State Bill Photo by Jamie Cotten
Judicial Department technology chief Bob Roper and State Court Administrator Jerry Marroney spoke after the hearing.

By Allie Winter, STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — A Colorado House panel had many questions last week for Colorado’s Judicial Department about its plan to bring the state’s courts e-filing system in house.
After fighting to get its outsourced services in house, the department already has won a victory. When its contract with Lexis Nexis, the vendor currently handling the state’s public access and e-filing systems, ends this summer, the department has been approved to bring the public access system in house. Now, it wants the same approval for e-filing when Lexis’ contract for operating that system expires at the end of 2012. At last week’s hearing, officials plead their case and their abilities.
“I understand many people think this will work, but what if it doesn’t?” asked Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, chair of the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee.
A big concern at the hearing was that judicial employees won’t be able to operate the system successfully, as some government systems have failed in the past. But Rep. Mike Ferrandino, D-Denver, assured the panel that the department could handle the task.
“When you look at judicial, every time they have implemented a system, the system has worked,” he said.
Another testifier, State Court Administrator Jerry Marroney, listed many programs and systems that the department has successfully launched.
“I know there’s been talk about failure,” he said. “We run probation, 90,000 people, all through an in-house system that we developed. It has 10,000 transactions a day.”
After listing a few more examples, Marroney said that not only is the department able to do this, it needs to; the system as currently constructed doesn’t do everything the department needs. Currently, the system includes only civil probate, domestic, water and county court collection filings, Marroney said.The department needs it to include criminal, mental health, juvenile and other filings and that would be possible if the department took over.
“We need it to do a lot more,” Marroney continued. “We need it because it’s our business to run the courts.”
But bringing it in house means hiring more people to help. Judicial has proposed hiring 19 information-technology employees to operate the e-filing system. This becomes a hot button for legislators, especially in light of the department’s previous request to cut 266 full-time equivalent positions in the next year. And more recently, the department has also requested permission to cut positions from its probation department.
“When people think of the judicial system, we think of judges and so forth; and the IT section is not the primary role of judicial,” said Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs. “So, on one hand, you’re cutting 266 legitimate judicial employees and on the other hand, you’re bringing in 19 IT positions. I think we’re all a little bit weary, [especially with the] glowing report of what the outside vendors have done, and now we’re cutting them loose.”
Ferrandino answered saying that just because something has been outsourced doesn’t mean it needs to continue that way. Ferrandino, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said the JBC prioritized the judicial budget request and felt it was essential to get these 19 FTEs.
“[Judicial] needs judges, but if they don’t have the system they need to function then they’re not going to be able to do their jobs and so by bringing on a system that allows them to do their jobs in a better way saves the state money,” Ferrandino said.
Marroney said the department has estimated a need for $2.6 million to fund the 19 FTE it wants to bring on. But, he also said the department will produce that money from the public access system by the end of 2012 — when it’s time to bring e-filing on board. The judicial department was given permission to run the public access system in house during the session, and it has been busy preparing it, testing it and bringing 12,000 government users onto the system before it is even turned on.
“If it doesn’t work, we’ll go back,” Marroney said. “There’s nothing preventing us from reissuing an RFP.” But should it face problems, Marroney said if it’s in house, at least he can deal with problems directly.
“I’m being held responsible, and I don’t have any authority. When you chew me out about something not working I can do something about it; right now I can’t. I have a vendor to go through, and I have to fit in their mold. I want to be able to walk in and chew [an employee’s] back side if they’re not producing.”
Should the department receive its wish and win approval to operate the e-filing, Marroney said Lexis Nexis will still be a vendor and buy the information, as secondary vendors BIS and Acxiom do now. He said those contracts are being negotiated.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Mark Hillman writes in The Denver Post: The anti-taxpayer majority on the Colorado Supreme Court soon will have another chance to stand the constitution on its head, thanks to a remarkably unambiguous ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals. In an opinion written by Judge Sean Connelly, a three-judge panel ruled that the Colorado Department of Revenue cannot increase the severance tax rate applied to coal mining without a public vote. Adopted in 1977, the severance tax is paid by companies that extract minerals, oil or gas from the ground and is calculated by multiplying the quantity extracted by a statutory rate that accounted for changes in the Producer Price Index. Originally, the tax rate for coal was set at 36 cents per ton and had increased to 54 cents by 1992. READ MORE HERE.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Judicial-retention elections are traditionally quiet, noncontroversial affairs that barely get attention before Election Day. But a series of decisions made by the Colorado Supreme Court over the past decade has energized opponents of four justices who will be up for retention this fall, including Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, The Denver Post reports.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

New legislation could extend a successful El Paso County judicial court for veterans to other cities across the state, KUNC reports.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

The Colorado Supreme Court is considering broadcasting its proceedings, but those telecasts — whether on cable television or the Internet — won’t begin until the new Ralph Carr Justice Center is completed in 2013, a top court official said Friday. The state’s high court is moving in May to a new temporary home on the first and eighth floors of The Denver Post building, 101 W. Colfax Ave. But the new courtroom that’s under construction isn’t being configured for TV coverage, Colorado Judicial Branch Legal Counsel Carol Haller told members of the newly formed Colorado Channel Authority, Law Week Colorado reports.

Editor’s Note: You can listen to this testimony by clicking on this player.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Allie Winter, STATE BILL COLORADO
When it comes to public access to certain electronic court records, LexisNexis is out and the Colorado Judicial Department is in, if the department has its way.
For the past 10 years, the department has recruited, at little or no cost to the state, private vendors to operate its public access computer system, or PAS, for non-protected court data. It’s supported entirely by user fees, primarily paid by background companies working to screen job candidates.
Over the past two years, the department has decided it would be more efficient to run this system in-house, as well as an other system that handles the electronic filing of court documents by lawyers. An effort by the judicial department to gain control over both systems last year failed in the General Assembly. LexisNexis has been under contract to provide the public-access system since 2005; that contract expires June 30. Now, the department is saying it wants to take over July 1 and has asked for approval to do just that.
Proponents such as Pasadena, Calif.-based Courthouse News Service say consumers will benefit from lower prices; opponents have argued that the government won’t serve the market as efficiently or as effectively as private companies. Some also contend that it’s wrong for the government to grow at the expense of the private sector.
Carolyn Kampman, analyst at the Joint Budget Committee, brought the department’s supplemental request to adjust this year’s budget to implement the access system. That request passed 5-1 and now goes to the full House and Senate for their approval. Under the plan, Kampman said the department will soon start transitioning over certain government employees who access the system for free already, on Lexis Nexis, to the in-house system as a “test” before they launch in July.
“They want to be able to hire a staff and migrate those users off of Lexis and over to theirs,” she said.
Further, certain fees for certain users will decrease as the Judicial Department does not make a profit from this service and can operate it cheaper with no vendors involved. “They will continue to charge fees to certain users, but not others. Some fees would go down because they don’t collect extra fees that vendors [have collected thus far].”
The JBC’s approval of the supplemental will be included in a bill that hasn’t yet been introduced.
Users access the public records on the Web through LexisNexis, the primary vendor, as well as through secondary vendors Axciom Risk Mitigation (CoCourts.com) and Background Information Services (Bisi.com), among others.

By Allie Winter, STATE BILL COLORADO
A state Judicial Branch agency that manages mostly private lawyers for Colorado children who face legal issues may become permanent if the Senate Judiciary Committee has its way.
The panel voted today to recommend an amended SB10-043, which will make permanent the Office of the Child’s Representative, begun in 2000. The new executive director of the agency, Linda Weinerman, successfully pleaded the case for permanency. The original version of the bill called for extending the agency’s life for another 10 years.
Weinerman initially requested a 10-year extension on the agency’s repeal date, or sunset clause. The office exists to hold accountable guardians ad litem, the attorneys who represent the children in the welfare system who have fallen victim of abuse or neglect.
“Ten years ago it was probably appropriate to have a sunset clause because we were an experiment,” Weinerman said. “[But now] the OCR has a proven track record.”
To Weinerman’s approval, Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, suggested Amendment L001, making the office permanent. “I would like to see us get rid of the repeal date,” he said.
Republican Sens. Scott Refroe and Kevin Lundberg opposed Steadman’s amendment, but otherwise supported extension of the office’s tenure. The two said the repeal date would force the legislature to periodically re-evaluate the program.
“Having a date and time when you know something can happen on a program holds you accountable,” Renfroe said.
Ultimately, the amendment passed 4-2, and the panel voted 6-0 to move the bill to the Senate floor for further discussion. Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, is the bill’s prime sponsor.
State Bill premium subscribers can listen to testimony on SB10-043 below. Not yet a subscriber? Read about features and benefits of our service here.

A Republican blog last week reported that Attorney General John Suthers won’t support three of the four Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot in November. The Republican attorney general isn’t talking, except to say that he wishes he had kept quiet, The Denver Post reports. “I should not have gotten into any of that,” Suthers said Monday. “I regret the conversation.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said this week he will vote to kick out three of the four Colorado Supreme Court justices in November’s retention election, according to The Business Word blog.
In a statement at an Arapahoe County Republican Men’s Club breakfast, Suthers said he will vote not to retain Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and Justices Michael Bender and Alex Martinez, while voting to retain Justice Nancy Rice. Suthers could not be immediately reached to confirm this report. Suthers has openly speculated about partisan motives of the Supreme Court in the past.
The move was praised by Clear the Bench Colorado, the group advocating the ouster of all four justices up for retention.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Matt Masich, STATE BILL COLORADO
DENVER — Does Colorado’s indoor smoking ban apply to actors performing in plays? The Colorado Supreme Court will tell us Monday when it releases its decision in Curious Theatre v. Colorado Department of Health and Public Environment.
Actors have been forbidden from smoking onstage since 2006, when the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act took effect. Curious Theatre and two other theater groups sued to overturn the ban in performances, arguing it infringes on First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Denver District Court and the state Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that free expression isn’t hampered because theater troupes can use alternatives to lighted cigarettes that are just as effective.
Bruce Jones, an attorney with Holland & Hart who represents the theater groups, talked with State Bill Colorado shortly after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in May. He described testimony an actor and producer gave in trial court about the problem with using fake cigarettes (plastic tubes through which actors blow talcum powder).
“He said they had used one of the fake cigarettes in a dramatic moment in one of the plays that he had been involved with — and the audience laughed. By definition, in his view, that meant it was not an adequate substitute,” Jones said.
“You can’t draw on a [fake] cigarette and blow a smoke ring, or blow smoke at someone to show disdain or derision, or do any type of smoking that requires actually exhaling smoke as part of the play.”
Jones said he didn’t read too much into the questions the Supreme Court justices asked during oral arguments, but thought some questions hinted that the court might find the smoking ban to be overbroad, especially as it forbids the smoking of non-tobacco herbal cigarettes.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >