The Arkansas Court Automation Project By Timothy N. Holthoffi
In November, 1990, recoglllzing that "uniform and effective automation of the Courts of this state will increase the COSt effectiveness and the efficiency of our Courts, as well as improve the quality of justice available to our citizens," the Arkansas Supreme Coun created the Committee on Automation, with the charge to "fuHy study all issues relating to the automation of the CourtS and to make recommendations for a master plan of automation." The Coun noted that, "In recent years, our judicial system has made gteat use of modern equipment, but our technical systems are incomplete and incompatible with other systems utilized in the courts and state government."2 A decade larer, there still was no "master plan of automation," and court systems remajned "incomplete and incompatible." In 2001, the Supreme Court, its Committee on Automation, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AGC), have embarked on a bold mission to go where many states have already gone before:
About the Author Tim Holthoff is Director of the Court Arkansas Automation Project. He is a 1988 graduate of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School.
20 n,e Arkansas Lawyer
'I'MMI arl<barcom
In 2001, the Supreme Court, its Committee on Automation, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), have embarked on a bold mission to go where many states have already gone before: to create a statewide case management system for Arkansas courts. to create a statewide case management system for Arkansas courts. The trek is perilous and fraught with difficulties; but as other states have demonstrated, with sufficient planning, funding and support, it is an achievable goal. During the 200 I session of the General Assembly, six million dollars was appropriated for COllft automation. Act 1590 of 2001 appropriated cwo million dollars 111 the biennium from the Administration ofJustice Fund for a District Court Automation System. The appropriation act for the AOe included one
million dollars in the biennium from the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund, which will be used for circuit courts. Because Arkansas lowered the D.W.!. blood alcohol conrem from .10 to .08, Act 1507 of 2001 permirred the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to transfer up to three million dollars of the highway safety funds it will receive from the federal government to the AGC for district court autOmation. Unfortunately, the Highway Departmcm will probably make no more than half of that amoum available to the AOe. We will also be seeking additional federal gram monies for the projecr. 3 To suppOtt the cost of majntaining the system, the General Assembly passed legislation allowing district courts to charge a five dollar monthly fee for fines paid in installments. Previously the circuit courts were permitted to charge this fee, but now it is clear that the district courts may also charge the fee to support court technology. Half of the five dollar fee will go to the city or county for court technology and the other half will go to the Judicial Fine Collection enhancement fund. Money deposited into this fund will be used by the AOe to purchase and develop technology for limited and general jurisdiction courtS to improve fine collections. Several automated district courts have reported dramatic 1I1creases 111 fine collections after automation. 4 With the inicial funding in place, all we lacked was a plan. s On April IS, 200 I, 1 was permitted to take a leave of absence as director of the Arkansas Supreme Court