Judicial branch seeks $1M to continue case‑management replacement, asks for probation staffing after Aurora municipal change; ombuds office status explained

The Colorado judicial branch told the Joint Budget Committee it needs an additional $1 million in general‑fund spending authority to continue replacing a 30‑year‑old case management system and answered committee questions about probation staffing and an independent ombuds office created by statute.

Key points from the judiciary’s comebacks - Case management system: The judicial branch’s original plan requested roughly $10.5 million per year for three years to replace its legacy case management system. After committee feedback the department reduced its FY26 ask; the JBC previously approved approximately $3.1 million in cash‑fund spending authority and denied roughly $4.0 million in general fund. Chief Justice and the State Court Administrator asked for a $1,000,000 general‑fund comeback to keep the project moving while honoring the committee’s request to slow the rollout. - Probation officers tied to Aurora change: The judiciary previously requested 24 FTE after the City of Aurora decided to stop hearing domestic‑violence cases in municipal court; those cases will instead be filed in state courts (primarily the 18th Judicial District). The branch returned with a reduced near‑term request: a FY26 year‑one budget impact of about $242,000 that represents a phased hire (the paper explained the year‑one figure equates to bringing on nine positions over the year and annualizes to roughly three FTE later). - Office of the Judicial Ombudsman and anonymous reporting: Committee members asked about the status of the statutorily required independent Office of Judicial Discipline Ombudsman created under House Bill 1205. The Chief Justice explained the office was designed to be independent from the Supreme Court and the State Court Administrator’s Office; appointments to the selection board were required by statute to be completed by March 1, 2024. The judicial branch has implemented an internal anonymous reporting platform for staff; the Chief Justice stressed that the anonymous system is not a substitute for an independent ombuds because HR remains a mandatory‑reporting structure, and complaints about judges are forwarded to the Commission on Judicial Discipline rather than investigated internally.

Why the requests were modified The branch said the original multi‑year case‑management plan was scaled back in response to JBC feedback and that the requested $1,000,000 would, together with previously approved year‑one spending authority, allow the project to proceed at a slower pace while making meaningful progress. On probation staffing, the branch reduced its initial 24 FTE ask after reassessing ramp‑up timing and focusing on direct probation officers rather than supervisors and administrative support.

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Committee members probed project prioritization, costs, and implementation risk for the case management system; they asked for more detail and for a plan to use the judicial center facility effectively. - Direction: The Chief Justice and State Court Administrator said they would provide additional information about the ombuds timeline, costs and hiring plan and offered to brief the committee and provide tours of facilities as requested. - Formal decision: The committee did not vote on these comebacks during the hearing.

Clarifying details provided to the committee - Case management project: original plan ~ $10.5M per year for three years; later reduced to ~$7M; committee previously approved ~$3.1M in cash fund spending authority and denied ~$4.0M general fund for the second year; comeback requested $1,000,000 GF for FY26. - Probation officers: earlier request 24 FTE; revised FY26 year‑one impact ~$242,000 representing phased hires that annualize to ~3.0 FTE in subsequent years (9 positions phased during the year). - Ombuds legislation: House Bill 1205 created an independent selection board and required appointments by 03/01/2024; the Chief Justice said the department had rolled out an anonymous reporting platform internally while appointments were pending.

What’s next: Judiciary staff offered to supply the committee with the ombuds selection timeline, cost estimates, and additional documentation on the case management project schedule; the committee requested the ombuds cost information ahead of next week’s meetings.