Vermont judiciary details IT upgrades, warns civil-violation fee decline leaves a multi‑million-dollar gap

Marsha Shells, chief technology innovation officer for the Vermont Judiciary, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on March 11 that the judiciary has modernized court technology statewide but now faces a recurring funding shortfall.

"We accomplished a lot with 26 people," Shells said, describing the IT team that supports enterprise applications, infrastructure, help desk and training for the state court system. Shells outlined upgrades including an enterprise case management system (Enterprise Justice, formerly Odyssey), e‑filing, a Vermont Digital Evidence Portal (VDEP) for video and audio evidence, a business intelligence environment (Microsoft SQL Server / Power BI / Azure), and a newly implemented independent statewide network providing "triple redundancy" at courthouses.

Terry Corson, state court administrator, framed the technology work in court operations history and pandemic response. Corson said remote‑hearing capabilities introduced during the COVID‑19 pandemic — previously limited to telephone calls — are now in every courtroom and have expanded the judiciary’s reliance on IT.

Why it matters: Judiciary leaders said the special technology fund created by the legislature in 2007 no longer produces enough revenue to sustain the ongoing costs of those systems. Shells and Greg Mozeman, chief of finance and administration for the judiciary, told the committee that the fund’s annual receipts have fallen from a peak of about $1,600,000 to roughly $750,000 and that total judiciary IT spending now runs in the multi‑million‑dollar range.

Shells described how one‑time federal and state pandemic funds (including Coronavirus Relief Fund dollars and ARPA requests that were partly unfunded) paid for early remote‑hearing hardware, digital evidence management, rewiring and other projects. But those one‑time sources have ended, producing a structural gap the judiciary must fill from the general fund unless the special fund or other sustained revenue is restored.

Operational details and planned changes

- Remote hearings: The judiciary implemented Cisco Webex early in the pandemic and now plans a phased transition to Zoom in fall and winter because Zoom met the courts’ needs at lower cost, Shells said. The project includes repositioning cameras and simplifying courtroom setups to reduce intrusiveness.

- Network and redundancy: Shells said the judiciary moved off the executive branch network in FY24 to an independent network that provides three paths (software‑defined WAN, broadband backup and a 5G backup) and automatic failover. "We now have triple redundancy at each courthouse," she said.

- Case management and public access: The courts rely on a vendor product (Enterprise Justice) for internal case management and a Tyler product for e‑filing and public case searches. The public portal is being replaced with two Tyler products (Research and Dependent Access) because the current portal is reaching end of life.

- Digital evidence: The judiciary implemented a vendor system (Omnigo) to collect and manage video and audio evidence and to streamline submission to the Supreme Court.

Budget and funding specifics discussed

- Shells and Mozeman gave multiple figures during the session. The special technology fund was described as bringing in approximately $1,600,000 at its peak and about $750,000 per year now (Shells). Mozeman and Shells said the judiciary’s IT budget request for FY26 is in the millions; figures mentioned in the hearing included a total IT budget near $3.7 million (one reference) and later a total near $4.2 million. The speakers attributed part of the variance to onetime pandemic funding used in prior years and ongoing base costs shifting to general fund support.

- The fund’s receipts come from three fees tied to civil violations (an administrative fee and late fees for failure to answer and failure to pay). Shells and Mozeman said policy changes and behavioral changes since about 2016, plus the pandemic, have reduced civil‑violation revenue roughly by half compared with earlier years.

Committee context and next steps

Committee members asked about long‑term capital planning and whether the judiciary can establish a recurring capital reserve for hardware and periodic vendor upgrades. Shells said long‑term capital is not built into the current fund and that ongoing maintenance and license costs will require annual budget requests to the legislature; she said the judiciary’s five‑year projections anticipate that general fund support will cover the gap unless change is made.

No formal vote or committee action was taken during the presentation; the session consisted of oversight questions and a briefing from judiciary staff. Committee members signaled concern about the sustainability of relying on one‑time funds and reduced civil‑violation revenue for essential court technology.

Ending

Shells and Corson concluded by describing continuing coordination with executive branch IT and legislative IT oversight bodies and by asking the committee to note the operational and budgetary implications of the judiciary’s new, larger technology footprint. "You know? We don't know what we might need down the road. And if we did, if there was something new, we would have to ask for that separate," Shells said regarding future, unanticipated technology needs.

(Reporting based on the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee briefing, March 11, 2025.)