Page 265 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 265

 for CMSO to work with the defender data programs, the data must be replicated and anonymized to protect confidentiality and privilege. For example, Mr. Kalar told the Committee that when defenders pointed out routine fixes needed in dData,
the embedded CMSO supervisor suggested that the database be replicated with an anonymous set of data so CMSO could oversee the repairs. By way of reference, during the eight-week study period of Work Measurement, dData generated 150 million points of data. Replication and anonymization of the massive, privileged defenderData database into a specially-created CMSO sandbox, for the sole purpose of permitting CMSO staff to ‘supervise’ a simple repair, illustrates how absurd our current structure has become.1032
Given the inefficiency built into the current administrative structure, in October 2015 the Defender Services Advisory Group and the Chief of CMSO agreed that project management of data should be returned to NITOAD control. Despite the agreement, the “entanglements of CMSO in NITOAD project management of dData continue.”1033
It is not only defenders who believe that re-organization has made defender IT functions less manageable. Andrew Zaso himself expressed frustration with the current structure. Mr. Zaso testified that he cannot unilaterally make changes to the defender data systems, and has “no control over implementing certain features that could benefit defenders.”1034 Additionally, although his office has been criticized for the poor functioning of DSMIS, “[we] can’t even get the data over to see if it’s coming over correctly through the interface,” all because of the legitimate need to maintain confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege.1035
Moreover, the data in these systems are not always useful for defenders them- selves. When a new version of DSMIS was recently rolled out, defenders believed they had not been adequately consulted or given the opportunity to review the modifications—something that the MOUs explicitly require—before the new ver- sion went live. Defenders stated that the updated DSMIS failed to account for how the defender offices use the information to formulate their budgets and request funding. Defenders told the Committee that their inability to get accurate, useful data was an impediment to making basic decisions about how to run and staff their offices. One defender stated:
I have a very difficult time projecting my billing and my funding, not from lack of congressional support, not a lack of funds, from the lack of
1032 Id.at6. 1033 Id.
1034 AndrewZaso,Chief,CaseManagementSystemsOffice,AdministrativeOfficeoftheUnitedStates Courts, Public Hearing—Minneapolis, Minn., Panel 3, Tr., at 18.
1035 Id.at29.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 221
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   263   264   265   266   267