Grammer’s bill wasn’t the only attempt in the General Assembly to shed more light on the judicial system. “Not permitting the public to determine the name of a judge in a particular case, without going through almost impossible obstacles, is terrible public policy,” said Benjamin Rosenberg, the foundation’s counsel on the case. In October, the foundation filed a civil lawsuit to get them. The Abell Foundation, based in Baltimore, sought identifying codes for judges - what Maryland uses to identify them in online records, but which aren’t publicly available - and was denied. The identification issue continues to have interest outside of the legislature. “The issue is funding and making sure that the technology goes through the steps.” “The focus was a bipartisan attempt to try to bring some transparency and help to the fact that the family law system is struggling,” he said. He hasn’t made a decision as to whether he’d back a bill to name judges on Case Search again. Dan Cox, a Republican representing Carroll and Frederick counties, was one of the sponsors of the bill, which saw bipartisan support. “Even if we moved to the new system, I’m not sure the judiciary would include the information at that point.” The implementation of MDEC, a planned five-year project, began in 2014, according to an FAQ page on the courts’ website.ĭauginikas sent a link to in response to questioning about whether that greater consistency would specifically apply to naming judges in online records.īut Grammer thought the MDEC system implementation “ultimately is irrelevant” to the issue. “The Judiciary anticipates greater consistency as we approach the statewide implementation of MDEC.” “Our current Legacy systems feed Case Search, which is a large contributor to the inconsistencies in the display, along with variations in clerical data entry points,” the statement said.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |