FYI, Lake County, Indiana, is a densely populated area southeast of Chicago, next-door really. I like how the judge is making suggestions for possible co-defendants in future lawsuits.

Here is the link but I can't hotlink it. (I'm trying)

http://www.thetimesonline.com/asp/rslt_FullStory.asp?newsID=27699&PageNo=1&wlmg=O&SK=1&KW=computer

-- J Wheel (motherof5@wellprepared.noregrets), January 06, 2000

Answers

Computer woes plague courts

Ohio software contractor, not millennium, to blame, judge says. BY MARK KIESLING Times Staff Writer

CROWN POINT -- Glitches in the new Lake Superior Court's computer system resulted in a chaotic day Tuesday in the court's county division, and the judges there are looking for some quick answers.

Judge Julie Cantrell said Tuesday, the first day the new system went into action in her court, 200 tickets were scheduled to be heard and only 20 notices were sent out, with the remainder being duplications or notices being resent to people who already had been to court.

"We had people who had already paid their tickets being sent new court dates, we had people being sent multiple notices," she said. "It's an inconvenience to the court, and it's certainly been an inconvenience to the taxpayers."

She is not blaming any millennium bug. "It's not a Y2K problem," Cantrell said. "It's a 'this system is unacceptable' problem."

While the civil and criminal divisions of the Superior Court were brought online with the new system earlier in 1999, the contractor who installed the system did not finish the county court division until just before Christmas. Tuesday was its first day of operation.

As the computer churns out notices of initial hearings, it is running the same case number over and over, Cantrell said, with the result that one case is repeated 10 times and looks to the computer like 10 different cases have been called. Therefore, instead of the normal 200 tickets on the docket for the day, the court had 20.

"If some drunk driver doesn't get a court date and goes out and kills somebody, I'm going to suggest the family bring in the contractor and subcontractor as third parties to any lawsuit against the county," Cantrell said.

The Lake County Data Processing Board, which awarded the contracts to an Ohio firm, has a meeting scheduled for today to assess the problem.

Mark Pearman, executive director of the data processing board, said he was hopeful that when the system came to the county court system, which handles the largest caseload of any court within the Superior Court system, including traffic, misdemeanors and some felonies, that any problems would have been solved.

"We tried to back into the bigger conversion," Pearman said. "It's disappointing, because it's become such a problem. There were some problems in the criminal and civil changeover, but nothing of this magnitude.

"It's tough, very tough and it's wearing on the courts," he said. "It's not one huge thing, but every time we turn around something else is popping up and taken together it has been a real problem."

Pearman said he remains optimistic. "Several months from now, this will all be behind us and will hopefully be something we can all chuckle at," he said. "But no one is laughing now."

All three courts in the county division reported problems with the software from the Ohio firm, which Cantrell said was not designed to be compatible with Indiana Supreme Court rules.

In addition, said Martine Vagenas, office administrator for Judge Sheila Moss, a simple docket entry that once required entries on a single computer screen page now requires employees to sift through seven separate screens of data.

"It's taking us 20 minutes to do one entry that used to take us three minutes," agreed Cantrell.

Pearman said that problem is a design flaw in the software, and said once the system is fully functional, the question of redesigning the program will be addressed.

"That will be corrected," Pearman said. "It's a design issue and we've had ongoing discussions about redesigning some of the entry format."

For now, however, the courts are going to have to make do with the more cumbersome format, he said.

"We've been pulling cases out by hand, everything from 2000," Cantrell said. "It's a lot of extra work. But with only 20 cases coming in a day, I guess we've got some extra time right now."

* Mark Kiesling can be reached via e-mail at mkiesling@howpubs.com or by phone at (219) 662-5330.

-- Lisa (lisadawn@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

Computer woes plague courts

Ohio software contractor, not millennium, to blame, judge says. BY MARK KIESLING Times Staff Writer

CROWN POINT -- Glitches in the new Lake Superior Court's computer system resulted in a chaotic day Tuesday in the court's county division, and the judges there are looking for some quick answers. Judge Julie Cantrell said Tuesday, the first day the new system went into action in her court, 200 tickets were scheduled to be heard and only 20 notices were sent out, with the remainder being duplications or notices being resent to people who already had been to court.

"We had people who had already paid their tickets being sent new court dates, we had people being sent multiple notices," she said. "It's an inconvenience to the court, and it's certainly been an inconvenience to the taxpayers."

She is not blaming any millennium bug. "It's not a Y2K problem," Cantrell said. "It's a 'this system is unacceptable' problem."

While the civil and criminal divisions of the Superior Court were brought online with the new system earlier in 1999, the contractor who installed the system did not finish the county court division until just before Christmas. Tuesday was its first day of operation.

As the computer churns out notices of initial hearings, it is running the same case number over and over, Cantrell said, with the result that one case is repeated 10 times and looks to the computer like 10 different cases have been called. Therefore, instead of the normal 200 tickets on the docket for the day, the court had 20.

"If some drunk driver doesn't get a court date and goes out and kills somebody, I'm going to suggest the family bring in the contractor and subcontractor as third parties to any lawsuit against the county," Cantrell said.

The Lake County Data Processing Board, which awarded the contracts to an Ohio firm, has a meeting scheduled for today to assess the problem.

Mark Pearman, executive director of the data processing board, said he was hopeful that when the system came to the county court system, which handles the largest caseload of any court within the Superior Court system, including traffic, misdemeanors and some felonies, that any problems would have been solved.

"We tried to back into the bigger conversion," Pearman said. "It's disappointing, because it's become such a problem. There were some problems in the criminal and civil changeover, but nothing of this magnitude.

"It's tough, very tough and it's wearing on the courts," he said. "It's not one huge thing, but every time we turn around something else is popping up and taken together it has been a real problem."

Pearman said he remains optimistic. "Several months from now, this will all be behind us and will hopefully be something we can all chuckle at," he said. "But no one is laughing now."

All three courts in the county division reported problems with the software from the Ohio firm, which Cantrell said was not designed to be compatible with Indiana Supreme Court rules.

In addition, said Martine Vagenas, office administrator for Judge Sheila Moss, a simple docket entry that once required entries on a single computer screen page now requires employees to sift through seven separate screens of data.

"It's taking us 20 minutes to do one entry that used to take us three minutes," agreed Cantrell.

Pearman said that problem is a design flaw in the software, and said once the system is fully functional, the question of redesigning the program will be addressed.

"That will be corrected," Pearman said. "It's a design issue and we've had ongoing discussions about redesigning some of the entry format."

For now, however, the courts are going to have to make do with the more cumbersome format, he said.

"We've been pulling cases out by hand, everything from 2000," Cantrell said. "It's a lot of extra work. But with only 20 cases coming in a day, I guess we've got some extra time right now."

* Mark Kiesling can be reached via e-mail at mkiesling@howpubs.com or by phone at (219) 662-5330.

-- John Ainsworth (ainsje00@wfu.edu), January 06, 2000.

Perhaps its just my warped mind, but what this Judge said is funny...and almost scary.

"It's not a Y2K problem," Cantrell said. "It's a 'this system is unacceptable' problem."

-- Lisa (lisadawn@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.