Welcome to the December Q&A. The final Q&A of 2015. The end of year is around the corner, and we have some final responses to usher us into 2016. Have a great and safe holidays and New Year.
This is our latest monthly installment addressing questions and suggestions received through the online suggestion box (top menu bar on the intranet). We respond to questions that have agency-wide relevance (i.e., we do not respond to individual-specific questions). Also, we can’t answer questions that may affect client or staff/personnel confidentiality protections.
Some questions/suggestions were summarized or simplified in the interest of clarity, brevity or to address issues of tone. When receiving multiple of the same question, we selected one (or created an amalgamation) that was most representative.
Some questions required more time to answer than was available or were received after we started drafting this Q&A so they didn’t make it into this installment. We’ll work to address them in a later installment.
With that, here is the Q&A!
Suggestions/Questions list
- Determining hiring at CPCS
- Paying for investigators with indigent court costs
- Live streaming Committee meetings
- Google drive access
- Password changes HRCMS web site
- Members only section of web site
Suggestion/Question: Determining hiring at CPCS
How are decisions made and what criteria are used in determining which agency positions should be filled?
Response:
To understand why some positions are filled while others remain vacant, it is important to understand two related points:
- First and foremost, we must operate within the monies appropriated. Each year, the funding in our budget varies and is usually not enough to fund all positions that we would like to fill. We also must be sure that whatever positions are filled, there are sufficient funds available to cover the salary for the entire fiscal year
- The decision to fill a position is determined by an assessment of the overall needs of the agency. The needs of every division and unit are considered. Ultimately, based on a number of factors, a decision is made to post and fill a position
The following criteria are considered when making a decision as to which vacant positions are filled. The list is not exhaustive, and, depending on circumstances, other criteria may be used:
- Ensuring the mandate of chapter 211D is carried out
- Providing meaningful and long-term salary relief to all CPCS employees
- Fulfilling long-term operational and strategic goals
- Providing high quality legal services to all of our clients, both public and private
- Meeting the need for offices to maintain essential operations
- Meeting the need for a robust infra-structure to maintain state-wide operation (e.g., IT, Human Resources, Facilities, Bar Advocate programs support, Training)
- The length of time a position has been vacant
- The availability of other funding sources to provide temporary services to our clients
- Changes in the law or state policy that require temporary or long-term adjustments to the manner the agency delivers services to our clients
Finally, it is important to appreciate that each unit of this agency (and every position within the unit) is a valuable part of a larger whole that ultimately serves our clients. While a decision to fill one position is often made at the expense of another, the decision is only made after careful assessment of need and then, generally, after discussion between and among senior managers.
Division: PD – Randy Gioia
Suggestion/Questions: Paying for investigators with indigent court costs
Our office does not currently have an investigator. This is having a negative effect on the quality of our representation. Could CPCS take the position that the services of an investigator up to $750 is included within “normal fees and costs” in G.L. c. 261, §27A to avoid obtaining a motion for funds? The time involved in getting a motion for funds sometimes results in the loss of valuable evidence (e.g., surveillance video).
Response:
Thank you for this important question regarding use of the Indigent Court Cost Act to better serve our clients. CPCS has discussed and considered exactly the points raised in your question in prior years. Those who have studied this issue agree that investigator expenses fall under the “extra” costs language of the statute requiring judicial approval. This has been the consistent interpretation of the statute and the role and function of the courts and CPCS since the passage of the act.
As you correctly point out, court costs are broken into “normal” and “extra” costs both defined by G.L. Ch. 261, sec. 27A.
“Extra fees and costs” are defined as: “the fees and costs, in addition to those a party is normally required to pay in order to prosecute or defend his case, which result when a party employs or responds to a procedure not necessarily required in the particular type of proceeding in which he is involved. They shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the cost of transcribing a deposition, expert assistance and appeal bonds and appeal bond premiums.” (Emphasis added).
“Normal fees and costs” generally include those expenses that are necessary, in fact mandatory, to pursue or defend a case such as payment of filing fees, service of the complaint, witness summons, payment of surcharges, removal fees, etc.
Admittedly, investigator costs are not specifically included in either definition; moreover the use of an investigator is very often an essential need in the defense of a criminal case; however, they are not mandatory and have been viewed as akin to “expert assistance” which falls within the definition of “extra fees and costs.”
The author of the Indigent Court Cost Act, Ernest Winsor, described “normal” as “costs assessed as a matter of course in litigation” and “extra” as “needed by a litigant to conduct his or her case with the same resources as litigants who can pay their own costs.” Rodgers and Windsor, The Indigent Court Costs Law: An Overview and Update, 2003 Massachusetts Bar Institute, Section Review, Vol 6. No. 1
Investigator expenses are not “assessed as a matter of course” but rather are “needed by the litigant to conduct his or her case…”
As such, an allowed motion for funds is required before CPCS may pay for investigative services from ICCA funds.
Division: A&O – William E. Shay. PD – Randy Gioia
Suggestion/Questions: Live streaming Committee meetings
Seeing as how the committee meetings are during the week, begin around 5:00, and are always in Boston is it possible to livestream the meetings over the intranet or internet?
I can’t imagine that this would be too difficult or costly and I’m sure I’m not the only staff member that wishes they could attend but can’t due to where I work and the times I work.
Response:
Live streaming (or even video recording) the Committee meetings really isn’t feasible. It’s not feasible from a number of perspectives:
- Sound quality: If you have ever been in the room, you’ll know the acoustics are lousy. I can vouch for the number of times I’ve had difficulty hearing. Trying to record it successfully would be extraordinarily difficult
- Setup: There is no simple way to augment the room for effective video presentation. The room is poorly designed for such
- Skills: We don’t have videographer staff. So, we simply don’t have the skill-sets to effectively record the meetings in a non-intrusive fashion
Division: IT – Daniel Saroff
Suggestion/Question: Google Drive access
One can’t seem to access Google Drive from CPCS computers. It would be handy if we could.
Response:
Cloud storage (including Google Drive) is blocked per requirement of the General Counsel to ensure client data is not hosted outside CPCS-owned and -controlled systems. It is blocked as a measure to protect and preserve client confidentiality.
For more on blocking sites (and options), please see this blog post from March 4, 2015: http://intranet.publiccounsel.net/blog/2015/03/04/blocked-web-site-and-temporary-access/
Division: IT – Daniel Saroff
Suggestion/Question: Password changes HRCMS web site
I am sorry if this question has been asked already, but is there a way to increase the time period between password changes for the HR/CMS website? I find it less secure when I have to write the password everywhere so I do not forget it!
Response:
CPCS does not have control over password changes for HRCMS. The system is used by the entire state, and they set the password reset policy. When they were rolling out the electronic time keeping to CPCS, we did express that the reset cycle of 3 months was too short, and asked if they could make it longer. They declined to change their policy.
Division: IT – Daniel Saroff
Suggestion/Question: Members only section of web site
Is there a way to create a “Members Only” section of our website that would be password protected? For divisions that don’t regularly use My Gideon, it would give our attorneys the same ability to post and access pleadings, documents and strategic discussions that we don’t necessarily want to be available to the general public or opposing parties.
Response:
It is not feasible to create a “Members Only” section on our external web site (similar to My Gideon). However, we do have the ability, and plans in place, to add divisions to My Gideon. Up to this point, My Gideon has been used primarily by the Public Defender Division, Criminal Bar Advocates and YAD staff. The MHLD staff also has access, but at this point there is little content specifically relating to Mental Health representation. While CAFL has used My Gideon to distribute materials in connection with its new lawyer training, CAFL has not had a robust presence on the site. That is changing. Soon CAFL will be uploading new content. Once the content is uploaded we will begin the process of adding CAFL staff and private counsel.
Division: Training – Debra Krupp & IT – Daniel Saroff