St. Clair County delays $64,400 change order for court case‑management system after commissioners press for guarantees

Court Administrator Michael McMillan asked the St. Clair County Board of Commissioners on May 15 to approve a $64,400 change order to correct the case structure in the county’s ongoing Journal Technologies court case‑management project, saying the work was needed to complete interfaces and workflows for circuit, probate and juvenile court functions.

The discussion grew into a sustained review of the five‑year project’s progress, contract terms and testing plan, and commissioners voted to table the change request for 30 days and asked county staff and Journal Technologies to return with written responses and proposed deadlines and financial remedies.

Why it matters: The county says the existing state system is unreliable for some courts and that a new vendor system is necessary to avoid operational failures; commissioners and court officials said they must balance urgency with taxpayer protections, because the contract allows vendor billing for unfinished work and the county faces ongoing costs for annual maintenance.

What commissioners heard: McMillan said the county signed the contract years ago, paused work during the COVID period and later resumed, and that “we’re about 4 years into a project that was really supposed to take 3 and a half years.” He said the vendor’s work on interfaces — especially with state reporting systems — remains the largest outstanding portion and estimated some interfaces and integrations are about 60–70% complete.

Matt Sorensen, project manager for Journal Technologies, told the board the company estimates 60–70% completion and that the $64,400 request covers work to revisit portions of the initial case‑structure that were signed off but later found to be incomplete. Sorensen said the vendor is “committed to work with Mike to see this thing through to the end and provide a good product.”

Commissioners pressed for more specifics. Commissioner David Vanden Bosch asked for a percentage complete; McMillan and Sorensen both gave the 60–70% range. Several commissioners said they wanted an explicit finish date and financial penalties or other contractual guarantees before approving additional money. Commissioner Bob Felix said he would support the change with stipulations but was uncomfortable without an enforceable timeline and remedies.

District court administrator Linda Girard told the board district court’s existing case‑management system is functioning and that she pulled district court from the early phases because “district court is not broken. Our system works fine.” She warned Journal’s workflows could increase district court clerks’ workload: district court processes about 8,000 tickets a year and, she said, Journal’s current ticket flow “takes nine clicks” instead of three and may require two additional clerks.

Other issues raised: commissioners questioned shortening testing windows from 15 to five days, with concern that shorter tests would miss rare case types. Commissioners also discussed potential additional change orders (the contract already contemplates out‑of‑scope work), annual maintenance/license costs (McMillan and staff estimated roughly $150,000 per year), and the county’s contractual exposure if the project falls behind or fails.

Board action and next steps: The board had a motion on the change order moved by Commissioner Bob Felix and seconded by Commissioner Dave Rushing, then voted on a subsidiary motion — moved by Felix — to table the matter for 30 days while staff and the vendor provide written follow‑up. Chairperson Zemasko called the tabling motion and commissioners voted in favor. McMillan and Journal Technologies were asked to return with a proposed final completion date, performance guarantees or penalties, and written answers to questions raised during the meeting.

Implementation risk and context: County staff described the current state system as unreliable for circuit court functions and said losing vendor momentum could leave the county without a workable case‑management solution. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the need for contractual protections, clearer testing protocols and confirmation of the scope of any additional costs before approving more county funds.