| |
41 - CLJ Revised Computer Records Retention and Destruction Process
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
In Progress |
| JISC Priority |
5 |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Alfasso, Lynne |
| Origination Date: |
| |
10/04/2010 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
|
| Original Title: |
Remove CLJ Archiving and Purge Certain Records |
| Request Type: |
Change or Enhancement
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Judicial Information System (JIS)
|
| Business Area: |
Records Management
|
| Communities Impacted: |
CLJ Judges
CLJ Managers
Public and Other Users
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
Medium |
| Impact Description: |
If these records are not purged they will continue to appear on the public case search website. |
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
JISC directs that AOC remove the archiving requirement for certain courts of limited jurisdiction
records and, by extension, remove archiving of these records from the JIS applications. This request would see the records in the JIS applications “destroyed” at the same time the records are listed for destruction by the courts.
Attached as Appendix 2 is a policy memorandum adopted by the JISC on April 25, 2008, which required that certain records in the courts of limited jurisdiction be purged after a period of time: probable cause hearings (three years), records of criminal felonies in the courts of limited jurisdiction (three years), and criminal cases that are either dismissed or have the judgments vacated (except for domestic violence and driving under the influence cases) (ten years). Purging of these records would take them off the public website display.
This ITG request is a consolidation of requests 14, 15, 16, and 17. The requests were consolidated based upon analysis by ISD technical experts.
|
| Expected Benefit: |
Purging of these records would take them off the public website. Removal of the archiving requirement will reduce eliminate the need for court staff to unarchive records. |
| Any Additional Information: |
This request was generated based on the JISC adopting the recommendations of the JISC Public Case Search Workgroup on August 18th, 2010. This work detailed in this request will fulfill Recommendation #3 from the report. |
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin |
| Origination Date: |
| |
10/04/2010 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
| Endorser’s Explanation and Comments |
This request is a combination of four earlier requests: 14, 15, 16, and 17. It is being resubmitted in a combined request on the advice of the technical team. |
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
12/17/2010
|
| Request Rationale |
| Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans: |
Yes |
| Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards: |
Yes |
| Breadth of Solution Benefit: |
Wide |
| Cost Estimates |
| Cost to Implement? |
4700 hours |
| Projected Maintenance cost? |
$0 |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
No |
| Court Level User Group |
| Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
| Approving Authority |
JISC |
|
| Request Summary: |
The request seeks to discontinue archiving for all CLJ cases. In addition, it seeks business rule changes for three types of closed, aged CLJ cases.
1. Destroy CLJ probable cause case type records after 3 years
2. Destroy CLJ criminal felony case type records after 3 years
3. Destroy CLJ criminal traffic and non-traffic cases after 10 years, if the case is either dismissed or vacated
|
| Business Impacts: |
This request would impact CLJ staff and the general public. The specified cases would be physically destroyed, so they would no longer be present in JIS or on the public case search web site. |
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
The Administrative Office of the Courts proposes to update the business rules for certain CLJ case types to comply with the current CLJ case destruction schedule. CLJ probable cause and criminal felony case types would be destroyed after three years. CLJ criminal traffic and non-traffic would be destroyed after 10 years if the case is either dismissed or vacated. For discontinuing archiving, AOC will use a phased approach. AOC will first develop destruction programs for Electronic Ticket Processing (ETP) cases, then Vehicle Related Violations (VRV)/Parking cases, and lastly all other CLJ cases affected by this request. AOC will then remove the obsolete archiving and destruction modules from JIS. |
| Proposed Solution |
AOC’s proposed solution is to create a new destruction process that would review the active tables and identify eligible (closed, aged) cases and destroy them from the active tables, rather than from the inactive (archived) tables. Currently, the destruction process evaluates cases in the inactive tables, so a case cannot be destroyed if it isn’t first archived.
This new destruction process would be implemented as a phased approach. The phases would be ordered to allow software developed in the earlier phases to be reused in later phases to facilitate efficient project completion.
Because the current JIS Archiving and Destruction processes are integrated, AOC would modify the existing Destruction processes incrementally, e.g., for each case type individually, before the JIS archiving process could be eliminated.
Within the project scope the technical staff proposes to change the software’s hard-coded business rules to table-driven rules. This change will make future changes to these business rules much less labor intensive.
|
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
AOC (endorses for other communities) |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin |
| Origination Date: |
| |
12/17/2010 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction |
| Chair of Group |
Cynthia Marr |
| Date of Decision |
01/11/2011 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
| Ranking |
| Request Priority |
4 |
| Request Importance |
High |
|
| Scoring Detail |
Score / Possible |
| Business Value |
8 / 10 |
| Relative Priority |
8 / 10 |
| Cost |
1 / 5 |
| Complexity/Level of Effort |
3 / 10 |
| Risk |
1 / 5 |
| Benefit / Impact |
4 / 5 |
| Impact of Doing Nothing |
3 / 5 |
| Total Score |
28 / 50 |
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
Authorized |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This request was authorized by the JISC on Feb 18, 2011.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
03/03/2011 |
| Implementation Stage |
Scheduled |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Project is scheduled for Aug 1, 2011 - Aug 1, 2013.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
Scheduled |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This project has been re-scheduled for Aug 15, 2011 - Aug 1, 2013.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
Scheduled |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
This project has been re-scheduled for Aug 1, 2011 - Aug 1, 2013.
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
| Implementation Stage |
In Progress |
| Prioritization Option: |
Prioritized |
|
|
Comments:
|
|
Work on this request began on Aug 3, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
