The minutes of the January 19, 2001 meeting were approved as written.

State Auditor's Office Request for Financial Screens and reporting capability

The subcommittee discussed the request and agreed that the state auditor could have access to the financial screens for all cases except those that are sealed or otherwise restricted. In the case of sealed or restricted cases the auditor will need to ask the individual clerk or presiding judge for access on a case-by-case basis. If an additional security level is required, a request should be submitted to the Judicial Information Advisory Committee to determine if there are resources available and to prioritize this request with other requests. Ms. Woods raised the question of the scope of the audits and questioned the authority of the auditor's office to do performance audits. Judge Heller also voiced concerns and indicated that performance audits should be under the authority of the Supreme Court and not the state auditor's office.

• Action item-contact State Auditor's office to discuss the decision of the subcommittee (OAC staff)
• Action item-obtain a legal opinion from OAC Legal Services Staff regarding the authority and scope of the State Auditor's Office to do performance audits.

Public Index update-Mr. Backus reported on the status of the public index project. He indicated that the pricing for the proposed indices has not yet been determined. The results of the survey to determine pricing and demand for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Criminal Misdemeanor Index and Superior Court Criminal Index have been compiled. However, the cost analysis has not been completed. He also indicated that OAC is looking at the option of providing a Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Civil Index. Ms. Kramer asked if the cost analysis was based upon burdened overhead costs or marginal cost. Mr. Backus replied that it was burdened overhead costs. Judge Grosse pointed out that if the courts need the information a marginal cost approach is used, however, when the courts do not need the information a burdened overhead approach is used.

Concern was raised regarding the change in data elements in the index, time frame covered in each index, and update schedule. Judge Stilz asked for a chart showing the data elements that were agreed upon and the data elements in the proposed indices. Ms. Kramer asked if different people/groups could share the information contained in one subscription. Mr. Jacobs asked if the delay and change in index content were due to pricing or resources issues. Mr. Backus indicated that it was a combination of both but mainly a resource problem. Judge Grosse stressed that the use resources necessary for the courts to function was a higher priority than producing the different indices. Ms. McQueen pointed out that programmers have other work and this has been made a priority to accommodate the requests of the media and commercial users.

The committee discussed whether OAC should concentrate on the data warehouse and not work on this stop gap effort to produce the different indices. Ms. McQueen suggested that these indices could be done now at a cost to be determined and let the users decide if they want the indices. The data warehouse project is part of the courts' budget request and it is too early to see if the courts will get all the funds that have been requested. It was suggested that this matter be discussed at the JIS Retreat.

• Action item-Prepare chart comparing agreed upon index elements and data elements in the different proposed indices for the next DD subcommittee meeting. (OAC staff)
• Action item-Prepare cost information for different indices for the next DD subcommittee meeting. (OAC staff)

Report on status of proposed legislation-Ms. Kuriyama reported that the proposed legislation had passed in both the house and senate with some amendments.

Guidance on Judicial Access Browser System (JABS) screens-The subcommittee discussed the JABS screens issues. The subcommittee agreed that JABS should provide the same level of access to information as a user has in JIS. No new security level needs to be created.

US Search and other commercial information sellers-The subcommittee reviewed the informational paper and agreed that the courts are not in a position to do anything about US Search's advertisement of information from Washington court records. There may some consumer issues that fall within the regulatory authority of the Attorney General's Office.

• Action item-Contact the Attorney General's Office consumer division and inform them of the OAC's findings and concerns. (OAC staff).

Proposed Comprehensive Court Rule Rough Draft- development of a plan-Ms. Kuriyama presented the rough draft of the plan to draft the comprehensive court rule. The question of broadening the group and at what point was raised. It was agreed that the basics should be developed first and then convene a broader group that represents different interests to review and refine the rule. The schedule in the draft document was briefly discussed. It may be ambitious but there is a need to have proposed legislation ready before the next legislative session. Ms. Kuriyama suggested this project could be used as a pilot for a collaboration tool to aid in document management of various versions of the rule. Judge Grosse asked that OAC research all statutes and cases for the last three years regarding court records and determine if there are conflicts in these laws and cases.

• Action item-Research all statutes and cases for the last three years to determine what statutes are in conflict so a draft of legislative recommendations can be developed by the DD subcommittee. (OAC staff)
• Action item-Develop and present a collaboration tool demonstration for the next DD subcommittee meeting.

The next meeting will be May 25, 2001 at 9:00 AM.