FAIRHOPE, Ala. — Today marks the end of the non-bid contract between the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts and the Mobile-based company that provides technical support for electronic access to public court records in Alabama.

“We are currently negotiating a renewal contract with (On Line Information Services Inc.),” said Griffin Sikes Jr., AOC’s legal division director in Montgomery. “They are a private contractor which, working together with AOC (Information Technology services), designed the software for our databases and advanced the resources necessary for the court system to operate, manage, update, etc., our electronic database system in return for a portion of the revenues generated by the (Alacourt.com) subscriptions.”

The original three-year “sole source data vendor agreement” between AOC and OLIS began Jan. 1, 2004. The contract was extended by a memorandum of agreement signed Oct. 24, 2006, for an additional period ending Dec. 31, 2008.

During 2007, the fees paid by subscribers for Alacourt.com, the Web-based online service system, generated revenue of approximately $2,498,262, according to information provided by AOC. Of the fees generated that year, AOC received $1,725,594 and OLIS $831,923.

During the first six months of 2008, the total revenue was $1,616,581, with AOC receiving $1,116,579 AOC and $538,207 to OLIS.

The fees charged include an initial $150 connection fee and a monthly fee of $84 (for one user), $104 (for two to five users), or $134 (for six or more users).

The company profile at the alacourt.com Web site, states that OLIS “ has provided online and Internet access to public records since 1990. On-Line started by providing access to local tax assessment records and expanded to provide online access to Probate Court grantor/grantee indices, along with online access to digital images of actual recorded documents, such as deeds, mortgages, etc.”

The profile also notes that OLIS is an Alabama corporation, headquartered in Mobile, which is owned and operated by licensed Alabama attorneys with a long history of practice in the Alabama trial court system. On-Line understands the needs of practicing attorneys as well as the need of businesses who use trial court information.”

Steve Olenksy (who is president of the company according to records filed with the Alabama Secretary of State but not a licensed Alabama attorney according to the Alabama State Bar) referred all questions to Neal Buchman, listed as the company’s secretary.

Buchman, who is listed as secretary of Buchman Properties Inc. in Mobile described as a construction business in records available at the Secretary of State Web site, did not return a phone call seeking comment for this story but referred all inquiries to AOC via an e-mail message.

Buchman is a licensed Alabama attorney but his phone number is a voice mail. Olensky said that number was either at his house or his old firm and said a better number was the Buchman Properties phone number. Olensky would not answer questions as to whether any other attorneys were owners of OLIS as information on the Alacourt.com Web site states or the extent or nature of Buchman’s legal practice.

“We do handle the data operations,” said Olenksy, referring to the OLIS office where he was reached by phone Monday.

Sikes said the original contract was put out for bid but they received few responses and negotiated the current “sole source” contract, which is exempted from the bid requirements of state law.

According to state law, “approval for sole source purchases shall be given only if the purchasing entity establishes that no other goods or service can meet its needs and that no other vendor offers substantially equivalent goods or services that can accomplish the purpose for which the goods or service is requested.”

Sikes did not indicate whether AOC would bid the contract again if a renewal contract is not negotiated with OLIS.

“As a long-term goal, the AOC would like to bring the operation and management of these databases in-house, although this will be dependent upon obtaining adequate funding from the Legislature to allow this,” Sikes said. “Until we obtain adequate funding, if the AOC is to operate an electronic database and make it available to the public, the current subscription system will continue.”

One of the requirements of the sole source contract is for OLIS to provide access to its system, without charge, for courthouse-based public access system for the general public who come to clerks’ offices.

Baldwin County Circuit Clerk Jody Campbell said Monday said “in some states you can get online and access without paying.”

The questions raised by providing electronic access to court records are described in detail in an August 2002 report by The Center for Democracy and Technology based on a nationwide survey of the practices of state and local courts in making information public via the Internet. The report summarizes some of the issues and questions raised by electronic access to public court records.

“Courts have made records available in many forms ranging from statewide services to many instances of single jurisdictions providing access to their records,” the report states. “And while some states offer free comprehensive access to their court records, many others charge users a range of fees for online access.”

On the one hand, this movement to post court information online represents a quiet revolution in citizen access and government accountability, part of the growing reality of e-government. Public access to electronic court records provides a convenient way for the public to monitor the judicial system and ensure the fairness and equality of its operations.

At the same time, a review of current practices indicates that the state and local courts are engaged in a series of difficult and novel balancing acts. One involves the balance between privacy and accountability. What information should be available online? Many states make judicial opinions at the appellate levels freely available online but do not offer online access to trial court proceedings, which generally contain more detailed and sensitive evidence. Others offer access to trial court dockets and a variety of other information at the trial level. Should a distinction be drawn between civil cases and criminal cases?

The report concludes its summary this way: “Another set of issues concern cost: Is it appropriate to charge for online access? Does a subscription or fee-based system appropriately limit dissemination to professionals such as lawyers or does it exclude ordinary citizens? Questions like these pose a significant challenge to states attempting to design systems without the benefit of precedents, rules or established standards and help to explain why the states’ policies and practices differ so dramatically.”