rison Transfer Board, which has a yearly budget of about $1 million in general-revenue funds, justified $11,000 more to buy video communication equipment. Case Profiles Within the next year, the state Department of Community Correction plans to use existing funds to buy more video communication equipment for hearing officers to use, said Rhonda Sharp, a spokesperson for the department and the Post Prison Transfer Board. Eventually, she said, Post Prison Transfer Board members hope to adopt the technology as well. Sanders said he doesn't think that conducting hearings over the Internet takes anything away from the process, and the hearing judges have heard no complaints from parolees. "The technology is SO clear you can see facial features and body language," Sanders declares. Williams agrees as he evokes a police officer in a hearing showing him crime- scene photos of a stabbing victim. Recalling how clear they were, even over the computer, still causes him to wince. Municipal courts in Pulaski County began using videoconferencing equipment in 1999 for arraignments. The system precludes the need to move inmates from the Pulaski County jail for a hearing that may last only minutes. James McMillan, principal court technology consultant with the National Center for State Courts, said he first saw videoconferencing in San Bernardino County, Calif., in the early 1980s. Since then declining prices have allowed more counties to use video communication for short hearings for which a trip to a local courthouse would equate to an extra expense and a risk. The last time the center conducted a survey on the subject, in 1994, it found that about 600 courts across the nation used video communication. Even with a limited number of counties using the cameras, Bohannan, Williams and Sanders say the averted travel allows more time for completing mandatory reports and reviewing paperwork from parole officers. The hearing judges say the flexibility video communication gives them enables them to respond to emergency hearing requests 