for the judiciary. The comptroller may pay money from the account only on vouchers approved by the committee.

(c) The committee shall file a report with the Legislative Budget Board at the end of each fiscal year showing disbursements from the account and the purpose for each disbursement. All money expended is subject to audit by the comptroller and the state auditor.

(d) Money available from the judicial technology account may be supplemented by local or federal money and private or public grants.

Return to Annual Report