Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case Management Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bay County prosecutor urges approval of CARPEL case-management contract, warns of early slowdown
Summary
The county prosecutor described the CARPEL electronic case-management system, said most other counties have adopted it, and asked the committee to approve a contract so Bay County can go live by November; the committee approved the contract by voice vote.
Bay County Committee of the Whole on May 6, 2025, approved a contract to adopt the CARPEL electronic case-management system after the county prosecutor described the system’s benefits and warned of an initial slowdown during implementation.
The prosecutor said the system will centralize reports and allow police to submit reports electronically and prosecutors to file warrant requests online. “I know it's going to streamline and put all of the reports in one database, so we're not using different ones to try to put reports in and get information from the police,” the Prosecutor said, adding that CARPEL would reduce the need to log into separate systems such as Talon to find supplemental reports.
The prosecutor told the committee that of the state’s 83 counties, 82 have opted into CARPEL and reported an August go-live for those counties. Bay County’s implementation was described as pushed back to November. The prosecutor said staff training is critical and that initial implementation usually causes a temporary slowdown: “There is a learning curve. And once you get through that learning curve, the system works wonderfully,” the Prosecutor said.
A board member confirmed that the vendor or an associated program (referred to in the meeting as PAAM) will cover the contract costs for the first three years, fiscal years 2025–2027. The prosecutor noted an optional “custom reports” feature that can produce subpoenas and other forms; the prosecutor said that add-on costs about $1,000 and would not be covered by the PAAM payments.
The committee voted by voice to approve the contract. No roll-call vote totals were provided in the meeting record.
The prosecutor and committee members emphasized training and timing as the principal implementation concerns. The prosecutor said a November start would avoid the December court congestion that could complicate training and case processing. The motion to approve the contract passed on a voice vote.
