Annual Reports of the Judicial Support Agencies

2000 Fiscal Year

Activities, Accomplishments, Recommendations

Texas Judicial Council

Office of Court Administration

Judicial Committee on Information Technology

Introduction to the Reports

The three agencies most responsible for supporting and representing the Texas Judicial System are the Texas Judicial Council, the Office of Court Administration, and the Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

The 22-member Texas Judicial Council is composed of appointees of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of Texas, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House. As appointees of the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, the Council is the most representative body responsible for studying and recommending changes to the current and future state of the judiciary and the delivery of justice in the state. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, respectively, serve as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Council.

The annual report of the Texas Judicial Council is included below. The statutory provisions for the Council, Chapter 71 of the Texas Government Code, are included in the section titled Enabling Legislation for the Three Judicial Support Agencies.

The staff of the Office of Court Administration, authorized at a budget level of 43.5 full-time equivalents, provides research support, as well as technical, legal, and administrative assistance, to the Texas Judicial Council, the Judicial Committee on Information Technology, other judicial boards and commissions, and all courts of the state. Acting under the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, and managed by an Administrative Director, the Office of Court Administration conducts research and studies as well as provides management and technical assistance to provide uniform administration of the courts and efficient administration of justice throughout the state judicial system.

The annual report of the Office of Court Administration is included below. The statutory provisions for the Office, Chapter 72 of the Texas Government Code, are included in the section titled Enabling Legislation for the Three Judicial Support Agencies.

The 15-member Judicial Committee on Information Technology is charged with developing and overseeing the design and implementation of a coordinated statewide computer communication network and comprehensive justice information system. Established in 1997 by the 75th Texas Legislature, the committee is appointed by and operates under the direction and supervision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

A report of the year 2000 activities of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology is included below. The statutory provisions for the Committee, Chapter 77 of the Texas Government Code, are included in the section titled Enabling Legislation for the Three Judicial Support Agencies.

Annual Report of the Texas Judicial Council

1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations

I. INTRODUCTION

The Texas Judicial Council (Council) was created in 1929 by the 41st Legislature to study and make recommendations for improving the administration of the Texas judicial system. Since its inception, the Council has collected comprehensive statewide statistics on the operation of Texas courts. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) helps the Council fulfill its duties by collecting and annually publishing information on the docket activities of each appellate, district, county, justice, and municipal court in the state.

In 1997, the 75th Legislature passed House Bill 2297 which restructured the membership of the Council and placed it under the direct supervision of the Chief Justice. These changes, along with legislative appropriations for the hiring of two full-time staff persons, have substantially improved the Council's ability to address the most pressing issues facing Texas' judicial system.

This report discusses the activities, findings, and recommendations of the Texas Judicial Council since December 1, 1999. The following supplemental reports and recommendations are pending final approval by the Texas Judicial Council at its December 2000 meeting:

• Texas District Court Performance Measures;
• Texas Courts of Appeals Performance Measures;<
• Examining Juror Pay and Other Ways to Encourage Jury Service in Texas; and
• Guidelines for Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings in Texas Trial and Appellate Courts.

In addition the Texas Judicial Council's 72nd Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is published by the Office of Court Administration, will be available in January 2001.

II. DUTIES, MEMBERSHIP, MEETINGS, AND COMMITTEES

• Duties. Chapter 71, Government Code, charges the Council with the following duties (1):

(1) continuously study the organization, rules, procedures and practice, work accomplished, results, and uniformity of the discretionary powers of the state courts and methods for their improvement;

(2) receive and consider advice from judges, public officials, members of the Bar, and citizens concerning remedies for faults in the administration of justice;

(3) design methods for simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and correcting faults in the administration of justice;

(5) investigate and report on matters concerning the administration of justice that the Supreme Court or the Legislature refers to the Council; and

(6) gather judicial statistics and other pertinent information from the several state judges and other court officials of the state.

• Chief Justice Marilyn Aboussie (3rd Court of Appeals);
• Chief Justice John H. Cayce (2nd Court of Appeals);
• Judge Jim Parsons (3rd Judicial District);
• Judge David Peeples (224th District Court);
• Judge Martin Chiuminatto, Jr. (Kleberg County Court-at-Law);
• Judge Mike Wood (Harris County Probate Court No. 2);
• Judge David Patronella (Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, Harris County);
• Judge Penny L. Pope (Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Galveston County);
• Judge Rodolfo Tamez (Presiding Judge, Corpus Christi, Municipal Court); and
• Judge Robin Smith (Presiding Judge, City of Midland, Municipal Court).

Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry appointed Senator Rodney Ellis of Houston (serving in his capacity as chair of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee) and Senator Robert Duncan of Lubbock to the Council. Speaker Pete Laney appointed Representative Senfronia Thompson of Houston (serving in her capacity as chair of the House Committee on Judicial Affairs) and Representative Pete Gallego of Alpine to represent the Texas House of Representatives on the Council.

Governor George W. Bush appointed the following members to the Council:

• Ms. Willie Jean Birmingham (Marshall)
• Mr. James R. Brickman (Dallas);
• Mr. Joseph A. Callier, Esq. (Houston);
• Ms. Delia Martinez-Carian, Esq. (San Antonio);
• Deacon Jose Luis Lopez (Uvalde); and
• Ms. Ann Manning, Esq. (Lubbock).

C. Meetings. The Council has met two times since December 1, 1999 (2):

February 29, 2000 (Austin)

September 14, 2000 (Austin)

D. Appointment of Judicial Council Committees. The Council accomplishes much of its work through committees and subcommittees. Each committee and subcommittee is directed to obtain input from the public and all interested parties and submit its work and recommendations to the Council for consideration. The following committees and subcommittees were created by the Council during the 1999-2000 reporting period:

(1) Committee on Judicial Performance Measures

(a) Subcommittee on District Court Performance Measures

• Subcommittee on Appellate Court Performance Measures

• Committee on Law Clerk Recruitment

• Committee on Media and the Courts
• Committee on Judicial Campaign Finance
• Subcommittee on Juries

III. 1999-2000 COUNCIL ACTIVITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Directives from the 76th Legislature.

1. Judicial Performance Measures. In 1997, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency (Commission) recommended that Texas courts "establish, adopt, and regularly report uniform measures and standards of performance." (3) As a result of that recommendation, the 75th Legislature enacted several provisions to facilitate the collection of data relating to the performance of appellate and district courts. (4) In May 1999, the 76th Legislature attached two riders to HB 1 (the Appropriations Act) . The first rider required the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and the Texas Judicial Council (Council) to "conduct a pilot project to develop and implement performance measures for the individual district courts of this state." (5) The second rider required the Texas Judicial Council to:

"...develop measures to evaluate the work of individual justices on the courts of appeals. The measures must be approved by the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor's Office. The data obtained for these measures will be reported in the Texas Judicial System Annual Report." (6)

In August 1999, the Council formed the Committee on Judicial Performance Measures (Committee) and its attendant subcommittees, the Subcommittee on District Court Performance Measures, and the Subcommittee on Appellate Court Performance Measures. The Council appointed a district clerk, a county clerk, and members of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas to serve as advisory members of the Committee. The Committee is chaired by Representative Pete Gallego (Alpine).

The Committee and its subcommittees held nine public hearings on the issue of judicial performance measures from the period of November 1999 to December 1, 2000. Below is a summary of the work of the subcommittees to date:

This District Court Subcommittee's study provided meaningful input from judges regarding appropriate performance measures for district courts and the many factors that impact the rate at which cases are disposed in Texas courts. In addition, statistical data collected from district courts for State Fiscal Year 1999 illustrated that there was significant variation in case disposition activity among Texas district courts. The District Court Subcommittee, which is chaired by Mr. Jim Brickman (Dallas) submitted its recommendations to the Performance Measures Committee on November 3, 2000.

b. Subcommittee on Appellate Court Performance Measures (Appellate Court Subcommittee). Under current Texas law, the courts of appeals report performance measurement data to the Legislative Budget Board, the Governor's Office of Budget and Planning, and the Office of Court Administration. This data is used, inter alia, to set budgetary priorities for the courts of appeals. In addition, the Office of Court Administration publishes performance data relating to the workload of individual justices in its Annual Report of the Texas Judicial System and has done so since 1966.

A final draft of the Appellate Court Subcommittee's report is pending adoption at its December 1, 2000 meeting.

c. Additional Comments. The Committee on Judicial Performance Measures will meet on December 6, 2000 to discuss the subcommittee reports and its final recommendations to the Texas Judicial Council.

During the first fiscal year of the program, 63 appellate court law clerks participated in the student loan repayment program. On average, a law clerk received a loan repayment of $4215.87 for 12 months of service at an appellate court.

3. Judicial Internship Program. In addition to funding a student loan repayment program, a rider to HB 1 (The Appropriations Act) required the Council, the Judicial Branch, and the Texas law schools to develop a judicial internship program. (12) In June 2000, the Committee on Law Clerk Recruitment for the Courts (which is chaired by Ms. Delia Martinez Carian of San Antonio) approved the following recommendations for the creation of a Judicial Internship Program: (13)

• The final decision as to which candidate should be selected for an internship should be made by the individual court in accordance with its current administrative policies.
• The Office of Court Administration (OCA) should develop a web page describing internship opportunities with the courts in detail. The web page should include instructions on how to apply, important dates (by court), comments from previous program participants, and a contact person. There should be links from the page to each of the appellate courts throughout the state.
• OCA should develop a short video presentation and brochure for use by OCA and the courts to describe internship opportunities in appellate courts.
• OCA and the Judicial Council should distribute information about internship opportunities to law school organizations, student bar associations, the Texas Young Lawyers Association, and the Judicial Section of the State Bar (and any other relevant sections of the State Bar or local bar associations). There should also be a short write-up in the Bar Journal.
• Each of the nine law schools should be asked to designate official contacts (preferably in the placement office) to receive information about judicial clerkships and briefing attorney positions in the appellate courts. These designees would communicate directly with OCA's "judicial liaison" (i.e., person who is designated by OCA to answer questions about internships and briefing attorney opportunities in the courts) about job fairs and other school-sponsored job search programs. (14)
• OCA should post a blank application (preferably a state application) and instructions for completing the application on its web page. The application process should also be described in the recruitment video and brochure. The judicial liaison would have the primary duty to distribute the application materials to the appellate courts, law schools, job fair attendees, and law-related organizations. After a candidate completes an application and sends it to OCA, OCA's judicial liaison will promptly notify the appellate courts that there are completed applications on file in the office. The judicial liaison then forwards the applications to the appellate courts at their request. After receiving the applications from OCA, the courts schedule interviews with the candidates in accordance with their existing timelines and administrative procedures for selecting interns and briefing attorneys.

4. Media Pooling in Texas Courts. The 76th Legislature also passed SCR 23 which requires the Office of Court Administration "to study and develop uniform guidelines for media pooling agreements for courtroom coverage" and to "solicit and consider the opinions and advice of the Judiciary in developing the uniform guidelines." (15) At the request of the Office of Court Administration, the Council has created the Committee on Media and the Courts which consists of judges from the trial and appellate courts, and an attorney who specializes in media law. The Committee has held three open meetings and is currently drafting uniform guidelines to assist trial and appellate court judges who, in their discretion, wish to allow audio and video coverage (as well as still photography) of court proceedings.

The Committee, which is chaired by Judge Robin Smith (Midland), plans to submit its recommendations to the Texas Judicial Council in December 2000.

In 1999, the 76th Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, by Senator Rodney Ellis, which directed the Judicial Council "to examine the costs of increasing juror pay to $40 per day after the first day of trial and to examine the feasibility of allowing counties to offer other incentives to jurors for service." (17) On February 29, 2000, the Texas Judicial Council created the Subcommittee on Juries ("Subcommittee") and asked the Subcommittee to study SCR 15 and recent efforts to encourage jury service in El Paso County and in other states. The Subcommittee is chaired by Senator Robert Duncan (Lubbock).

B. Directives from the Supreme Court of Texas. In October 1999, the Supreme Court

of Texas created the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee and asked the Committee to "propose both rule and statutory changes to improve the way in which campaigns for the Texas judiciary are financed." (18) In February 1999, the Committee issued its final report and recommendations to the Supreme Court. The Court then held two public hearings with invited public testimony on the Committee's report. As part of its disposition of the Committee's recommendations, the Court directed the Texas Judicial Council to do the following:

(1) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that limits be placed on the amount of campaign funds that judges can retain between elections and determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are necessary to address this recommendation;

(2) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that limits be placed on judges' use of political contributions to make donations to political organizations and determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are needed to address this recommendation; and

(3) review the Judicial Campaign Finance Study Committee's recommendation that voter guides be developed to inform the public about judicial candidates. Also, study H.B. 59 as passed by the 76th Legislature, the Governor's veto message to H.B. 59, and similar efforts in other states to inform voters about judicial candidates. Determine whether legislative changes or amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct are needed to address this recommendation. (19)

In August 1999, the Council created the Committee on Judicial Campaign Finance (which is chaired by Judge David Patronella) to study the issues outlined in the Court's directive and to develop recommendations for consideration by the full Council. In September 2000, the Committee recommended that the Council support legislation that would substantially limit the contributions that a candidate who is unopposed can accept from a person. The Council amended the recommendation to prohibit a candidate who is unopposed in the general election from accepting contributions and that recommendation has been filed as HB 167 by Representative Pete Gallego (Alpine). The following legislative recommendations are pending before the Committee as of December 1, 2000:

• A recommendation to create a voter information guide for judicial elections; and
• A recommendation to limit the use of judicial officeholder funds to subsidize other activities.

C. Other Council Activities

1. Strategic Planning. In 1996, the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency found that the "Judicial Branch currently lacks any permanent, coordinated process for long-range planning." (20) As a result of this finding, the Commission recommended that a strategic planning function be established as an arm of the Office of Court Administration operated under the direction of the Texas Judicial Council. (21) To support that process, the Council in September 1998 established the Committee on Strategic Planning and asked the Committee to examine the strategic planning efforts of other states and to develop recommendations for a strategic plan for the Texas Judicial Branch. (22) A draft of the Committee's plan is pending before the Council.

2. 72nd Annual Report of the Texas Judicial Council. As previously noted in this report, the Texas Judicial Council's 72nd Annual Report on the Texas Judicial System, which is published by the Office of Court Administration, will be available in January 2001. The Annual Report, which contains detailed statistical data about the Judiciary, has historically been a valuable source of judicial information for courts, government agencies, legislators, and the public.

Annual Report of the Office of Court Administration

2000 Fiscal Year

INTRODUCTION

The Office of Court Administration was created in 1977 by the 65th Legislature to provide support and technical assistance to Texas courts at all levels, thereby providing the public access to a judicial system that is efficient and just.

In an effort to better address several critical needs -- both current and emerging -- of the courts, the 75th Legislature delegated to the Office of Court Administration new responsibilities and resources to upgrade and expand its services supporting all levels of the judiciary in Texas. An agency reorganization with both new and expanded departments was implemented to assist the courts of the state in functioning more efficiently and effectively. Research and Court Services, and Judicial Planning departments were created and staffed, and new resources were used to enhance the performance of the departments already in place at the agency such as Information Services, Legal Counsel, Judicial Information, and the Finance and Operations departments.

The agency modified its Mission Statement, first adopted in 1996, to reflect the new vision of its leadership as well as the new responsibilities adopted by the Legislature. The following is the Mission Statement of the Office of Court Administration that went into effect during the 1998-99 biennium and remains in place today:

To Provide Resources and Information for the Efficient Administration of the Judicial Branch of Texas

The Office will provide Leadership by facilitating the development and implementation of policies which enhance the Texas Judicial System, fostering court adaptation to future changes, securing sufficient resources for state and local courts, strengthening the leadership role of the courts, providing innovative models of the organization and administration of the courts, and encouraging collaboration with and within state courts.

The Office will provide Service by offering technical assistance, promoting knowledge, informing, educating, and generally supporting courts and judicial organizations.

The agency established an internal strategic planning process to ensure that its goals and objectives are relevant to the judicial community. To this end, it periodically communicates with judicial officers, judicial personnel, and related organizations to advance various initiatives intended to improve judicial efficiency.

The following is a brief synopsis of the duties and activities of each department at the Office of Court Administration.

Departments:

A. Research and Court Services. The Research and Court Services Department serves as a resource for the courts in key areas of judicial administration. The department provides consultation on recommended best practices in administrative operations, it works to establish innovative court programs, and it serves to increase public accessibility to the courts. Also, the Department's Collections Unit helps develop and implement programs designed to increase the collection of fines and court costs. An expanded discussion of the activities and accomplishments of the Research and Court Services Department is included in Section III below.

B. Judicial Planning. The Judicial Planning Department directs strategic and long range planning for the Texas Judicial System. It provides staff support for the Texas Judicial Council in its effort to study the organization and work accomplished by the state's courts and methods for their improvement. The department consults with all levels of courts and the other branches of government to evaluate the effectiveness of planning and operational strategies. A more comprehensive presentation of the work products of the Judicial Planning Department is included in the annual report of the Texas Judicial Council.

C. Information Services. The Information Services Department develops case management software systems and designs/maintains computer network hardware and software for the Texas Judiciary. It also serves as staff support for the Judicial Committee on Information Technology that is charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing a statewide computer communication network and a comprehensive judicial information system. The department provides technical support, training, quality assurance testing and documentation for the agency and OCA Case Management users. A more comprehensive presentation of the work products of the JCIT and the information services department follows this report on the Office of Court Administration.

D. Legal Counsel. The Legal Counsel staff advises agency management and judicial officers on administrative issues and matters pertaining to employment law. The staff takes a leadership role in identifying legal issues that may affect the agency or courts. The department serves as counsel to the Council of Chief Justices and to the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions, and provides training to judges and clerks on relevant matters of law. It also assists the presiding judges in administering the Title IV-D Masters Program for child support cases, as well as drafts procedures manuals for court clerks and produces the Judicial Services Handbook. An expanded discussion of the activities and accomplishments of the Legal Counsel Department is included in Section IV below.

E. Judicial Information. The Judicial Information Department collects and analyzes information related to the courts activities throughout the state. The statistics are collected in a manner that focuses on significant issues and accomplishments in the judicial arena, and are used for identifying opportunities for improvement in the judicial system. The department is chiefly responsible for the publication of the Texas Judicial System Directory and the Texas Judicial System Annual Report.

F. Finance and Operations. The Finance and Operations Department provides technical assistance to appellate courts and other judicial entities in their business operations. The department also provides administrative, human resources, accounting and budgetary support to agency management and employees, as well as to other judicial boards and commissions.

RESEARCH AND COURT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

During fiscal year 2000, the Department's activities included the development and continuation of numerous programs and projects designed with the purpose of increasing the collection of fines and court costs, improving the administrative operation of the courts, and increasing the public's accessibility to the courts. The highlights of the programs and projects of the Research and Court Services Department are as follows:

A. Collections Improvement Project. Assisted in implementing OCA's model fine collections programs in the county-level courts in Jefferson and Lubbock counties; the district courts in Brazoria County (Note: the program is managed by the district clerk); and the municipal courts in the City of College Station and the City of Garland. It should be noted that the County of Wichita budgeted funds for a collections program which is to be implemented during the next fiscal year. In addition, OCA provided technical assistance to the fine collections programs in Bexar, Brazoria, Brazos, Cameron, Dallas, Denton, El Paso, Galveston, Harris, Harrison, Kerr, Montgomery, Nueces, San Patricio, Tom Green, and Val Verde counties, including assisting Brazoria County in expanding the collections program managed by the county clerk's office to juvenile court cases; and assisting Cameron and El Paso counties in expanding their respective collections programs managed by the county clerk's office to the justice courts. By the end of fiscal year 2000, 129 courts (including district, county-level, justice, and municipal courts) in the state were utilizing fine collections programs.

B. Rural Court Delay Reduction Program. Obtained a $121,632 Anti-Drug Abuse Act grant to continue a rural court delay reduction program for a third year. The program is implemented in six district courts that serve a total of 18 counties. It provides trained court coordinators to assist judges in drug and criminal case management through the use of OCA's case management software and the implementation of innovative case management techniques, including differentiated case management. The participating counties and OCA agreed to provide a cash match of $40,543, resulting in a total project cost of $162,175. The grant period is June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001.

C. Criminal Differentiated Case Management Pilot Project. Obtained a $315,470 grant from the State Criminal Justice Planning (421) Fund to implement a criminal differentiated case management program in the district courts in Lubbock and Hidalgo counties. The goal of the project is to improve the criminal case management system in each of the project counties to enable the district courts to dispose of criminal cases in a more expeditious manner and make better use of existing judicial resources. The participating counties agreed to contribute a cash match of $105,156, resulting in a total project cost of $420,626. The grant period is September 1, 2000 to August 31, 2001.

D. Differentiated Case Management for the Improvement of Civil Case Processing in the Trial Courts of Texas. Obtained a $25,000 grant from the State Justice Institute to hire a consultant to conduct, with the assistance of OCA staff, an in-depth analysis of the civil case management systems of certain courts in Travis, Dallas, and Gregg counties. The purpose of the project is to recommend systemic changes based on differentiated case management principles which will lead to the creation of a more efficient case management system in the respective courts. The grant period was August 2, 1999 through September 30, 2000.

E. Juvenile Law Referees. Obtained a $171,690 Juvenile Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant to continue the project for a second year. The purpose of the project is to hold juvenile offenders more accountable for their actions by providing additional judicial officers and support staff to efficiently and effectively process the large volume of juvenile cases in Hidalgo and Bexar counties. The participating counties agreed to provide a cash match of $114,463, resulting in a total project cost of $286,153. The grant period is August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001.

F. Dallas County Collections Department Financial Management Counseling Pilot Project. Obtained a $40,000 grant from the State Justice Institute to implement a pilot project in Dallas County designed to improve the services provided to clients (i.e., defendants) of the Dallas County Collections Department. The goal of the project, which involves the hiring of a financial management counselor, is to improve the collections rate of the department by assisting defendants who request assistance with personal debt management for the purpose of paying their court-ordered fines and court costs. The grant period is May 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001.

G. Court Costs and Fees Handbook for Justice Courts; and Court Costs and Fees Handbook for Municipal Courts. Drafted handbooks to aid clerks and others by providing up-to-date information on various topics concerning court costs and fees.

Grant projects received by OCA (generally from federal, state, or other sources, such as those described in Section III above) are primarily pass-through grants which go to local participating governments or courts to cover the project costs under the grant; as well, the local government or court also generally provides the preponderance of any local matching funds required as a condition of the grant. Generally, OCA participation under the grant project occurs on an "in-kind" basis and takes two forms: (1) Research and Court Services research staff participate in the actual research, analysis, and report-writing phases of a grant project; and, (2) OCA staff serve as grant manager or fiscal agent in administering the grant by reviewing expenditures and filing necessary grant reports to the funding agency. By providing this assistance at minimal or no cost to the grant, OCA can maximize the use of grant funds for the local participant.

LEGAL DEPARTMENT

During fiscal year 2000, the legal department provided legal counsel and assistance to judicial officers, court personnel, and judicial organizations. Additionally, the department provided legal research and technical assistance to OCA managers and project leaders on procurements and business contracts important to the success of the various projects of OCA, the Texas Judicial Council, and the Judicial Committee on Information Technology as described throughout this report. Finally, some of the major projects for which the department has taken a leadership role are as follows:

A. Judicial Service Handbook. The Judicial Service Handbook, which contains constitutional and statutory provisions governing judicial service, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, ethical opinions interpreting the Canons, Rule 12 governing open judicial records, and the opinions interpreting Rule 12, was completely revised, printed, and distributed to all judges in Texas. Information about public access to judicial records was distributed in agency publications and on OCA's web page.

B. Appellate Court Assistance. Based on legislation passed by the 76th Legislature in 1999 (Senate Bill 1034), legal department staff assisted the 14 courts of appeals and OCA in the procurement of a liability insurance policy with employment practices coverage for the elected justices and the court clerks, as well as the administrative director of OCA. In addition to supporting the deliberations of the Council of Chief Justices of the Courts Appeals, and the Appellate Court Technology Committee, extensive sample human resources policies were drafted and distributed to the appellate courts for their use.

C. Training. An OCA attorney also served as faculty to the Texas County and District Courts Association, the State Bar of Texas, the Texas Justice Court Training Center, the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, the Texas Association of Counties, and other entities, and presented dozens of courses on procedural and substantive law affecting members of the judiciary and the bar.

D. Model Uniform Jury Summons and Questionnaire. In accordance with the new mandate of Chapter 62 of the Government Code (enacted by Senate Bill 230), OCA's legal staff developed a model uniform jury summons and questionnaire, distributed it for comment and modification, and distributed it to all Texas counties for their use beginning January 1, 2001.

E. Assistance to Presiding Judges. OCA's legal department also enhanced the services provided to the presiding judges of the administrative judicial regions. For the Title IV-D child support program, legal staff drafted and began implementation of the "Plan to Improve the Efficiency of the Title IV-D Masters"; coordinated new employee training in safety, sexual harassment, and other issues for the masters and assistants; implemented a court monitor pilot project for supervision of cases in which the parent is placed on payment probation; and assisted with administration of employment evaluations of masters and assistants. Legal staff drafted a complete revision of the Presiding Judges Reference Authorities Manual so that the presiding judges could have current information regarding applicable statutes and policies in an easily accessible format.

F. Foster Care Courts. Legal staff also facilitated the transfer of nine foster care court employees from county employment to OCA employment and the initiation of additional foster care courts using state funding.

G. Public Access to Judicial Records. The general counsel assisted the committee of presiding judges in administering the Rule 12 appellate process and drafting opinions for petitions seeking public access to judicial records.

H. Court Law Clerk Recruitment. Government Code Section 72.042 requires OCA to annually publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of the state. OCA's legal department surveyed the state's appellate courts to gather this data, and the report is included in this 2000 edition of the Annual Judicial Report.

CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

SEMINARS ON CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

OCA conducts regular training seminars to train judges, clerks, and other court personnel in the use the OCA. Case Management software. Seminar participants include judges, clerks, court coordinators and administrators, technical support staff, auditors and others from the courts around the state that use OCA. Case Management programs.

During the year ended August 31, 2000, the Information Services staff conducted 85 seminars with a total attendance of 581 persons, including appellate justices and judges, trial court judges, clerks, court coordinators, judge secretaries, county auditors, and IV-D assistants.

User manuals and training materials are developed and provided by OCA staff to complement the training courses. All classes are held in Austin unless otherwise noted.

Annual Report of the Judicial Committee on Information Technology

2000 Fiscal Year

I. Introduction.

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) provides staffing, research and planning activities, fiscal services, and administrative support to the Judicial Committee on Information Technology (JCIT). The 75th Legislature created the JCIT in 1997 to establish standards and guidelines for the systematic implementation and integration of information technology into the trial and appellate courts in Texas. Its goal is to develop and oversee the design and implementation of a coordinated statewide computer communication network and comprehensive justice information system. The general powers and duties of JCIT are outlined in Tex. Government Code Ann. sec. 77.031 (Vernon 1997).

II. Membership.

The 15 members of the JCIT are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to represent all levels of the judiciary and its component parts (e.g., judges, district attorneys, clerks of the court, court reporters, court administrators). Committee members are appointed by the Chief Justice to serve four (4) year terms as established by the Chief Justice; seven (7) of the current members are serving terms set to end August 31, 2001, and eight (8) of the current members are serving terms set to end August 31, 2003. Four (4) additional members are appointed to serve as non-voting liaison members of the committee; these members serve at the pleasure of the Chief Justice.

Members of the JCIT as of August 31, 2000, were:

Member Position Term Expires

• Mr. Peter Vogel Chair, Attorney at Law, Dallas 08-31-2003
• Dr. Don Hardcastle Vice Chair, Professor, Baylor University, Waco 08-31-2003
• Hon. Rodney Ellis State Senator, Texas Senate, Houston 08-31-2001
• Hon. Scott Hochberg State Representative, Texas House of Representatives, Houston 08-31-2001
• Hon. Mark Whittington* Justice, 5th Court of Appeals, Dallas 08-31-2001
• Hon. Lamar McCorkle Judge, 133rd Judicial District, Houston 08-31-2001
• Hon. Jaime Esparza** District Attorney, 34th Judicial District, El Paso 08-31-2001
• Hon. Jay Johnson Education Program Manager, Texas Association of Counties 08-31-2001
• Mr. Frank Sturzl Executive Director, Texas Municipal League 08-31-2001
• Hon. David Hodges*** Judge, McLennan County Court at Law, Waco 08-31-2003
• Hon. Marvin D. Mitchell **** Justice of the Peace, Potter County, Pct. 4, Amarillo 08-31-2003
• Hon. Michael O'Neal Presiding Judge, Dallas Municipal Court, Dallas 08-31-2003
• Hon. Dianne Wilson County Clerk, Fort Bend County, Richmond 08-31-2003
• Mr. Bob Wessels Court Manager, Harris County Criminal Courts, Houston 08-31-2003
• Ms. Judy Miller Court Reporter, Criminal District Court #3, Tarrant County, Ft. Worth 08-31-2003

Non-voting Liaison Member Position

• Hon. Nathan Hecht Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Austin
• Hon. Sharon Keller***** Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin
• Mr. John T. Adams Clerk of the Court, Supreme Court of Texas, Austin
• Mr. Troy Bennett Clerk of the Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin

* Honorable Richard Barajas, Chief Justice, 8th Court of Appeals, El Paso, was appointed on December 14, 2000, to fill the position of Honorable Mark Whittington who resigned.

** Honorable Hardy L. Wilkerson, District Attorney, 118th Judicial District, Big Spring, was appointed on December 14, 2000, to fill the position of Jaime Esparza who resigned.

*** Honorable Mark Owen, Judge, County Court at Law #2, Ector County, was appointed on December 14, 2000, to fill the position of Honorable David Hodges who resigned.

**** Honorable George H. Boyett, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 6, Brazos County, was appointed on September 1, 2000, to fill the position of Honorable Marvin Mitchell who resigned.

***** Honorable Sharon Keller assumed the office of Presiding Judge on January 1, 2001.

• Overview.

JCIT and OCA serve approximately 20,000 court officials and staff in 3,000 courts in 1,750 locations throughout the state, and the two entities are providing leadership and support for the development of an integrated justice information system -- one that will unite 3,200 Texas courts via information technology.

The OCA/JCIT requested and received legislative appropriations during the FY 2000-2001 biennium to continue the implementation of a six-year plan to develop an infrastructure that is able to support the systematic integration of technology into the courts. Although funds were available to support the projects, the OCA experienced a significant turnover in key staff positions during the year, causing project planning and implementation to be significantly slowed. The OCA/JCIT took this opportunity to reassess the projects underway and contracted with a consultant company, Leapnet, Inc., to provide technology coordination services by reviewing methodologies and practices undertaken by OCA/JCIT to develop plans and implement projects. The scope of the review encompassed OCA project planning/management, project documentation, application development, and infrastructure integration, communication and customer service. Significant effort was expended revising the information technology strategic plan, evaluating the feasibility of the projects, reprioritizing projects, aligning resources to implement the projects, and amending the biennial operating plan. The results of the review are contained in a report "JCIT/OCA Plans and Projects Analysis, Assessment and Recommendations" issued September 2000.

• Accomplishments.

The following represents some of the significant JCIT/ OCA accomplishments during the fiscal year 2000 and/or underway early in 2001.

A. Appellate Court Case Management. The appellate court system has historically been required to utilize technology to offset increasing caseloads. To streamline the efficiency of operations, the Office of Court Administration started the implementation of an integrated justice information system with the Appellate Courts during the FY 00-01 biennium. The Office of Court Administration developed and deployed a Windows-based case management system to replace the antiquated DOS-based system for the appellate courts.

The appellate court case management system is a core initiative for the Judicial Committee on Information Technology. It is designed to enable integration of court data and documents with other courts, and other agencies. The implementation of Version 2 case management software will enable access over the Internet to opinions, orders, and other information about the cases through the Texas Judiciary Online Website. The new system will allow the public to search opinions and cases, subscribe to notification by electronic mail when there are changes to the public information in the database, and provide a calendar of upcoming court hearings.

B. State Telecommunications Infrastructure. The groundwork for a secure statewide telecommunications infrastructure for the judiciary has begun. The work began at the appellate court level. The Office of Court Administration upgraded the computers (500 computers and servers), computer peripherals, and local- and wide-area networks of the appellate courts. OCA solicited bids for and negotiated a statewide contract for a three-year lease of the equipment and supported the deployment of the hardware and associated software statewide to the 16 appellate courts, State Law Library, and State Prosecuting Attorney's office. Funds have been requested to bring the remaining 250 computers and servers of the courts onto the lease arrangement in 2003, bringing to 750 the number of workstations in the statewide network.

The next step is to develop a plan to give access to the trial courts. A database of the existing state and private networks that are available to courts will be developed and a cost-benefit analysis conducted to determine the type of network that should be developed for the courts. The Office of Court Administration will develop a telecommunications plan for consideration by the JCIT.

C. Web Presence. The Office of Court Administration is maintaining a judicial web server, The Texas Judiciary Online, located at http://www.courts.state.tx.us provides general information about the judiciary (rules, court structure, directory information) and a web presence for the Supreme Court of Texas, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Efforts are under way to standardize and link all Courts of Appeals web pages to the Texas Judiciary Online Home Page.

D. General Technology Training. The Office of Court Administration contracted with the Texas Justice Court Training Center (TJCTC) to conduct a pilot training program to provide training to members of the judiciary (elected and appointed judges, appointed and elected clerks, elected district and county attorneys) to establish and enhance judicial members' knowledge of information technology and telecommunications as it relates to the justice system. The Texas Justice Court Training Center along with the Municipal Courts Education Center, the Texas Association of Counties and the Texas Center for the Judiciary provided 6.5 hours of court technology training to four classes of judges or court personnel at the technology training facilities of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. The training was conducted July 31 -- August 3, 2000. All attendees completed evaluations and ranked the course as "excellent" or "good."

E. Trial Court Data Management. The Office of Court Administration/Judicial Committee on Information Technology is in the process of developing a data management pilot that will demonstrate the electronic reporting of case-level data to the Office of Court Administration. This project refines the data standard and tests a new method of electronic reporting to state agencies by the district and county pilot courts. Optimally, the electronic reporting system will replace all mandated reporting of information about cases to all state agencies and create a common standard for exchange of case data among courts.

F. Trial Court Assistance/Legal Research. The Office of Court Administration negotiated a statewide contract for on-line computer assisted legal research for the Texas Judiciary. This contract enables members of the judiciary the option to access top-notch legal research materials at very low prices that are powerful and valuable legal resources.

G. Trial Court Case Management. Office of Court Administration Court Case Management Software is a suite of DOS-based software systems. These systems focus primarily on the internal court functions with little emphasis on data sharing and integration. Because the current systems are DOS-based, it is not cost effective to attempt to integrate them with other applications. Linking of electronic case documents to cases in the current system is not possible nor does the system have an Internet component to facilitate remote access by court officials or court customers. The Trial Court Case Management system is at the end of its useful lifecycle. The Office of Court Administration and Judicial Committee on Information Technology have requested funding to evaluate and provide the trial courts with an updated case management software solution.

H. Technology Standards. Office of Court Administration and Judicial Committee on Information Technology participate in the National Consortium for State Court Automation Standards. The Judicial Committee on Information Technology adopted the Consortium's functional standards for civil case management for use by Texas courts. The functional standards can be accessed at: www.courts.state.tx.us/JCIT/standards/standards.htm.

The JCIT Electronic Filing Subcommittee has recommended draft standards for electronic filing systems. The Electronic Filing Subcommittee is also monitoring other state-agency initiatives, such as the Texas State Library and Archives Commission's Electronic Recording Advisory Committee, to ensure compliance with other statewide standards.

I. Dallas County Juvenile Information System. During the past year, the feasibility and benefits of an integrated judicial information system were demonstrated through the Dallas County Juvenile Information System. The Dallas County Juvenile Information System is a cooperative effort among juvenile probation, municipal courts, public schools, law enforcement, and prosecution to share information electronically through a web-based environment. The system collects and compiles juvenile justice information from all relevant agencies and allows the relevant agencies to use this system as their primary juvenile justice data system. The project was funded through a federal block grant and managed locally. Members of the JCIT and OCA staff provided management advice, as well as technical and legal support to the project.

Enabling Legislation for the Three Judicial Support Agencies

TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Chapter 71, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 71.001. Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Chair" means the chair of the council.

(2) "Council" means the Texas Judicial Council.

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 71.011. Number and Classes of Members.

The Texas Judicial Council is an agency of the state composed of 16 ex officio and six appointive members.

Sec. 71.012. Ex Officio Members.

The ex officio members are:

(1) the chief justice of the supreme court;

(2) the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals;

(3) the chair of the Senate Jurisprudence Committee;

(4) one member of the senate, appointed by the lieutenant governor;

(5) the chair of the House Judicial Affairs Committee;

(6) one member of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house;

(7) two justices of the courts of appeals designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(8) two district judges designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(9) two judges of county courts, statutory county, or statutory probate courts designated by the chief justice of the supreme court;

(10) two justices of the peace designated by the chief justice of the supreme court; and

(11) two municipal court judges designated by the chief justice of the supreme court.

Sec. 71.013. Terms of Ex Officio Members; Delegation of Functions.

(a) The chief justice of the supreme court and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals are members of the council as long as they hold those offices.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (a), all members of the judiciary appointed to the council serve staggered terms of four years with the term of one member from each judicial group expiring on February 1 of each odd-number year.

(c) A legislative member whose membership in the legislature ceases continues as a member of the council at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

(d) A vacancy in a judicial membership must be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment.

(e) A judicial or legislative member of the council serves until his successor is chosen and has qualified.

(f) The chief justice of the supreme court and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals may each designate a member of his court to act in his stead under this chapter. The designated person serves at the will of the official who chose him for service.

Sec. 71.014. Citizen Members.

(a) The governor shall appoint the six citizen members on the council.

(b) A citizen member must be a resident citizen of the state. Three of the six citizen members must be members of the State Bar of Texas and two must be persons who are not licensed to practice law.

Sec. 71.015. Terms of Citizen Members.

(a) Citizen members serve for staggered terms of six years with two members� terms expiring on June 30 of each odd-numbered year.

(b) A vacancy in citizen membership is filled for the unexpired term by appointment by the governor.

(c) A citizen member serves on the council until his successor is appointed and has qualified.

Sec. 71.016. Meetings.

(a) The council shall meet at least once in each calendar year and may meet at other times as ordered by the council or under its authority.

(b) The council may meet at a place and time designated by it or under its authority.

Sec. 71.017. Quorum.

Eleven members of the council constitute a quorum.

Sec. 71.018. Officers; Committees.

(a) The chief justice of the supreme court shall serve as chair and the presiding judge of the court of criminal appeals shall serve as vice chair of the council. Other officers of the council shall be elected by the council.

The council may prescribe the duties of an officer of the council.

The council may appoint committees from its membership. It may prescribe the duties of and delegate powers under this chapter to a committee except as otherwise limited by this chapter.

The chair may appoint committees for two-year terms that he considers necessary for the organization of the council.

Sec. 71.019. Rules.

The council may adopt rules expedient for the administration of its functions.

Sec. 71.020. Expenses.

(a) A member of the council may not receive compensation for service on the council.

A member is entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in performing the duties of the council and approved for payment as provided by this section.

The council, its officers, and its committees are entitled to reimbursement for the actual and necessary clerical expenses incurred in performing functions under this chapter and approved for payment as provided by this section.

Before any expenses incurred by the council, its members or officers, or its committees may be paid, the chair of the council or the vice chair, if authorized by the chair in writing to do so, must approve a verified and itemized account of the expenses.

 

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties

Sec. 71.031. Continuous Study.

The council continuously shall study the organization, rules, procedures and practice, work accomplished, results, and uniformity of the discretionary powers of the state courts and methods for their improvement.

Sec. 71.032. Receipt of Advice on Remedies.

The council shall receive and consider advice from judges, public officials, members of the bar, and citizens concerning remedies for faults in the administration of justice.

Sec. 71.033. Methods for Improvement.

The council shall design methods for simplifying judicial procedure, expediting the transaction of judicial business, and correcting faults in or improving the administration of justice.

Sec. 71.034. Reports; Investigations.

(a) The council shall file a complete detailed report with the governor and the supreme court before December 2 of each year on council activities, information from the council�s study, and council recommendations.

The council may file a supplemental report on council activities, findings, or recommendations at a time it considers advisable.

The council shall investigate and report on a matter concerning the administration of justice that the supreme court or the legislature refers to the council.

The yearly or supplemental reports of the council are public information and may be given to the press when filed.

 

Sec. 71.035. Statistics; Enforcement by Mandamus.

(a) The council shall gather judicial statistics and other pertinent information from the several state judges and other court officials of this state.

The council may require a state justice, judge, clerk, or other court official, as an official duty, to comply with reasonable requirements for supplying statistics pertaining to the amount and character of the civil and criminal business transacted by the court or other information on the conduct, operation, or business of his court or the office of the clerk of his court that is within the scope of the functions of the council. If the official does not supply the information within a reasonable time after the request, he is presumed to have willfully refused the request. The council shall prescribe procedures, definitions of terms, and forms for supplying the statistics and other information.

The duty provided by this section to supply information may be enforced by writ of mandamus in:

(1) the district court of the county of residence of the respondent if the petition for mandamus is filed against a district clerk or a clerk, judge, or other official of a trial court other than a district court;

(2) the court of appeals for the court of appeals district in which the respondent resides if the petition for mandamus is filed against a district judge or a clerk of a court of appeals; or

(3) the supreme court in any other case.

(d) Except as provided by this subsection, the attorney general shall file and prosecute an action for mandamus on behalf of the council if requested to do so in writing by the council. To be valid, the written request must be signed by the chair or by at least 11 members of the council. The attorney general may refuse to file an action if he certifies in writing that the action is without merit.

 

 

Sec. 71.036. Public Hearings.

(a) The council may appoint a committee of at least three members to hold a public hearing.

(b) The committee may:

(1) order the production of books or other documents;

(2) require a report from a state court, including a court that is not a court of record;

(3) administer oaths; or

(4) take testimony.

(c) An officer of the council, either prior to or while sitting at a hearing, or a member of the council sitting at a hearing may issue a subpoena or similar order to a prospective witness under his official signature.

(d) The subpoena or similar order may be served by registered or certified mail or by an adult person.

(e) If a witness fails to comply with a subpoena or similar order issued as provided by this section, the council or its committee holding the hearing may request in writing that a district judge of the county of residence of the witness enforce a subpoena or order as provided by this section, the district judge shall order compliance with the council�s order by the same means that the judge may compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses in a trial in his own court.

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 72, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 72.001. Definitions.

In this chapter:

"Court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary.

(2) "Director" means the administrative director of the courts appointed as provided by this chapter.

(3) "Office" means the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System.

(4) "Trial court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary, except the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, and the courts of appeals, but does not include the commissioners court of a county.

Sec. 72.002. Effect on Jurisdiction or Judicial Discretion.

This chapter or a rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 74.024 does not authorize:

(1) a judge to act in a case over which his court would not have potential jurisdiction under the Texas Constitution or other state law; or

(2) an infringement of the judicial discretion of a judge in the trying of a case properly before his court.

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 72.011. Office of Court Administration.

(a) The office of court administration is an agency of the state and operates under the direction and supervision of the supreme court and the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The office shall exercise the powers and perform the duties or functions imposed on the office by this chapter or the supreme court.

 

Sec. 72.012. Director.

(a) The director shall:

(1) implement this chapter and direct the operations of the office of court administration; and

(2) as an additional duty of his office, serve as the executive director of the Texas Judicial Council.

(b) The director shall devote full time to his official duties.

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties

Sec. 72.021. Budget; Expenditures.

(a) The director shall prepare and submit an estimated budget for the appropriation of funds necessary for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system.

(b) The director shall study and recommend expenditures and savings of funds appropriated for the maintenance and operation of the judicial system.

 

Sec. 72.022. Personnel.

(a) The director, with the approval of the chief justice of the supreme court, shall employ the personnel needed to administer the office, including personnel needed for the Texas Judicial Council.

(b) The office shall provide staff functions necessary for the efficient operation of the Texas Judicial Council.

(c) This chapter does not limit the authority of a court to appoint clerical personnel.

Sec. 72.023. Consultation and Assistance.

(a) The director shall assist the justices and judges in discharging their administrative duties.

(b) The director shall consult with the regional presiding judges and local administrative judges and assist them in discharging duties imposed by law or by a rule adopted by the supreme court.

(c) The director, to provide for the efficient administration of justice, shall consult with and assist:

(1) court clerks;

(2) other court officers or employees; and

(3) clerks or other officers or employees of offices related to and serving a court.

(d) The director, to provide for uniform administration of the courts and efficient administration of justice, shall consult with and make recommendations to administrators and coordinators of the courts.

Sec. 72.024. Methods; Recommendations.

(a) The director shall examine the judicial dockets, practices, and procedures of the courts and the administrative and business methods or systems used in the office of a clerk of a court or in an office related to and serving a court.

(b) The director shall recommend:

(1) a necessary improvement to a method or system;

(2) a form or other document used to record judicial business; or

(3) any other change that will promote the efficient administration of justice.

(c) The director shall recommend to the supreme court appropriate means to implement this chapter.

Sec. 72.025. Annual Report.

(a) The director shall prepare an annual report of the activities of the office.

(b) The report must be published in the annual report of the Texas Judicial Council.

Sec. 72.026. Rules.

The director, under the supervision of the chief justice, shall implement a rule of administration or other rules adopted by the supreme court for the efficient administration of justice.

Sec. 72.027. Additional Duties.

The supreme court or the chief justice of the supreme court may assign the director duties in addition to those imposed by this chapter.

Sec. 72.028. Gifts, Grants, and Donations.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the office may request, accept, and administer gifts, grants, and donations from any source to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(b) The office may not request, accept, or administer a gift, grant, or donation from a law firm, an attorney, an employee of a law firm or attorney, or the spouse of an attorney or of an employee of a law firm or an attorney.

(c) In this section, "law firm" means a partnership, limited liability partnership, or professional corporation organized for the private practice of law.

Subchapter D. Judicial Law Clerk and Staff Attorney Recruitment

Sec. 72.041.  Diversity.

The judges of the supreme court, court of criminal appeals, and courts of appeals shall encourage the recruitment of judicial law clerks and staff attorneys that reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of this state.

Sec. 72.042.  Demographic Census.

(a) The office shall annually publish a report regarding the demographic profile of the judicial law clerks and attorneys employed by the courts of this state.

(b) The office may request that a court provide demographic information to the office.

Subchapter E. Court Performance Standards

Sec. 72.081.  Rules.

The office shall adopt rules and forms for administering this subchapter and for obtaining information under this subchapter.

Sec. 72.082.  Performance Report.

The office shall annually collect and publish a performance report of information regarding the efficiency of the courts of this state.

Sec. 72.083.  Trial Courts.

The office shall report the aggregate clearance rate of cases for the district courts. In this section, "clearance rate" means the number of cases disposed of by the district courts divided by the number of cases added to the dockets of the district courts.

Sec. 72.084.  Court of Appeals.

A court of appeals shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year;

(3) for active cases on the docket of the court on the reporting date, the average number of days from the date of submission of the case to the court until the reporting date; and

(4) for each case disposed of during the reporting year by the court, the number of days from the date of submission of the case to the court until the date of disposition of the case by the court.

Sec. 72.085.  Court of Criminal Appeals.

The court of criminal appeals shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year involving:

(a) capital punishment;

(b) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(c) a petition for discretionary review;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year involving:

(a) capital punishment;

(b) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(c) a petition for discretionary review;

(3) the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the reporting date, for each active case on the docket of the court on the reporting date involving:

(a) capital punishment;

(b) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(c) a petition for discretionary review; and

(4) the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the date the case was disposed of by the court, for each case disposed of during the reporting year by the court involving:

(a) capital punishment;

(b) an application for writ of habeas corpus; or

(c) a petition for discretionary review.

Sec. 72.086.  Supreme Court.

(a) The supreme court shall annually report to the office:

(1) the number of cases filed with the court during the reporting year;

(2) the number of cases disposed of by the court during the reporting year;

(3) for the active cases on the docket of the court on the reporting date, the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the reporting date; and

(4) for the cases disposed of during the reporting year by the court, the average number of days from the date a case was filed with the court until the date of release of the court's opinion for the case or the date the case was otherwise disposed of by the court.

(b) For cases on the docket of the court during the reporting year, the supreme court shall annually report to the office:

(1) the average number of days from the date a case is filed with the court until the date the court releases an order announcing its decision granting, overruling, denying, or dismissing an application, petition, or motion;

(2) the average number of days from the date of the granting of an application, petition, or motion until the date of oral argument of the case;

(3) the average number of days from the date of the oral argument of the case until the date the court issues a signed opinion and judgment for the case; and

(4) the average number of days from the date of filing of a case with the court until the date of the release of a per curiam opinion.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 77, Government Code

Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 77.001.  Definitions.

In this chapter:

(1) "Committee" means the Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

(2) "Court" means any tribunal forming a part of the judiciary.

          (3) "Internet" means the largest nonproprietary nonprofit cooperative public computer network, popularly 
                known as the Internet.

 

Subchapter B. Administrative Provisions

Sec. 77.011.  Judicial Committee on Information Technology.

(a) The committee operates under the direction and supervision of the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The committee shall exercise the powers and perform the duties or functions imposed on the committee by this chapter or the supreme court.

Sec. 77.012.  Members.

(a) The committee is composed of 15 members appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court.

(b) The chief justice of the supreme court, in making appointments to the committee, shall attempt to select members who are representative of, but not limited to, appellate court judges, appellate court clerks, district court judges, county court judges, statutory probate judges, justices of the peace, municipal court judges, district attorneys, court reporters, court administrators, district or county clerks, members of the legislature, attorneys, and the general public. The members shall be selected based on their experience, expertise, or special interest in the use of technology in court. A representative from the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System shall serve as a nonvoting member of the committee.

(c) The chief justice of the supreme court shall designate the presiding officer of the committee. The presiding officer may form subcommittees as needed to accomplish the business of the committee.

(d) A person may not serve on the committee if the person is required to register as a lobbyist under Chapter 305 because of the person's activities for compensation on behalf of a profession related to the business of the committee.

 

Sec. 77.013.  Compensation.

A member of the committee is not entitled to compensation but is entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by the member while conducting the business of the committee, as provided in the General Appropriations Act.

Sec. 77.014.  Staff.

The Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System shall provide staff for the committee.

Subchapter C. Powers and Duties; Funding

Sec. 77.031.  General Powers and Duties. The committee shall:

(1) develop programs to implement the recommendations of the Information Technology Task Force of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency;

(2) develop minimum standards for voice storage and retrieval services, including voice messaging and electronic mail services, local area networks, Internet access, electronic data interchange, data dictionaries, and other technological needs of the judicial system;

(3) develop a coordinated statewide computer and communication network that is capable of linking all courts in this state;

(4) encourage efficiency and planning coordination by researching the possible uses of existing computer and communication networks developed by other state agencies;

(5) develop minimum standards for an electronically based document system to provide for the flow of information within the judicial system in electronic form and recommend rules relating to the electronic filing of documents with courts;

(6) develop security guidelines for controlling access to and protecting the integrity and confidentiality of information available in electronic form;

(7) develop a state judicial system web page for use on the Internet accessible to the public for a reasonable access fee set by the supreme court after consultation with the committee;

(8) develop minimum standards for an internal computer and communication network available only to court staff;

(9) recommend pilot programs relating to the testing and demonstration of new technologies as applied to the judicial system;

(10) recommend programs to provide training and technical assistance to users of the coordinated statewide computer and communication network;

(11) develop funding priorities regarding the various technological needs of the judicial system; and

(12) recommend distributions to courts from the judicial technology account in the judicial fund.

 

Sec. 77.032.  Judicial Technology Account.

(a) The judicial technology account is an account in the judicial fund administered by the committee.

(b) Money in the judicial technology account may only be used for the support of programs that are approved by the committee and that provide technological support for the judiciary. The comptroller may pay money from the account only on vouchers approved by the committee.

(c) The committee shall file a report with the Legislative Budget Board at the end of each fiscal year showing disbursements from the account and the purpose for each disbursement. All money expended is subject to audit by the comptroller and the state auditor.

(d) Money available from the judicial technology account may be supplemented by local or federal money and private or public grants.

1. See �� 71.031-71.035, Government Code.

2. See Appendix A, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations for a complete list of meetings held by the Council and its committees.

3 Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.2, p.33 ( January 1997).

4. See Chapter 72, Subchapter E, Government Code.

5. -

6. See Appendix D, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations Article IV of HB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 76 R.S. (1999).

7. See Appendix B, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations to view the district court surveys.

8. See Appendix B, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations to view the appellate surveys.

9. See Appendix D, Article IV of HB 1, the General Appropriations Act, 76 R.S. (1999).

10. Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p.19 (November 1996).

11. See Appendix C, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations.

12. See Appendix C, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations The rider follows the recommendations of the Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency. Also see Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p.19 (November 1996).

13. See Appendix C for more discussion of the Law Clerk Recruitment Committee's recommendations.

14. The Committee also recommended that the Council work with the courts of appeals to develop "for credit" externships in the appellate courts.

15. See Appendix D, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations Senate Concurrent Resolution 23, 76th R.S. (1999).

16. Judicial Attitudes Towards Jury Reform, Judicature, Vol. 83, Number 6, pg 299 (May-June 2000).

17. See Appendix D, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, 76th R.S. (1999). SCR 15 was developed from recommendations by the Supreme Court Jury Task Force and the Senate Jurisprudence Committee.

18. See Appendix E, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations (Misc. Docket No. 99-9112, Page 1, citing Order in Misc. Docket No. 98-9179, Par.1).

19. See Appendix E, Texas Judicial Council: 1999-2000 Report of Activities and Recommendations.

20. Governance of the Texas Judiciary: Independence and Accountability, Texas Commission on Judicial Efficiency, V.1, p. 25 (November 1996).

21. Id.

22. See generally, The Texas Judicial Council: 1997-1998 Report of Activities and Recommendations, p. 9.