To better manage costs of future IT projects, the AOC should ensure that it has a long-term funding strategy in place before investing significant resources in a project.
In October 2012, the Chief Justice created the Judicial Branch Technology Planning Task Force which reports directly to the Judicial Council's broader Technology Committee. The committee oversees the council's policies concerning technology and is responsible in partnership with the courts for coordinating with the Administrative Director of the Courts and all internal committees, advisory committees, commissions, working groups, task forces, justice partners, and stakeholders on technological issues relating to the branch and the courts. The committee is responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and that specific projects proceed on schedule and within scope and budget. The committee seeks reports and recommendations from the Administrative Director, the courts, and stakeholders on technology issues. It ensures that technology reports to the council are clear and comprehensive and provide relevant options so that the council can make effective final technology policy decisions. The committee reports on technology affecting the branch and courts at each Judicial Council meeting.
Over the past year, the committee in partnership with the trial courts has completed among other accomplishments: A survey of the trial courts on their technology needs; Creation of the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group (JBTIWG) that has assisted the Judicial Council Technology Committee in the overall effort of defining and confirming requirements for branchwide technology initiatives; Regular ongoing meetings to review technology projects and make policy decisions; Working collaboratively with stakeholders to define technology governance and develop a long-term strategic plan for technology; and Hosting a Technology Summit in October 2012 that assembled branch stakeholders for a collaborative discussion on branch technology governance, vision, and roadmap.
The Judicial Branch Technology Committee, in collaboration with working groups and advisory committees, is establishing a branch governance structure that will enable communication to the Judicial Council, the Legislature and all stakeholders, With the March 27, 2012 Judicial Council decision to end CCMS, the Judicial Council tasked the Technology Committee with overseeing the council's policies concerning technology. The Technology Committee is responsible in partnership with the courts for coordinating with the Administrative Director of the Courts and all internal committees, advisory committees, commissions, working groups, task forces, justice partners and stakeholders on technological issues relating to the branch and the courts. The committee is responsible for ensuring that council policies are complied with and that specific projects proceed on schedule and within scope and budget.
In May 2012, the committee established the Judicial Branch Technology Initiatives Working Group consisting of Presiding Judges, Court Executive Officers, and Court Information Officers, to assist in the overall effort of defining and confirming requirements for branchwide technology initiatives, to address the short-term critical technology needs for the Judicial Branch and a long-term strategic vision for the Judicial Branch. As a result of this effort, the Technology Committee will develop a governance structure for technology programs to provide the oversight, monitoring, transparency and accountability recommended by the BSA and further supported by the Judicial Council recommendations published August 2012. Project implementations will be subject to the approval of the Technology Committee.
In addition to the project oversight provided by the governance structure , the superior courts, appellate courts, and the Administrative Office of the Courts are subject to the Judicial Branch Contract Law, which requires the approval from the California Technology Agency for projects of the Judicial Council or the courts with total costs estimated at more than five million dollars.
We believe these measures will provide the necessary oversight to ensure a long term funding strategy.
†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.
*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.