Courts would continue to do the process manually, or wait until all the cases on the timepayment plan are paid.

This is an Unresolved Change Request that was reviewed by the endorsement group at an earlier meeting.

This request is for an enhancement to the Time Pay Removal Report program.  The customer requests that the system be modified to allow the user to remove delinquent cases from Time Pay agreements, if one or more cases on the agreements have a zero balance, and the other case(s) are delinquent.

This enhancement would allow the cases with zero balances to appear on the Cases Eligible for Closure Report.

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would modify the Time Pay Removal Eligibility List (report) and the Automatic Removal from Time Pay process so that case(s) with zero balance are excluded during the selection process.  This will allow the zero balance case(s), and the delinquent cases, to be removed from the Time Pay agreement.

AOC would change the behavior of the two Time Pay Removal Reports:

1.    Eligibility List (DS7011PU) and

2.    Automatic Removal from Time Pay Process (DS7011PU). 

The enhancement would change the selection criteria to ignore cases with zero balance so that the system will identify and process the other eligible cases within the same Time Pay agreement. 

On April 12^th, Jeff Hall and Vonnie Diseth met to consider authorizing requests that had been recommended by the CLJ CLUG under the ITG process. As a result of this meeting, three requests have been declined and AOC is returning these requests to the CLJ CLUG and District and Municipal Court Management Association (DMCMA).

One of the primary purposes of the ITG process is to allocate AOC’s scarce resources to the highest priority requests.  AOC will not have sufficient capacity to address the three lowest priority requests in the next year.  Because of this, Vonnie has elected to decline ITG requests #36, 35, and 57. 

The CLJ CLUG and DMCMA have several options in relation to these requests.  If you believe the current priority of these requests do not reflect the true business value in relation to the other requests, the CLJ CLUG can update the priority of these requests.  Under the JIS IT Governance policy, the CLJ CLUG can also appeal the decision to the JISC.  The final option available is that either the DMCMA or the CLJ CLUG can elect to close or decline the request at this time and reinitiate the request at a future date if the business need becomes more pressing.