Ignored advice still costs Ga. millions

By Carrie Teegardin

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In 1991, the Georgia General Assembly decided that the state’s judges and court clerks needed their own geek squad.

Computerization of judicial records was new, with most Georgia counties still operating on paper alone. The squad — the Georgia Courts Automation Commission — was supposed to lead the courts into the computer age.

Two decades and millions of dollars later, the commission’s technology suggestions have been largely ignored by the majority of Georgia courts. But the commission has continued to spend state money — $2.4 million over the past five years alone — to write new plans and update old ones.

“This commission is like a study committee gone mad,” said Rep. Jill Chambers (R-Atlanta).

As the General Assembly looks for another $1 billion in budget savings and contemplates devastating cuts at Georgia’s colleges and local school systems, an agency with questionable results might seem like a godsend for lawmakers. It’s a program that could be cut without causing much pain.

But the story of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission shows that budget-minded legislators combing through every line item may find it difficult to abolish even a little-known program with shaky results.

With computer systems in place even in tiny Georgia courts, the commission has focused on writing strategic plans to improve court management. It is also pushing courts to standardize the data collected, so court information can be shared and analyzed statewide.

Commission members are unpaid volunteers, and most are judges. Local courts are free to ignore the commission’s suggestions, and most do — which drives much of the criticism of the commission.

Chambers sponsored a bill last year to eliminate the commission. The bill passed the House, but not the Senate. The measure is pending.

The House this year is seeking a 96 percent reduction in the commission’s 2010 budget of $585,000, while the Senate is calling for just a 6 percent slice.

Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome), an attorney who heads judicial finances for the Senate Appropriations Committee, supports the commission’s work. So do some judges around the state.

Douglas County Superior Court Judge David Emerson said Georgia courts desperately need an agency to push for improvements in court technology.

“It would be a huge step backwards if we eliminate yet another asset to assist the judicial branch in doing its job,” he said.

Rep. Chuck Martin (R-Alpharetta) said he has asked the commission for three years for specific examples showing its work benefits Georgia and still has no compelling evidence of its usefulness. Martin is vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Judge Timothy Pape, a juvenile court judge from Rome who is chairman of the commission, said the commission’s work can improve the judicial process and save money.

“I’m trying to get us all to work together to maximize state dollars,” he said.

But commission members can point to few specific results of their work and acknowledge the benefits aren’t as tangible as the services some other state agencies provide.

Martin said that’s not good enough in these times.

“I cannot in good conscience have a half million dollars in ‘intangibles’ with the university system getting cut and asking State Troopers to forgo new vehicles,” Martin said. “A half million dollars a year is the equivalent of at least half of a state patrol post”

Chambers said she’s not sure what the commission has produced beyond a PowerPoint presentation that most Georgia judges aren’t even aware of. “I don’t know what we are paying for,” she said.

Martin and other legislators say they are searching especially hard this year for agencies that served a purpose when created, but have outlived their useful lives.

Supporters of the commission say detractors simply don’t understand what the group has been up to.

In its early years, the commission focused on developing a software program for Georgia courts. It worked with a vendor to perfect a program and offered it for free to every court in the state, with the hope that all Georgia courts would adopt it. While dozens of courts do use it, the majority opted to buy their own systems.

Computer systems that manage court records range in sophistication, with many placing all court filings in a digital format that can be accessed online by the public.

Like many of Georgia’s large, urban counties, Cobb County’s Superior Court passed on the commission’s program and paid for a more sophisticated system to track and manage its cases.

Bibb County used the commission’s system for years because it was free, said Dianne Brannen, the superior court clerk. But the county is preparing to move to a system that will be more user-friendly for the court and the public, Brannen said.

Many states have a “unified” court system in which all courts use a state-mandated system for tracking cases. Georgia’s approach means courts operate under a patchwork of software systems that can’t communicate with one another. That makes it difficult to share data and compile statistics about the state’s criminal justice system.

“You can’t mandate in Georgia that anybody do anything in those 159 counties,” said George Nolan, who served for years as the commission’s executive director. “Those folks are going to do what they want.”

Even without the authority to tell local courts what to do, Nolan said, it’s important to push Georgia courts to use similar approaches to technology and to offer them guidance. The commission “exists to drive consensus,” said Nolan.

Emerson, the Douglas County judge, agreed. His county uses the most recent version of the case management program designed by the commission. He said improvements in court technology are more important now than ever before.

“I am constantly having to do more with less, and technology is the only means of dealing with that,” Emerson said.

The commission finished its software development work years ago and handed off support of the program. Commission members say their recent efforts producing strategic plans should drive more efficient uses of technology and operations. The push for standardized data collection, they say, is crucial if the state wants to analyze court operations and improve accuracy.

But critics say the private sector is better positioned today to provide the technology advice needed by the courts.

“We’re somewhat foolish to think that in meeting a half dozen times a year, we can roll out a data plan that is better than what Microsoft or another large computer software company can put together that does this for a living,” Martin said.

The commission spent an average of $688,000 in the two most recent fiscal years, most to pay its consultants at the North Highland company. The company, selected without a competitive bid process, was brought in to facilitate strategic planning discussions. The company has been used by numerous state agencies.

North Highland executives declined to comment on the details of the work provided to the commission.

Nolan, the long-time director, earned an annual salary of about $70,000 until he retired last year, according to state payroll records. After retirement, the commission retained Nolan as a $130-an-hour consultant. Nolan earned $76,385 through the consulting contract between July 1, 2009 and January 30, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. The commission has not hired a new director.

Pape, the commission chairman, has worked tirelessly on commission business because he think it’s important for the judiciary and the state.

“What you are getting is judges sitting down and talking about not just technology but where the judicial system itself ought to go,” Pape said.

Pape said he believes politics is at the heart of the criticism, given the relatively small commission budget. “I’m having a problem with the amount of time that a legislator is spending trying to deal with less than a drop in the bucket,” Pape said.

Martin, on the other hand, said $500,000 is hardly a drop in the bucket these days. While it might be worth a debate about whether the commission is providing a useful service in some years, he said, a program without clear results won’t win his endorsement today.

“We just can’t afford that right now,” he said.

Commission costs

The Georgia Courts Automation Commission was set up to lead Georgia courts into the computer age. Here are the state expenditures for the commission in recent fiscal years:

• 2005: $334,164

• 2006: $326,387

• 2007: $348,649

• 2008: $666,327

• 2009: $710,262

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts

How we got the story

As the state struggles to balance its budget, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is closely examining state expenditures. When lawmakers raised questions about the effectiveness of the Georgia Courts Automation Commission, the AJC took a close look at the obscure group. The newspaper reviewed the commission’s detailed expenditure records going back several years, studied the group’s published reports and interviewed commission members, staff, lawmakers and judges.