Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept.

14-18, 2009

Summary by
April Sessions
Municipal Court Automation Program
State of New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts
Sept. 23, 2009

Several New Mexico municipal courts were represented at the 2009 JSI annual conference:
Alamogordo, Aztec, Belen, Cloudcroft, Edgewood, Elephant Butte, Las Vegas, Los Alamos,
and Taos. The main focus of the conference was to introduce the new Enterprise versions
of JSI software, for both FullCourt and FullCase (prosecutor) applications. Ernie Sego,
owner of JSI, kicked off the conference with a state of the company overview, where he
noted that JSI is experiencing a stable business environment. He pointed out that the
company runs without operational debt. So far, they have installed Enterprise in 10 courts
and expect 10 more by the end of the year. Montana will begin implementation of a
statewide system in 2010.

Enterprise is a complete remake of the program and uses an integrated Enterprise Service
Bus architecture. This architecture makes it easier to build interfaces for data sharing with
police, collections, etc.

Ernie told the participants that they “need to move to FullCourt Enterprise,” but when
questioned about how long JSI will continue to support version 5, he said that discontinuing
v5 support is “not on the radar” at the present time. They still have over 600 users on v5 and
will continue to support them for the foreseeable future. He did point out, however, that all
development efforts are going toward FCE. Their hope is to convince people of the benefits
of Enterprise so that they will want to move to the new version.

The cost to move to Enterprise is substantial, so JSI is rolling out a subscription option in
addition to the perpetual license.

With a perpetual license, a court pays up-front to license the software. It then has rights to
use the software in perpetuity, or forever. The perpetual license includes one-time
installation, setup, training and conversion. Maintenance, support and upgrades are paid
annually.

The subscription model does not have a major up-front cost. It is instead paid as an annual
subscription fee, which gives the court the right to use the software for one year. It includes
one-time installation, setup, training and conversion, plus maintenance, support, and
upgrades rolled into the subscription price. To encourage courts to opt for the subscription
option, JSI is currently offering to waive the CitePay setup fee, and will include the imaging
module at a reduced cost for subscription customers. See pricing and comparison
information below:

Subscription Pricing

# of FCE licenses FCE annual fee/license Imaging annual fee/license

1 $3000 $1075
2 2100 725
3 1800 605
4-15 1300 420
16-50 1250 390

April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 1 of 6

State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc
Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept. 14-18, 2009

Price Comparison Example

Perpetual license:
2-user / year 1 cost would be $12,200, plus $7,900 for imaging
Total of $20,120 (or an average of $10,050 per user)

Subscription license:
2-user / year 1 cost would be $4,200, plus $1,450 for imaging
Total of $5,650 (or an average of $2,825 per user)

Unique customizations or interfaces are not included in the basic prices; if needed, these will
be quoted separately. Ernie reiterated the fact that the subscription license is not a rent-to-
own situation. To continue to use the software you must continue to pay the annual license
fee. This cost can be weighed against the annual maintenance fee associated with the
perpetual license. With the subscription license, the annual cost is locked in for 5 years,
whereas the maintenance fee for the perpetual license can vary from year to year.

(Assuming a moderate increase in support fees for the perpetual license, I calculated that
the payback period for the perpetual license for this 2-user example, not including imaging,
weighed against the cost of the subscription, is about 5 years. In other words after paying
the subscription fees for 5 years, you will have paid as much as if you had purchased the
perpetual license.)

One concern about the perpetual license is how courts would access historical data if they
use the subscription service, and then, for whatever reason, change to another software. In
a side discussion with Jim Mortensen, he said a court leaving the subscription service could
pay JSI to extract their data at the hourly rate listed in the subscription contract. In theory,
the enterprise service bus architecture would simplify the data exchange, but it could still be
costly. JSI has no plans at present to provide a “read-only” or other option for historical data
for subscription users who do not renew.

CitePay is JSI’s online payment service. As of the conference week, CitePay was live in 47
courts. In 6 months they plan to have 200+ courts using the online payment service. The
CitePay website can be viewed at www.citepayusa.com.
Benefits to the court of using CitePay include:
• Easy to implement
• No credit card transaction fee (all costs are borne by the payer)
• Real-time system updating (no clerk intervention needed)
• Certified PCI-DSS compliant
• Greater service to public
• Improved collections

Although this is not applicable to New Mexico FullCourt users, the JSI appellate system
using the Enterprise Service Bus architecture now includes an interface with FullCourt,
enhanced financial options, reminders and case tracking, and highly secure opinion
processing.

JSI’s focus for the future includes:

• Automating how the public interacts with the court and prosecutors (“make it easier
for the public to do business with you”) through increased use of e-citations, e-filings,
and e-payments

April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 2 of 6

State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc
Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept. 14-18, 2009

• Hosted application services

• Increased integration

JSI spent $1.5 million last year and the year before on R&D.

In an afternoon breakout session, Jim Mortensen, JSI’s Chief Technical Officer, discussed
the differences between FullCourt v5 and Enterprise, including architecture, information
sharing, conversion, and hardware requirements.

Architecture: Summary of differences between FullCourt v5 and Enterprise:

FullCourt v5 FullCourt Enterprise

Uses Power Builder Uses Java
Windows-based Web-based
Client-server (2-tier) Multi-tier

Pros of Java are that it is platform-independent (Window or Linux for ex.) and database
neutral (can use either Oracle or SQL). The con is a moderate performance overhead.

Pros of the web-based system include:

• Improved public access
• Data can be made available across locations (e.g., outside agencies)
• Centralized deployment (useful for backup)
• Support for multiple devices

The cons are:

• Limited desktop integration (e.g., for using a scanner)
• Not optimum for time-critical tasks (such as courtroom processing)
• Html is not rich enough for quality printing and reporting

Reporting and printing are done using PDF format (no additional license is needed).

FCE’s multi-tier system provides some application advantages and can increase security of
the system. A typical multi-tier system would include the following tiers:

• Presentation (web browser on a workstation)

• Application (on the application server)
• Database (on the database server)

In FullCourt v5’s 2-tier setup, the workstation talks directly to the database. The multi-tier
approach can increase security of the data and also enable processes to run in the
background, even with the workstation turned off. The multi-tier approach also leaves open
the possibility of interface with mobile devices.

N-tier partitioning pros include flexibility, improved security (because the database is
removed from the application and workstation), ability to run background processes, real-
time information (as for CitePay), bandwidth utilization (not all data has to come across the
wire for a transaction), mobile services enabled, scalability (can add/remove app or db
servers as needed). The cons are that it is a more complex structure and comes with a
moderate performance overhead.

April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 3 of 6

State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc
Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept. 14-18, 2009

Information Sharing: NIEM is not so much a rigid standard, but a reference model to
enable systems to more efficiently and effectively share information. Justice, public safety,
emergency and disaster management, intelligence, and homeland security agencies use
NIEM for data sharing. FCE is XML-based and is capable of providing NIEM-conformant
data exchange, with processes invoked either manually or automatically (v5 information
sharing is limited to manually invoked processes). JSI has a NIEM conformant citation
standard, but additional conversion work would be needed in most cases. By contrast, v5’s
citation import is a separate module at extra cost and has only one file format.

Conversion: Many difficulties have been worked out on the conversion process. The
process has been broken into three phases, with recommended steps in each to help
ensure successful conversion:

1. Pre-conversion:
a. clean up data – this includes purging cases, closing warrants, cleaning out
bond and restitution accounts, and reducing documents to only those you
really use
b. court installs FCE data mapping utility and specifies the mapping; for
example, FCE uses NCIC eye codes, so any free-form eye colors from v5
must be linked to an NCIC code (this should take around an hour depending
on how many anomalies are found).

2. Conversion: JSI runs the script and then performs data validation tests (2-3 passes)

3. Post-conversion:
a. load data onto database server
b. court sets up hearing types and time blocks; JSI script to update hearings

Some tables will not come over, including scheduling. Also, any customized Crystal Reports
will have to be recreated.

Hardware requirements: Because the application is browser-based, the workstation

requirements are less and you can use just about any computer you can buy nowadays.
Server requirements will be sent with individual proposals.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Tessa Rye provided in-depth sessions on various functions of
the new software. Following are some of the highlights of her presentations.

• FCE has added a “breadcrumb trail.” This history list at the top of the screen
provides a convenient list of previously viewed pages, which enables a user to easily
return to a higher-level page. In addition, FCE has greatly expanded the availability
of hot keys. While these do require a learning curve, once mastered, they can speed
up commonly performed actions. Left-hand and top menus are provided in FCE,
which is a change from the right-hand menus of v5, and may take some getting used
to.

• In-court processing is a concern for many of our courts. In FCE you will be able to
define a session in advance, listing the specific cases for that date and time. From
this pre-defined list, you will be able to click on a particular name or case and enter
the disposition information. Using the left-hand navigation, you will be able to
disposition multiple cases for multiple people at the same time. Judge Lee from
Alamogordo has concerns about whether FCE will be able to match the courtroom

April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 4 of 6

State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc
Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept. 14-18, 2009

processing capabilities he currently has. (He typically moves 50-70 people through
the court in 1.5 hours.) There is no option for print preview in courtroom processing.
A pre-sentence recommendation can be prepared prior to court (this is in FullCourt,
not FullCase). This will appear only as a recommendation, not committed as a
disposition.

• Payment plans: you can now edit a single installment without changing the entire
plan; you can add new fines and fees and it will adjust the plan (this does not
automatically trigger a new agreement).

• Overdue processing: setup now includes 1 overdue type per statute; reinstatements
and compliance are done with a separate process, there is no test run, but there is a
“worksheet only” option.

In a final group session, Ernie discussed revenue recovery. The main focus of this session
was to provide more detailed information about CitePay. Some highlights of the presentation
are:

• The CitePay fee varies by state, 5.59% is typical; it is the same for debit or credit.

• When setting up CitePay, you can specify what offenses are payable online. This is
done in statute setup.

• The receipt shows the amount still owed (an improvement based on suggestions
from last year’s conference).

• Your court can alter the look and feel of CitePay to match that of your state’s website
so that people are more comfortable using the system. (See citepayusa.com and
look at the Kansas page.)

• With collections software, the court can act as its own collection agency.

• Visa does not permit the Cite-Pay fee for an on-site transaction (e.g., clerk-assisted
payment) because it is considered a card-present transaction.

• Charge backs are not a huge concern: Ernie reported a rate of any 4 per 10,000
transactions. If they occur, the entire amount, including fees, will be charged back to
the court, which then has to collect from the defendant. They also discovered that
20-30% of website visits do not result in a payment, for whatever reason - possibly
because of the convenience fee, or it may be that they are simply going back in to
confirm their payment.

• The normal CitePay setup fee is $200 for an individual court that is not part of a
state-negotiated rate. An on-site terminal will be available later this year at no extra
charge.

No formal meetings were held for New Mexico courts, but the breaks afforded the chance for
some beneficial discussion. One heated topic was payment plans and payment minimums,
and the important point that payment plans should not extend beyond the court’s jurisdiction
(6 mos. for all offenses except DWI, which is 12 mos.) Judge Smith from Carrizozo, a
recently added member of the Automation Committee, also expressed concerns about the
cost of the upgrade to FCE and the potential effect on the automation fund.
April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 5 of 6
State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc
Justice Systems Annual Conference, Sept. 14-18, 2009

The last day of the conference was devoted to grant funding and was presented by Jeff
Barlow of the Hawthorne Institute. Following are some highlights of the presentation. If you
would like more detail about any of these items, please contact me and I will be happy to
share additional information and applicable handouts.

• A grant is basically free money; with a grant you are selling somebody on giving you
money to help solve a problem. You have to find a way to make your need stand out
from all the others. Use statistics for population or demographics, caseload, etc. to
show how your situation is different and deserves funding.

• While government grants are open to all, significant effort is required to apply for and
administer them. Privately funded grants may have fewer reporting requirements, but
they are usually harder to get. They depend more on relationships, and some require
that requests come through an employee, or you have to be invited to apply. Some
foundations do not provide funds to government agencies directly, but require that
they work through non-profit partner organizations. WalMart is reputed to provide
grants up to $1000 for local justice in their communities just for the asking. With
privately funded grants, courts must take care to abide by judicial canons and avoid
any appearance of impropriety.

• Fish all the ponds. There is no guarantee that you will get any particular grant, and in
the unlikely event that you get two, you might be able to use both and expand your
services even further.

• There is no such thing as plagiarism in government grants. In fact, it is often useful to

provide their own language right back at them.

• Some ideas from participants for which they have used, or could use, a grant
include:
o Adult/family drug court
o Technology
o Buildings, new or remodel
o Transitional living programs
o Life skills programs
o Training, hiring
o Court security (homeland security $)
o Probation officers (recovery act $)
o Historic preservation (community development block grants)
o Victim services (DOJ VOCA funding)
o Justice information sharing (e.g., Missouri Juvenile Justice Sharing)

• Recommended websites include:

o grants.gov
o thomas.loc.gov
o expectmore.gov
o cfda.gov
o gpoaccess.gov
o govbenefits.gov
o foundationcenter.gov

April Sessions / Municipal Court Automation Program page 6 of 6

State of New Mexico / Admin. Office of the Courts 2009 Justice Systems Conference.doc