Travis County Commissioners Court
May 16, 2006
Item 8
Number 8 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from the efiling executive committee on efiling project.
>> good afternoon. We have before you a memo that was signed by all of the executive committee efiling -- I don't see alicia here either, but we wanted to report that as of 12005 today we actually filed our 600th filing and it was done by our first filer as well. And I also wanted to report that Austin has now surpassed houston as the highest filer in Travis County. And also I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the departments that are involved in making the efiling pilot project a success and the dowrt district courts. I see judge dietz has just arrived.
>> finally --
>> [ laughter ]
>> I知 so used to things not starting until I get there. I apologize.
>> [ laughter ]
>> judge, I knew you would have a comment.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I値l just pick up where I guess she left off. We've had I think a very fruitful couple of weeks, and I think I can say without fear of contribution that we're on the -- contradiction that we're on the same page and we're sure of where we're going on this and that we're also sure of the performance standards that the clerk's office will employ in taking these documents and that that performance standard is able to be reached. And it's if meeting this performance standard that the clerk's office is really going to be able to save time. We've also had discussions with mike from bearing point and we're still trying to explore out whether or not we can make this mandatory. We're rather sure that we cannot make it mandatory for all filers, but there is some discretion in the phrases in selected cases. So we have discussed with the clerk's office that if they will provide us a list of what we called the heavy users, that we will have the district -- the district courts have pledged to have hearings as to whether or not electronic filing should be used in those cases. And obviously the more heavier the user, the more reason for there to be electronic filing. And then I知 sorry to interrupt amelie, but I will answer any questions from the court's perspective.
>> judge, being an old computer program analyst, going to my old programmer days, let me ask this question. Will that have to be a legislative enactment whereby we're able to have everyone, especially the heavy cases, use the computerization, where they can actually use the computer to go through that process? For that standard. What we're going to do is match the standards up against --
>> it's in the supreme courts, and the supreme court has received a proposal because as we go to more of the counties -- and I want to say, and mike can correct me, but I believe we're somewhere near 25 or 26 out of the 254 counties are permitting electronic filing. There is a proposal that those counties or those courts be given the discretion to require it. And I think we need on behalf of Travis County to express to the supreme court that we be given that type of discretion, but having heard some of these arguments that go back and forth, on all of these technology standards, the supreme court is given by having to cover the 254 counties, even though two-thirds of our population lives within 10 counties, they're very concerned about what we do with those 234 counties that have a third of our population. So I think in short answer, there's every good reason to require it, we just don't have the discretion and it's really up to the supreme court to give the district courts that discretion. Did that answer your question?
>> which leaves us without complete resolution of the overall issue. Even though I know we've come close, and what I can hear you saying, we're getting closer with a lot of things, but electronic filing seems to be a way to go; however, electronic filing is a more expensive process than just a manual type, for example.
>> they require it in bankruptcy and within the regular courts. You just have to make provision for pro se litigants and otherwise, but the federal courts have not had any problem requiring it. Without being too critical of the spowrt, I just don't -- supreme court, I just don't think they have the same vision as the federal court. We have things that are changing in our profession and there are early adopters like Travis County and we're sitting there going speed up, and then there are others like loving county out in west Texas who are going slow down, and so it's up to the supreme court to try to mediate those things. I wish they would hurry up and give us more discretion because the faster we adopt this, the more savings both in dollars, but in time will have. I mean, we're -- the cost of storing paper to y'all alone would finance a great deal of electronic technology to store that. I mean, we're still -- having to spend money on old ways of doing this, but I pledge to you that I will write the supreme court on behalf of the judges and urge their adoption of it or at least give more discretion, but it's out of our control right now.
>> and I guess the question for amelia, and I guess it's concerning the fte's because all of this is f.t.e. Driven as far as having the proper resources in place to do the tasks. And I guess my question is, as far as your f.t.e.'s are concerned, do you feel -- give me your take on what you're having to do currently. And I知 looking at manual versus electronic.
>> well, currently we are training our in-house staff to do efiling both in our family law section and in the government and general litigation section. So with assistance there we are doing efiling right now. We are having to do of course a manual operation and we anticipate that efiling is going to save us some time and we hope to be able to take care of any of the other manual operations for now with existing staff.
>> okay. Well, the bottom line I think -- not the bottom line, but one of the concerns that I continue to hear is that there is a standard whereby it could be followed so it won't be as sum ber some -- cumbersome using a set standard where once thing makes it all as far as where things are supposed to be on a certain form or stuff like that. For a certain area to maybe do the entry in that particular designated field or whereby you may be able to look at that and ask the attorneys or whoever is generating the case to end up putting things in the right place on the form.
>> actually, the attorneys are being trained by the electronic file service provider that they contract with. And we work very closely with them and bearing point so that the information that is required is filled out. So by the time that we see that, we'll review it, and if it's not correct, we will let them know that something's missing or that it's not in the proper format. And they do get feedback on that. And because we have been in pilot, we are asking you today to end the pilot and let us go into full implementation by June 1st, and actually, it will be Monday June the fifth when we kick it off once you decide and vote on this action.
>> would that require the same number of f.t.e.'s you have now plus the significance as far as overtime and stuff like that?
>> for right now, yes.
>> okay. I wanted to make sure that gets on the table because one of the things that I知 looking forward to -- not saying that we're not efficient, but I think to get more efficient or get more productive, and I think all of us are concerned on that, have legitimate concerns, that is to maximize our resources to end up getting the knowledge that we need to have out of that. So my concern is looking for a way to reduce over time and also look at a situation where we don't -- temporaries end up becoming permanent if you don't fix it. So the overtime and everything that even in a pilot setting, and we're going into another setting, is something that we can focus on to reduce or either eliminate.
>> well, we are going to do an all out effort to encourage more attorneys to do efiling. We feeling that that's a lot more efficient way of doing it, and we will be working on a marketing plan together with the judge and making sure that the attorneys are aware of the program because it does create efficiencies in the office and hopefully when we come back and report to you on how it's going that we will have achieved all those efficiencies that we're planning on.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> thank y'all.
>> the one recommendation is that we end the pilot program and implement the permanent program effective June 1?
>> yes, sir.
>> yes. We might inform the court that facilities and district clerk and the district courts met and along with bearing point met with all of the electronic file service providers, the ones who are the interface between the attorneys and bearing point, and met with them and asked them a couple of things. That, one, we felt like we were going to be ready by June 1st to do this full time. And we asked them for any marketing help that we could get. But we're still -- we're still trying to work on a marketing plan because if you -- if it were mandatory, that's a great marketing plan. But if it's not mandatory, then you have to sell it and it has to be cost effective and it has to be effective from a service standpoint. And ij that's the way we're going to approach it: one last thing that I want you to keep in mind is that about -- and amelia, correct me if I知 wrong, but about 60% of the papers that are filed with the district clerk are from government entities, whether the attorney general's child support or domestic relations or the tax cases, attorney general's that type of thing, and so we're not able to charge necessarily all the fees. It's a decreasing segment of the population that we're able to generate fees off of. But even if we're able to sign up like these big government users, it will save money because of the efficiencies within amelia's department and how they're able to process it. So even if we're not able to generate -- we think we're going to still be able to generate the fees that we promised y'all two to three years ago, but even if we're not generating fees on that end, we're obtaining efficiences within just the processing of the paper.
>> judge, two quick questions. Do the supremes have to have the same rules in every single county or can they have the equivalent of a bracket bill that it would be a mandatory thing in say the 10 largest urban counties and then that's respectful of loving county?
>> their process has been to promulgate the same rules with respect to electronic filing in every county. And what we did was to adopt word for word the -- what they had previously adopted in bexar county and in harris county, but that's been their approach so far.
>> so the answer would be no. Second part. Through your local rules, do you have the ability -- I know right now you all require everybody to go through mediation before you get into a courtroom. Is it possible through local rules that anybody that does this electronic filing gets in a different queue than folks who do it the old-fashioned way? And that says do it whichever way you want to, but it could procedurally through the local rules get you through the queue faster and you have that leverage?
>> Commissioner, we had thought along the same lines, but unfortunately our local rules have to be approved by the supreme court court.
>> thanks, judge.
>> > move that we adopt the committee's recommendation and I amend the pilot program and implement the full scale efiling system. Discussion? All in favor? That carries unanimously. Thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:30 AM