I say this based on just a bit of personal experience in working with authorities and their mode of operation (in Europe but I expect US is not that different): it's often about covering one's ass by insisting on lots of checks and balances, and the work amounts generated by the processes are often neglected because they are someone else's problem.
This looks like fundamentally a public sector process issue. They'll improve it though.
> This looks like fundamentally a public sector process issue. They'll improve it though.
The better, "old system" was ordered by the same government office - two different results from the same "public sector process" should give a hint that maybe that is not the root cause of the problem. At the same time, since your comment attacks the public sector without providing alternatives, I can only assume that you are implying that a private company would handle this better - are you proposing to privatize the courts?
Also, a new generation of public servants are at work, defining and specifying the work.
Who remembers, were there problems at the time when the old system was taken to use?
No, I'm not suggesting courts should be privatised, but the ever-expanding legislation is a problem throughout the Western world (I'm not from the US).
> Because the system is so unwieldy, clerks are unable to enter data in the courtroom, she said, so that burden has fallen on other office workers. It’s created a backlog of more than 12,000 files that have not been uploaded — and that number is growing by up to 300 files a day, according to Woods.
Sounds like it's mostly a software design problem to me, rather than "clerk/user stupidity" issue:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-s-...