Title: In Re: Amendments To The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration – Rule 2.236

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC10-241 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION—RULE 2.236. 
 
[July 1, 2010] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC or Commission) has 
filed a petition asking the Court to adopt a new Rule of Judicial Administration 
that establishes the FCTC as a standing Supreme Court commission.1  We have 
jurisdiction2 and adopt the new rule.  
After the FCTC filed its petition, we published the proposed new rule for 
comment.  The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FACC) 
filed a comment, to which the FCTC filed a response.  After considering the 
petition, the FACC’s comment, and the FCTC’s response, we adopt new Rule of 
                                          
 
 
1.  Prior to filing the proposal with Court, the Commission submitted its 
proposal to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, which supports the 
new rule in concept.   
 
2. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(g).   
 
- 2 - 
Judicial Administration 2.236, Florida Courts Technology Commission, with 
modifications discussed below.   
New Rule 2.236 
New rule 2.236 formally establishes the FCTC as a standing Court 
commission with clearly defined responsibilities and authority.  It places the FCTC 
on a status equal to that of other standing judicial branch commissions established 
by rule.3  More importantly, unlike the current practice of establishing and 
charging the FCTC by successive administrative order issued every two years by 
the incoming chief justice,4 establishing the FCTC by rule will stabilize the 
Commission’s responsibilities, authority, and stature in the judicial branch.   
As the court system moves from a system that depends on paper records to a 
system that relies on digital information and the use of technology in our courts 
expands, it is imperative that there is a permanent judicial branch commission to 
oversee and monitor the development, implementation, and use of technology in 
                                          
 
 
3.  See, e.g., Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.230 (Trial Court Budget Commission); 
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.235 (District Court of Appeal Budget Commission). 
 
4.  See, e.g., In re Florida Courts Technology Commission, Fla. Admin. 
Order No. AOSC09-23 (June 1, 2009); In re Florida Courts Technology 
Commission, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC07-59 (Nov. 19, 2007); In re Florida 
Courts Technology Commission, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC05-92 (Dec. 30, 
2005); In re Florida Courts Technology Commission, Fla. Admin. Order No. 
AOSC03-35 (Aug. 26, 2003); In re Florida Courts Technology Commission, Fla. 
Admin. Order No. AOSC01-29 (June 18, 2001). 
 
 
- 3 - 
the trial and appellate courts, and to assist in the enforcement of the technology 
standards and requirements adopted by this Court.  The judicial branch long-range 
strategic plan recognizes the value of information technology to improve court 
access and operations,5 and this Court has recognized issues that accompany the 
transition to a system that relies on digital information.6  The State’s recent revenue 
shortfalls highlight the need for carefully developed technology policies and 
priorities for the judicial branch and for a mechanism to implement and enforce 
those policies and priorities.  Moreover, in the advent of electronic filing of court 
documents and implementation of a statewide electronic filing portal, the need for 
a standing Court commission equipped to provide consistent oversight and 
direction cannot be overstated.  See In re Electronic Access to the Courts 
(Statewide Standards), Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-30 (July 1, 2009); In re 
Electronic Filing Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-50 (Nov. 25, 2009). 
 
                                          
 
 
5.  See Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Judicial Branch Planning, The 
Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (2009-2015) at 10 
(2009).  
 
6.  See, e.g., In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420 & Fla. 
Rules of Appellate Procedure, 31 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2010) (recognizing that enacting 
a procedure for protecting confidential records is a necessary prerequisite to the 
Court’s ongoing effort to provide the public with electronic access to court 
records); In re Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee 
on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 
2006). 
 
- 4 - 
FCTC Responsibilities and Authority 
 
New rule 2.236 charges the FCTC with broad responsibility for overseeing, 
managing, and directing the development and use of technology within the judicial 
branch under the direction of the Court.7  Subdivision (b) sets forth these 
responsibilities.  The rule ensures that the FCTC will develop all technology 
policies and standards for the trial and appellate courts and will review all 
applications for new court technology systems and modifications to existing 
systems to ensure compliance with standards adopted by the Court.  The rule also 
gives the Commission authority to enforce the technology policies, standards, and 
requirements adopted by the Court, by requiring the termination or modification of, 
or by imposing conditions on, a program or system application that is not in 
compliance. 
Under subdivision (b)(4), the Commission will direct and establish priorities 
for the work of all judicial branch technology committees.  We have modified the 
subdivision to make clear that the Commission must review and approve 
recommendations made by any court committee that concerns judicial branch 
technology matters or otherwise implicates court technology policy.   
                                          
 
 
7.  Due to budget cuts sustained over the past few years, fewer staff are 
available to support the work of the FCTC under this rule, which may result in 
limitations on the ability of the Commission to carry out its responsibilities, unless 
additional resources can be obtained from the Legislature.  
 
- 5 - 
We also have added a new subdivision (g) to the rule to formally establish 
the Appellate Court Technology Committee (ACTC or Committee) as a standing 
committee of the FCTC8 and to formally recognize the responsibilities of that vital 
committee.  The new subdivision clarifies that ACTC recommendations that 
implicate court technology policy must be reviewed and approved by the 
Commission, and the Commission will report those recommendations and the 
action it takes on them to the Court.  Significantly, the subdivision provides a 
vehicle for the Committee to support or oppose FCTC action on its 
recommendations. 
Operational Procedures, Reports, and Court Action 
Subdivision (c) of the rule requires the FCTC to establish operational 
procedures necessary to carry out its responsibilities, subject to final approval by 
the Court.  For example, subdivision (c)(2) requires the Commission to establish a 
method for monitoring the development of new court technology projects.  This 
would include such projects as the ongoing Manatee County pilot program for 
providing electronic access to court records. 
We have modified subdivision (c)(7) and added subdivision (c)(8) to clarify 
that the Commission can establish both workgroups to assist with projects of 
                                          
 
 
8.  Like the FCTC, the ACTC currently is established by administrative 
order issued by the Chief Justice.  See In re Appellate Court Technology 
Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC08-82 (Sept. 23, 2008). 
 
- 6 - 
limited duration and more formal subcommittees to work on long-term projects 
that will require substantial effort.  The work of the existing Electronic Filing 
Committee, which also is currently created by administrative order,9 is an example 
of a long-term technology project that would justify the appointment of a more 
formal subcommittee.  Therefore, consistent with new subdivision (c)(8), we direct 
the FCTC to establish the Electronic Filing Committee as a formal subcommittee 
of the Commission.  As directed by separate administrative order,10 the 
Commission established the Subcommittee on Access to Court Records (Access 
Subcommittee) for the limited purpose of advancing rule amendments 
implementing recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records.11  
The Access Subcommittee’s charge is an example of the type of limited, short-term 
work that, under new subdivision (c)(7), would be conducted by a workgroup of 
the Commission.  Accordingly, we direct the Commission to continue the Access 
Subcommittee as a workgroup of the Commission until its work is complete. 
                                          
 
 
9.  See In re Electronic Filing Committee, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-
50 (Nov. 25, 2009). 
 
10.  See In re Florida Courts Technology Commission, Subcommittee on 
Access to Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-03 (Jan. 27, 2009). 
 
11.  See In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420 & Fla. 
Rules of Appellate Procedure, 31 So. 2d 756 (adopting procedures designed to 
protect confidential information in court records); In re Implementation of Comm. 
on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, No. SC08-2443 (Fla. petition filed 
Dec. 22, 2008) (proposing rule amendments to minimize the inclusion of 
unnecessary personal information in documents filed with the court). 
 
- 7 - 
Under subdivision (f), the FCTC is required to annually report its 
recommendations to the Court.  We have added the requirement that the report 
include ACTC recommendations that implicate court technology policy.  As noted 
above, the ACTC will have the ability to submit a companion report on those 
recommendations.  Subdivision (d), as modified, makes clear that the Chief Justice 
and the Court have wide latitude to adopt or reject, in whole or in part, refer back, 
or take alternative action on the FCTC recommendations or decisions. 
Membership 
Subdivision (e) of the rule outlines the membership and organization of the 
Commission.  The membership of the Commission is expanded from the current 17 
members to 25 members, which will be appointed by the Chief Justice after 
consultation with the Court.  The membership will include both institutional users 
of court technology, such as judges, court administrators, court technology 
officers, and trial and appellate clerks of court, as well as non-court personnel, 
including members of The Florida Bar and members of the public at large.12  All 
members must represent the interests of the public and state courts generally rather 
than the separate interests of any particular district, circuit, county, division, or 
                                          
 
 
12.  Under subdivision (e)(2) the membership will include: two district court 
judges; five circuit court judges, including one chief judge; two county court 
judges; three court administrators; three court technology officers; four clerks of 
court, including one appellate court clerk; four Florida Bar members, including one 
Board of Governors member; and two members of the public at large.   
 
- 8 - 
other organization.  However, we have modified subdivision (e)(2) to add an 
additional clerk of court to the membership, for a total of four clerks of court.  
Allowing for the appointment of an additional trial court clerk should ensure that 
small, medium, and large counties will be represented on the Commission. 
In adopting the new rule, we considered the comment filed by the FACC.  
The FACC’s stated concern is with the composition of a permanent body that 
would be created by the Legislature to oversee and monitor the development, 
management, and implementation of the integrated computer system referred to in 
section 29.008(1)(f)(2), Florida Statutes (2009).  See Technology Review 
Workgroup, Plan for Identifying and Recommending Options for Implementing 
the Integrated Computer System for the State Court System (2010).  The FACC 
urges that the composition of such a governance body must ensure that all justice 
system partners, including state attorneys, public defenders, and guardians ad 
litem, as well as courts and clerks of court, have a role in the governance structure.  
We appreciate the FACC’s concern that all justice system partners have a forum to 
address technology issues that may impact them.  But the focus of the Court’s 
concern here and the present need in the judicial branch is for a permanent body to 
assist with the governance and oversight of technology relating to case processing 
and case and records management, including access to court records.  The FCTC’s 
responsibility, under the new rule, will be to advise the Court on technology issues 
 
- 9 - 
impacting the judicial branch and to oversee the development and use of 
technology in our trial and appellate courts.  To that end, the FCTC’s membership 
appropriately includes district, circuit, and county court judges, clerks of court, 
court administrators, and court technology officers, as well as Florida Bar members 
and members of the public. 
The FCTC’s focus will continue to be on the development of technology in 
our courts.  However, to the extent participation and input from other justice 
system partners is warranted, the new rule provides for that participation and input.  
For example, subdivision (b)(14)(C) of the new rule specifically requires the 
Commission to address technology issues raised by the courts’ justice system 
partners.  Subdivision (c)(1) requires the FCTC to establish a method for ensuring 
input on judicial branch technology issues from all interested constituencies in the 
state.  And under subdivisions (c)(7) and (c)(8), the Commission must establish 
procedures for appointing workgroups and subcommittees that may include non-
commission members when non-member participation is warranted.  Therefore, 
justice system partners not represented on the Commission will have a vehicle to 
bring technology issues that may impact them to the Commission and the 
Commission will have established procedures for seeking valuable input and active 
participation in the development of court technology.   
 
- 10 - 
Accordingly, we adopt new Rule of Judicial Administration 2.236 as 
reflected in the appendix to this opinion.  The new rule shall become effective 
immediately upon the release of this opinion.   
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
Original Proceeding – The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Committee 
 
Judge Lisa Davidson, Chair, Florida Judicial Administration Committee, 
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Viera, Florida, Judith L. Kreeger, Chair, Florida Courts 
Technology Commission, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida and Laura 
Rush, Staff, Florida Courts Technology Commission, Office of the State Courts 
Administrator, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
Kenneth A. Kent, Executive Director, Florida Association of Court Clerks and 
Comptrollers, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 11 - 
APPENDIX  
 
RULE 2.236. 
FLORIDA COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION 
 
  (a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to establish a Florida Courts 
Technology Commission with responsibility for overseeing, managing, and 
directing the development and use of technology within the judicial branch under 
the direction of the supreme court as specified in this rule. For the purpose of this 
rule, the term “judicial branch” does not include The Florida Bar, the Florida 
Board of Bar Examiners, or the Judicial Qualifications Commission. 
 
  (b) Responsibilities. The Florida Courts Technology Commission is charged 
with specific responsibility to: 
 
  (1) make recommendations to the supreme court on all matters of technology 
policy impacting the judicial branch to allow the supreme court to establish 
technology policy in the branch; 
 
  (2) make recommendations to the supreme court regarding policies for public 
access to electronic court records; 
 
  (3) make recommendations to the supreme court about the relative priorities of 
various technology projects within the judicial branch so that the supreme court 
can establish priorities. The commission should coordinate with the Trial Court 
Budget Commission and District Court of Appeal Budget Commission to secure 
funds for allocation of those priorities; 
 
  (4) direct and establish priorities for the work of all technology committees in 
the judicial branch, including the Appellate Court Technology Committee, and 
review and approve recommendations made by any court committee concerning 
technology matters or otherwise implicating court technology policy.   
 
  (5) establish, periodically review, and update technical standards for technology 
used and to be used in the judicial branch to receive, manage, maintain, use, 
secure, and distribute court records by electronic means, consistent with the 
technology policies established by the supreme court. These standards shall be 
coordinated with the strategic plans of the judicial branch, rules of procedure, 
applicable law, and directions from the supreme court, and shall incorporate input 
from the public, clerks of court, supreme court committees and commissions, and 
 
- 12 - 
other groups involved in the application of current technology to the judicial 
branch; 
 
  (6) create procedures whereby courts and clerks and other applicable entities 
can apply for approval of new systems, or modifications to existing systems, that 
involve the application of technology to the receipt, management, maintenance, 
use, securing, and distribution of court records within the judicial branch, and 
between the public and the judicial branch; 
 
  (7) evaluate all such applications to determine whether they comply with the 
technology policies established by the supreme court and the procedures and 
standards created pursuant to this rule, and approve those applications deemed to 
be effective and found to be in compliance; 
 
  (8) develop and maintain security policies that must be utilized to ensure the 
integrity and availability of court technology systems and related data; 
 
  (9) ensure principles of accessibility are met for all court technology projects, 
with consideration and application of the requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 and any other applicable state or federal disability laws; 
 
  (10)  ensure that the technology utilized in the judicial branch is capable of 
required integration; 
 
  (11)  periodically review and evaluate all approved technology in the judicial 
branch to determine its adherence to current supreme court technology policies and 
standards; 
 
  (12)  review annual and periodic reports on the status of court technology systems 
and proposals for technology improvements and innovation throughout the judicial 
branch; 
 
  (13)  recommend statutory and rule changes or additions relating to court 
technology and the receipt, maintenance, management, use, securing, and 
distribution of court records by electronic means; 
 
  (14)  identify technology issues that require attention in the judicial branch upon: 
 
(A) 
referral from the chief justice; 
 
 
- 13 - 
(B) 
referral from the supreme court; or 
 
(C) 
identification by the Florida Courts Technology Commission on its 
own initiative based on recommendations of the public, commission members, 
judges, justice system partners, The Florida Bar, clerks of court, the Florida 
Legislature (either informally or through the passage of legislation), the Governor, 
the cabinet, or executive branch agencies; and 
  
  (15) coordinate proposed amendments to rules of court procedure and judicial 
administration necessary to effectuate the commission’s charge with appropriate 
Florida Bar rules committees. 
 
If a program, system, or application is found not to comply with the policies 
established by the supreme court or the standards and procedures established by 
the commission, the commission may require that it be terminated or modified or 
subject to such conditions as the commission deems appropriate.   
 
  (c) Operational Procedures.  The Florida Courts Technology Commission 
shall establish operating procedures necessary to carry out its responsibilities as 
outlined in subdivision (b), subject to final approval by the supreme court. These 
procedures shall include: 
 
  (1) a method for ensuring input from all interested constituencies in the state of 
Florida; 
 
  (2) a method for monitoring the development of new court technology projects, 
reviewing reports on new technology projects, and reviewing the annual reports; 
 
  (3) a method whereby courts and clerks and other applicable entities can apply 
for approval of new technology systems or applications, or modifications to 
existing systems or applications, that affect the receipt, management, maintenance, 
use, securing, and distribution of court records; 
 
  (4) a system to evaluate all applications for new or modified technology systems 
to determine whether they comply with the policies and technical standards 
established by the supreme court and the procedures created pursuant to this rule, 
and are otherwise appropriate to implement in the judicial branch; 
 
  (5) a process for making decisions on all applications for new or modified 
technology systems and communicating those decisions to interested parties. If an 
 
- 14 - 
application is found to comply with technology policies and standards, the 
commission may approve the application and its written approval shall authorize 
the applicant to proceed. For all applications that are not approved, the commission 
shall assist the applicant in remedying any deficiencies that the commission 
identifies; 
 
  (6) a method to monitor all technology programs, systems, and applications 
used in the judicial branch to ensure that such programs, systems, and applications 
are operating in accordance with the technology policies established by the 
supreme court and technical standards established by the commission. The 
commission may ask any operator of a program, system, or application to appear 
before it for examination into whether the program, system, or application 
complies with technology policies and standards;  
 
  (7) a process to conduct the limited, short-term work of the commission through 
work groups that it may constitute from time to time. Work groups may make 
recommendations to the commission as a whole. The chair of the commission may 
appoint non-commission members to serve on any work group; and 
 
  (8)  a process to conduct substantial work of the commission requiring long-term 
commitment through subcommittees. Subcommittees may make recommendations 
to the commission as a whole. The chair of the commission may appoint non-
commission members to serve on any subcommittee.  
 
  (d) Action by Supreme Court or Chief Justice on Recommendations of or 
Decisions by Florida Courts Technology Commission. The supreme court or 
chief justice, as appropriate, may take any of the following actions on 
recommendations or decisions made by the Florida Courts Technology 
Commission: 
 
  (1) Adopt the recommendation or decision of the commission in whole or in 
part, with or without conditions. 
 
  (2) Refer specific issues or questions back to the commission for further study 
or alternative recommendations. 
 
  (3) Reject the recommendation or decision in whole or in part. 
 
  (4) Take alternative action. 
 
 
- 15 - 
  (e) Membership and Organization. 
 
  (1) The Florida Courts Technology Commission shall be composed of 24 voting 
members appointed by the chief justice after consultation with the court. All 
members shall represent the interests of the public and of Florida courts generally 
rather than the separate interests of any particular district, circuit, county, division, 
or other organization. The membership shall include members who have 
experience in different divisions of courts, in court operations, and in using 
technology in court for case processing, management, and administrative purposes, 
and shall provide geographic, racial, ethnic, gender, and other diversity. 
 
  (2) The membership shall include 2 district court judges, 5 circuit court judges 
(1 of whom must be a chief judge), 2 county court judges, 3 court administrators, 3 
court technology officers, 4 clerks of court (1 of whom must be a clerk of an 
appellate court), 4 members of The Florida Bar (1 of whom must be a member of 
the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar), and 2 members of the public at large. 
 
  (3) The members of the commission who are judicial officers, court technology 
officers, and court administrators must constitute a majority of the commission and 
must constitute a majority of any quorum at all meetings of the commission. 
 
  (4) A supreme court justice shall be appointed by the chief justice to serve as 
supreme court liaison to the commission. 
 
  (5) Each member will be initially appointed for a 1-, 2-, or 3-year term, with the 
terms staggered to ensure continuity and experience on the commission and for 
three year terms thereafter. Retention and reappointment of each member will be at 
the discretion of the chief justice. 
 
  (6) The chief justice shall appoint 1 member to serve as chair for a two-year 
term. 
 
  (f) 
Schedule of Reports. The Florida Courts Technology Commission shall 
prepare an annual report of its activities, which shall include its recommendations 
for changes or additions to the technology policies or standards of Florida courts, 
its recommendations for setting or changing priorities among the programs within 
the responsibility of the commission to assist with budget resources available, its 
recommendations for changes to rules, statutes, or regulations that affect 
technology in Florida courts and the work of the commission. The report also shall 
include recommendations of the Appellate Court Technology Committee that 
 
- 16 - 
implicate court technology policy and the action taken on those recommendations 
by the commission. This report shall be submitted to the supreme court on April 1 
of each year. 
 
(g) 
Appellate Court Technology Committee. 
 
  (1) Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to establish the Appellate Court 
Technology Committee as a standing committee of the Florida Courts Technology 
Commission responsible for providing technical guidance and consultation to the 
commission regarding information systems development and operational policies 
and procedures relating to automation in the district courts of appeal.  
 
  (2) Responsibilities.  The Appellate  Court Technology Committee is charged 
with specific responsibility to: 
  
(A) 
coordinate with and provide advice to the Florida Courts Technology 
Commission regarding the development of standards and policies for implementing 
new technologies, system security, public access to district court information, and 
system support;  
 
(B) 
develop, recommend, and implement policy and procedures consistent 
with the overall policy of the supreme court relating to technology issues affecting 
the district courts of appeal; 
 
(C) 
recommend and coordinate the purchase and upgrade of hardware and 
software in relation to the district courts’ office automation systems and networks; 
 
(D) 
oversee and direct expenditures of designated state court system trust 
funds for technology needs in the district courts;   
 
(E) 
promote orientation and education programs on technology and its 
effective utilization in the district court environment;   
 
(F) 
ensure principles of accessibility are met for all court technology 
projects, with consideration and application of the requirements of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and any other applicable state or federal disability 
laws; 
 
 
- 17 - 
(G) 
propose amendments  to rules of court procedure and judicial 
administration necessary to effectuate the committee’s charge, after coordination 
with appropriate Florida Bar rules committees; and   
 
(H) 
identify budget issues and funding sources and coordinate with the 
District Court of Appeal Budget Commission on recommendations requiring 
additional funding or resources for implementation in the district courts of appeal.   
 
  (3) Membership and Terms. 
 
(A) 
The chief justice will select the chair of the committee from among 
the judges of the district courts, with input from the chief judges.  
 
(B) 
The chief judges of the remaining district courts will designate a 
representative from each of their courts to serve as member of the committee.   
 
(C) 
The chair and members will serve 3-year terms.  Retention and 
reappointment of the chair will be at the discretion of the chief justice.  Retention 
and reappointment of the representative from each district court will be at the 
discretion of the district court chief judge.   
 
  (4) Commission Approval and Reporting of Policy Recommendations.   
Committee recommendations that implicate court technology policy must be 
reviewed and approved by the commission. The commission will report the 
committee’s policy recommendations and the action taken on them by the 
commission to the supreme court. The committee may submit to the court a 
companion report on its recommendations, supporting or opposing the action taken 
by the commission.  
 
  (h) Staff Support and Funding. The Office of the State Courts Administrator 
shall provide primary staff support to the Florida Courts Technology Commission 
and the Appellate Court Technology Committee. Adequate staffing and resources 
shall be made available by the Office of the State Courts Administrator to ensure 
that the commission and committee are able to fulfill their responsibilities under 
this rule.