This is an unresolved  change request that was discussed by the endorsement group at an earlier meeting.

This request is for an enhancement to JIS that would make a docket entry when an accounts payable transaction is put on hold.  The information entered on the docket should also include the reason the account was put on hold.

This enhancement would allow Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CLJ) staff to more efficiently process these transactions.  Currently, the customer reports that most CLJ clerks manually make a docket entry when an account is put on hold.  By automating the process, court staff would save time on these transactions.

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) proposes to modify the Judicial Information System (JIS) to make a docket entry whenever an accounts payable is put on hold.  The docket entry will include the reason the account was placed on hold. 

AOC would modify JIS so that a docket entry would be created whenever an accounts payable is put on hold.  The docket entry would include the reason the account was put on hold.  Accounts payables can be placed on hold on two screens (ASD and PUP), so this proposed solution would address both screens.  Because not every accounts payable has an associated case, this enhancement would only apply to those accounts payable related to cases.  Business analysts at AOC will need to determine if “Put Future Payables on Hold” on the PUP screen is in scope for this enhancement.

Authorized by Vonnie Diseth on Dec 8, 2010.

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.