JIS Data Dissemination Committee
May 25, 2001
Friday, May 25, 2001
JIS Data Dissemination Subcommittee Members:
The minutes of the April 6, 2001 meeting were approved as written.
II. Special Requests
Kris Sundberg Request for list of trust funds held in Whitman County Superior Court. The subcommittee discussed and denied the request because of the prohibition on commercial use set forth in the JIS Data Dissemination Policy Section III.A.5. The subcommittee determined that an attorney attempting to collect for a client was similar to a collection company attempting to collect for a customer. The subcommittee suggested that the requestor use JIS-Link to do a SCOMIS name search for those judgment debtors that he is trying to collect from. If he locates any matches he can then check the court case files for more information.
III. Old Business
Public Standard Index discussion-Mr. Backus reported on the status of the public standard index project. He handed out a table that compared the data elements that had been requested by the media and commercial users with the data elements in the new standard public indexes. He indicated that the target date for production of the new standard public indexes was July 1, 2001. He explained how the numbers on the financial spreadsheet were derived. He recommended an annual fee of $1, 800 for each new standard public index.
Ms. Kramer questioned the $46,000 cost for the computer time. She indicated that that computing costs should be decreasing. Mr. Clarke commented that hardware costs have gone down but software prices have gone up as the hardware prices have gone down. OAC researched the rate the DIS charges and found that the rate has remained the same or higher. OAC also verified with DIS that the rate OAC uses is reasonable. When benchmarked against DIS the OAC rate is lower.
Ms. Kramer asked if it would be permissible for WNPA to distribute the information to its members. She suggested a consortium with one subscription that would allow individual members access to the information. WNPA has a 501(3) organization that is organized to do research and can also enter into a contract. The subcommittee discussed this suggestion. Concern was raised that the media would be treated differently than other groups if this proposal is adopted. Judge Grosse pointed out that newsgathering is different than value added service of the commercial users. Judge Stilz added that media reporting benefits the public and should be distinguished from commercial uses. Judge Grosse suggested that it should not just be for the media but for research in general. Judge Wynne agreed but suggested that the contract be carefully be drafted. Judge Grosse suggested that the subcommittee review the old policy and make provisions for this in the new one.
Judge Heller was concerned about the cost and the number of subscriptions. Mr. Backus indicated that the numbers were based upon those surveyed who indicated that they "definitely would" subscribe and those that said they "might" subscribe. Judge Grosse pointed out that the development costs have already been incurred.
Report on Family Law Court Records Legislation and Proposed GR22-Judge Wynne reported that the legislation passed and had been signed by the governor with a veto of one added section that does not impact the courts.
Judge Wynne discussed the table that contained a summary of the comments and version of GR22 that contained specific comments from different persons/groups. The subcommittee first looked at Judge Dubuque's revision of section (b)(6), which added language to the definition of sealed financial documents. The subcommittee discussed how the suggested language was very broad and did not necessarily fall within the need to protect individuals against identity theft. Partnership, trust and corporate documents can be dealt with under subsection (3).
Judge Wynne pointed out the WAPA suggestions to (f). The subcommittee discussed the additional language to subsection (f)(B) that basically added the agency attorney for the agency. The subcommittee indicated that they have no objection if the Supreme Court wants to add the language. Judge Wynne pointed out the request for access to restricted records by any prosecutor or law enforcement officer. The subcommittee did not agree to that suggestion.
After reviewing the ACLU comments, Judge Wynne proposed a revision to subsection (d)(3). The proposed language to be added at the end of the sentence is: ", which may be submitted by a party as financial source documents under the provisions of section (e) of this document." The subcommittee agreed to this revision.
The subcommittee discussed the ACLU comment regarding section (d)(2). The question was whether the listed documents were pass through documents or documents that would be retained by the clerk. Ms. Kuriyama indicated that the intent was to make these documents part of the court record because federal and state legislation require that this information be kept by the court as part of the court record. The subcommittee directed Ms. Kuriyama to research this issue and work with Judge Wynne on any revisions to the rule. Judge Wynne indicated that he would check with the clerks to determine whether they contemplated keeping the confidential information form. Judge Wynne agreed to make any necessary revisions and report back to the subcommittee with the revisions.
Ms. Kuriyama pointed out that RCW 26.09 requires certain personal identifiers be placed on the face of the Notice of Intention to Relocate Child. This conflicts with proposed GR22. She indicated that the Family Section of the Pattern Forms Committee reviewed the proposed mandatory form and asked Ms. Kuriyama to bring this issue to the subcommittee. It was suggested that this Notice be a restricted document under subsection (d)(2). Judge Heller suggested that some judicial committee be given the authority by the Supreme Court to determine what forms should have restricted public access. The legislature will continue to change the requirements of cases and some mechanism needs to be developed that will deal with these changes without having to go through the court rule amendment process.
Proposed Comprehensive Court Rule/Legislative Changes-Ms. Kuriyama suggested that a plan be developed and circulated prior to the July meeting. Judge Grosse suggested that an assessment be done for each type of case to determine what is being required and whether it should have restricted access. It was suggested that the WSBA be contacted for information on the different types of cases. It was also suggested that a list of all the different types of cases be developed and a systematic approach be taken to review the privacy issues for each type of case as the group had done on family law cases.
Collaboration Document Management Tool Demonstration and Data Dissemination Subcommittee Pilot-Mr. Backus discussed the need for a tool that would help in the sharing of documents, provide document version control, and be easily accessible. He suggested that the subcommittee might want to try using such a tool to help in the drafting of the comprehensive rule. The subcommittee agreed that this would be very useful. He presented a demonstration of On Project. This is a server based web program. He also discussed a product called Groove that is a PC based program that is downloaded to a user's PC. The subcommittee preferred a server-based program because of mobility issues. A server-based program allows users to access the information from different computers. The subcommittee liked On-Project but asked if OAC could remove some of the features that the group would not use such as calendaring.
The next meeting will be July 27, 2001 at 9:00 AM.
|Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library|
|Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices|