April 3, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
Less than a week after the Judicial Council ostensibly pulled the plug on CCMS, the AOC is still defending the project. While offering no figures of her own, AOC spokesperson Leanne Kozak argued that project figures obtained by the California State Auditor during an exhaustive 5 month review of the project were “incorrect”.
It is unfortunate that our branch leadership continues to engage in silly arguments with the respected State Auditor over a computer project that has hurt the reputation of the judiciary. Intemperate remarks and baseless claims that challenge the integrity of the Auditor does not reflect well on the judges of this state. We would hope that someone in authority would have the wherewithal to issue a “stand down ” directive to Judicial Council and AOC staff.
We include a story from KCRA television in Sacramento. To view the actual video, click on http://www.kcra.com/video/30821585/detail.html
The project was also the topic of discussions on the radio today. To access the audio of today’s “Armstrong and Getty Radio Show” on station KSTE Talk 650, Sacramento, click http://www.kste.com/player/?station=KSTE-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=armandgettypodcast.xml&mid=21960379
The CCMS discussion begins at the 4 minute, 50 second mark.
Thank you.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________________________
Plug Pulled On Pricey State Court Computer System
Auditor: Computer System Could Have Cost $2B
Related articles
- Legislature Shitcans Court Computer System (systemicfailure.wordpress.com)
- Alliance Budget Analysis & The Consequences of Fiscal Mismanagement (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Rosenberg rebuttal – By Judge Robert Dukes (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
_____________________________
Remember kids, everyone gets a prize for participating. There is no first place, there is no last place. There are no failures, only unrealized successes. There are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. The AOC can get you any result you like because there is no wrong, there is no right and they sleep very well at night.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, April 3, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Bill Would Force State High Court to Move to Sacramento
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Legislation newly introduced in the California state Assembly would force the California Supreme Court to eventually move to Sacramento.
Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, last week amended an unrelated bill, AB 2501, to require that all state agencies, including the judiciary, relocate their principal headquarters to the capital by 2025. The legislation would also provide that, beginning in that year, “the Supreme Court shall only hear cases in the Sacramento metropolitan area.”
The state judicial branch has long had its principal headquarters in San Francisco. The high court normally hears oral arguments twice a year in Sacramento, but the 85-year-old facility where it does so, now known as the Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, is undergoing a two-year renovation project that is expected to be completed early next year.
Garrick’s chief of staff, Mike Zimmerman, said the lawmaker want to centralize state government in the capital region in order to save money, although an analysis of those savings has not been prepared. “We’re in the process of trying to figure that out,” Zimmerman told the MetNews.
Agencies not already located in Sacramento can rent space in the area a good deal cheaper than elsewhere, he said. The law will not require wholesale relocations, Zimmerman emphasized.
“Our plan would be for agencies…where feasible to move back to Sacramento,” he said. “We’re not asking them not to have satellite offices….Several decades ago it may have been necessary for there to be [judicial branch] headquarters in San Francisco, but the assemblyman believes that today every agency of state government should be located in the state capital.”
Zimmerman said the bill will now go to the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee for a hearing, the date of which has not yet been set.
A call for comment was not immediately returned by a spokesperson for the judicial branch.
http://www.metnews.com/
*************************************************************************************************************
Long live the ACJ.
One Who Knows
April 3, 2012
Check out AB 2381…..
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
“This bill would provide that the Ralph C. Dills Act applies to
employees of the Judicial Council. The bill would require the
Administrative Director of the Courts to meet and confer in good
faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and would identify matters excluded from the scope of
representation. The bill would require the Public Employment
Relations Board, in determining appropriate bargaining units, to not
include Judicial Council employees in a bargaining unit that includes
other employees. ”
About time, One Who Knows. About time.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
And thank you, Assemblymember Roger Hernandez. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
As an FYI, One Who Knows, the Judicial Council takes the position (they have asserted this in court) that they are not the “employer” of AOC employees, the AOC is the employer. So someone might want to consider amending the language of this bill to state that the Ralph C. Dills Act applies to employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 3, 2012
It is sooooo long overdue, but a great first step. Many of us have said for over a decade that if the AOC was based in Bakersfield or Fresno we would not have many of the problems we do now. Sacramento is close enough. I cannot believe that some of the quiche eaters at the Crystal Palace would remotely entertain relocating to some place like Sacramento.
Lets get behind this bill!!!!
Been There
April 3, 2012
Damn, General Woodhull, you know how to cut to the core of a bureaucrat’s heart, don ‘t you? While sipping my Grey Goose and munching on caviar at the William Vickrey Conference Center at the Ron George Building — we of the A list were on hand for the dedication of the new Sheila Calabro IT Center of Excellence — it occurred to me that I wnas lucky indeed to be in San Francisco. But Sacramento? Oh, no!
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
Oh my, Been There, you mean there wasn’t lobster for the entree? They must be “cutting back” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 3, 2012
Wendy, the absence of lobster was disappointing, but there’s only do much fudging one can do with one’s per diem. Fudging with the per diem will not be a problem in Sacramento. There we may have to subsist on Velveeta and crackers.
Delilah
April 3, 2012
“…we of the A list were on hand for the dedication of the new Sheila Calabro IT Center of Excellence…”
Please, please tell me that’s a late April Fool’s Day joke.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
Actually, Been There, the cafeteria down in the basement of the State Capitol uses Real California Cheese on their sandwiches, and they have daily hot specials that are pretty good, and even reasonably priced. Of coarse, the folks at 455 Golden Gate Avenue would have to adjust to paper plates and plastic silverware, you know, like “commoners.”
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 3, 2012
Let’s allocate a billion bucks for their new HQ digs in SAC.
After all, fine high end accomodations enhance the administrative thought process.
AOC Tracker
April 3, 2012
Let them eat Velveeta.
Take one block of Velveeta, cut into pieces. Set aside.
Saute onions with some garlic cloves. Garlic always adds a nice flavor.
Stir in a quarter cup of milk and the cubed Velveeta. While patiently waiting for the mixture to melt, add a can of cream of mushroom soup, some chopped jalapenos and jalapeno juice, while stirring frequently.
Remove from heat when fully melted. Serve with chips.
The AOC doesn’t deserve Real California Cheese.
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2012
Garlic is also rumored to be a good repellant for vampires, of which there are many roaming the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue, especially on the 5th and 7th floors.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 4, 2012
Too bad garlic only repels.
unionman575
April 3, 2012
Let me eat Tommy’s, then a little while later they can eat sh**!
unionman575
April 3, 2012
I think we need to hire some very expensive Velveeta food preparation consultants to make the gourmet chow “just right” for the assholes at the AOC. After all, the trial courts are rolling in $$$ (NOT).
unionman575
April 4, 2012
The next 2 pots of gold to watch closely are are the AOC OCCM building program, and the AOC courthouse maintenance program.
Both are huge money sucking cluster fucks. They are killing us!
unionman575
April 4, 2012
Slam dunk!
This slams the AOC hard across the board on the whole shitty mess we are in: CCMS, Construction, Maintenance and Governance Issues/1208.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/columnist/henry/x1322082230/At-last-plug-pulled-on-court-computer-system
LOIS HENRY: At last, plug pulled on court computer system
BY LOIS HENRY Californian columnist
lhenry@bakersfield.com | Wednesday, Apr 04 2012 05:00 AM
Last Updated Wednesday, Apr 04 2012 05:00 AM
Lois Henry hosts Californian Radio every Wednesday on KERN 1180 AM from 9 to 10 a.m. You can get your two cents in by calling 842-KERN.
Tell ‘em
If you’d like you voice heard, you can call or email State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg and tell him to pass AB1208 out of the Rules Committee and bring it to the Senate floor for a vote.
You can email him through his website at: http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/contact
Or call his office in Sacramento (916) 651-4006
Yes, the giant, money-sucking statewide court computer system that never fully got off the ground in spite of its half-a-billion-dollar launch pad appears to have been killed.
But the fight is far from over.
That’s the message Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe wants to get out after last month’s long overdue death of the California Case Management System, expected to cost $2 billion (!) at full roll out.
Lampe is one of the co-founders of the Alliance of California Judges, which has been fighting for the better part of three years to loosen the stranglehold of an out-of-control bureaucracy and return greater control and funding certainty to local courts.
That out-of-control bureaucracy is the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), which operates under the auspices of the state Judicial Council and was created a little more than a decade ago as a centralized state agency to manage county trial court funding as a means to cut costs and find greater efficiencies.
Yeah, not so much, as it turns out.
Other than reporting to the Judicial Council, which is not an elected governing body, the AOC reports to no one.
Lots of money, a vague management mission and no oversight. You can guess the outcome.
The AOC’s body count and budget ballooned, going from fewer than 100 employees and less than $100 million in 1997 to nearly 1,000 people and $400 million today.
As the agency grew, its projects have swelled as well.
A planned courthouse in Delano is estimated to cost $1,041 per square foot.
Its maintenance (janitorial services) contracts are so over budget the AOC has had to dip into construction money to keep current, according to a report last fall by the Alliance of California Judges.
Its judicial education division employs 100 people — one full timer for every 17 trial judges — and has an $8 million annual budget.
“We do the teaching,” Lampe said. “The judges teach the classes. And we do it for free.”
The grandaddy of all bloated projects, the statewide court computer system, went from an estimated $260 million to $2 billion.
At one point in 2009, the AOC, with the Judicial Council’s blessing, mandated that courthouses statewide close one day a month in order to “save” $90 million that it turned around and spent on the failed computer system.
So much for the public’s right of access to its courts.
We spent a half billion (not including what we shoveled out for audits and reports showing the painfully obvious, that computer system was bunk) before the Judicial Council finally pulled the plug late last month.
Well, Lampe said, it’s unclear exactly how dead the project is as the Judicial Council is still budgeting money for ongoing support to some counties that implemented interim systems. The cost of that support is exorbitant as well, according to the Alliance report, more than $40 million a year including $7 million a year for just one system deployed in Fresno County.
Kern County has long had its own computer system for helping judges and clerks track cases. It was developed locally, according to Superior Court Administrator Terry McNally.
And while it’s main function is as a work processing system for the courts, the data is also used for the court’s public website, a very handy tool. It’s not perfect, but believe me, it’s better than a lot of counties.
Makes you wonder how innovative each court system could have been with just a fraction of that half billion if they’d been given that money directly.
“Now, that money is gone,” Lampe said with a look of resignation.
The best we can do is fix, and by that I do mean neuter, the system that spawned the AOC in the first place.
To that end, the Alliance has been successful in getting AB1208 passed by the Assembly.
The bill is now cooling its heels in the Senate Rules Committee.
The bill would slightly alter the law that gave budgeting oversight to the Judicial Council by stating that 100 percent of the money the Legislature appropriates to the trial courts each year be given to the trial courts.
Right now, the law doesn’t mandate that 100 percent of that money go to trial courts. The Judicial Council (and AOC) has discretion over more than 60 percent. And we can see how well that worked — NOT.
Beyond AB1208, Lampe said the Judicial Council should do three things:
* See if it can get any money back from the statewide court computer system debacle.
* Cease all funding for courthouse construction and move that money to existing court operations.
* Take a long, hard look at the AOC budget.
And get out the chain saw.
Because I’m willing to bet there’s more than a little dead wood to be trimmed out of the AOC.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
Judicial Council Watcher
April 4, 2012
That dog hunts. That’s probably why Lois Henry is in JCW’s hall of fame. A journalist that gets it.
wearyant
April 4, 2012
Yes, Lois Henry rocks! Thanks, Unionman575, for posting. Lois Henry had her finger on the pulses about as long as anyone here …
Wendy Darling
April 4, 2012
Speaking of vampires and garlic . . . published today, Wednesday, April 5, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
‘Vampire’ Computer System Stalks California Courts in Final Spending
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In the aftermath of the decision to terminate a half-billion-dollar court computer project, supporters and detractors question whether it’s really dead.
“Some people says it’s like a vampire that isn’t really dead until you drag its body out into the sunlight,” said Orange County Judge Andrew Banks.
The governing council for California’s courts voted last week to end a project that has lasted 10 years, cost the public $520 million and caused intense controversy within the state’s judicial corps. But, as part of that decision, the Judicial Council decided to spend another $8.6 million.
“I think we have a semantic problem here,” said council member Edith Matthai. “It doesn’t mean it’s terminated in the sense that it goes away never to be seen again in any shape or form. It means we take a look at what we’ve got and see how it can be revamped and reused.”
Although Matthai is a lawyer and a non-voting member of the council, her view matches that of the administrators behind the failed project, and it was reflected in the council’s vote to spend $8.6 million to both “terminate” the project and also “leverage” it.
“We remain concerned that the Judicial Council has not truly and completely abandoned this failed project,” said the Alliance of California Judges in a statement.
Judge Runston Maino of San Diego, who compares the tech project to Howard Hughes’ failed wood airplane, said, “Ms. Matthai’s plan to go back to the drawing board to see what they have developed and to see how it can be revamped and reused makes as much sense as an airplane manufacturer taking a look at the Spruce Goose with the idea of seeing how it can be revamped and reused for current passenger needs.”
But Justice Douglas Miller who chairs the council’s powerful executive committee said funding for the final version of the software called CCMS V4 has in fact been halted.
“Funding for V4 has stopped, other than the approximate $2.7 million we need to shut it down,” said Miller in an interview. “The additional $5 million was to take a look at the codes and see if there is something we can do with those.”
‘Not Spend a Penny’
At last week’s meeting, the 18 voting judges on the council were given the option to kill the project entirely.
Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County moved to give each of the state’s 58 trial courts the option to choose an off-the-shelf tech system to manage cases — and end all financing for the project.
“We don’t spend a penny,” he said summing up his motion.
The motion was seconded by Los Angeles Judge David Wesley, who has at times been a lone voice on the council questioning the recommendations of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The option of allowing individual courts to buy modern case management systems off the shelf is attractive because of the relatively low cost. Last year, for example, Seattle courts bought and installed a system that allows electronic filing of court papers for $5 million.
Rosenberg’s motion to not “spend a penny” was also consistent with an instruction from a California Assembly budget subcommittee to stop spending on the project. Chair Gilbert Cedillo, a Los Angeles Democrat, instructed Santa Barbara’s Judge James Herman last month to “take a time out.”
Rosenberg’s motion, however was soundly rejected by the council 17-1. Only Wesley voted in favor. As a non-voting member, Rosenberg could not vote for his own motion.
Instead, the council adopted a motion by Judge Herman to spend another $8.6 million for termination of the project and “leverage of CCMS technology,” a signal that the project is not quite dead.
In the discussion running up to those votes, administrator Renea Hatcher told the council, “We own the code.”
Under questioning, she qualified that statement, in reference to elements of the software apparently proprietary to Deloitte Consulting, the program developer.
“They’re called vendor works, things that are proprietary to Deloitte that may or may not have been included in CCMS,” Hatcher said elliptically. “To the extent that they are we would need to work with Deloitte if we were going to commercialize the product.”
Judicial critics have argued that despite the enormous cost of the project, California remains beholden to Deloitte. They have also mocked the dream that the software could be “commercialized,” or sold to others.
Budget Breakdown
“There is a $3.4 million tag to complete this work,” Hatcher continued, in reference to a six month analysis of software salvage potential. Hatcher is from the AOC’s Information Services Division.
She said the administrative office wants its own staff to learn the 6 millions lines of computer code contained in CCMS. That amount of code is more than it takes to run a Boeing 777, the world’s biggest twin engine jet.
“We have to have specialized resources to be able to transfer that knowledge over to us,” said Hatcher.
Budget documents presented to the council break the additional spending down mostly into the cost for highly paid personnel. That includes five consultants paid $576,000 for six months of work, in other words at a yearly rate of more than $200,000 each.
An additional sum of $63,600 is budgeted for 15 trips a month for 10 months for central and local administrators.
A much bigger amount of $2.6 million is budgeted for the salaries, benefits and expenses of 26 employees, in other words $100,000 each on average, for stints of 9 or 10 months.
The executive said he was not sure the experts would be from the Administrative Office of the Courts. But, he added, the council will need someone to tell its members whether parts of the software are viable.
“I want to make sure we fully examine it to make sure we get a return on what was invested in it,” said Justice Miller this week.
It will be up to individual courts to determine whether they want to accept parts of the centralized software or buy their own, off-the-shelf systems, he added. “It’s not going to be a system mandated by the Judicial Council, the individual courts have to make those determinations.”
Miller conceded that the council may find that it’s too expensive to extract parts of CCMS V4. But, he said, “Someone’s going to have to tell us.”
Frankenstein’s Bride
A retired Los Angeles judge who has been a powerful critic of the administrative office said the Judicial Council had accepted the “usurpation of its authority” in accepting the recommendation to spend more money on the project.
“If the past is a guide to the future, and I believe it is, the AOC will use the 8 million not to simply obtain the artifacts and code, but to try to once again breathe life into this Frankenstein monster of a system,” said retired Judge Charles Horan. “Then they will try to engineer a shotgun wedding. Hopefully, courts will resist the notion of becoming the bride of Frankenstein.”
Judge Banks in Orange County, whose court has struggled with an earlier version of CCMS, said the courts are better off scrapping the project entirely.
“I don’t think it’s worth salvaging,” said Banks. “I think they ought to walk away from V4 and not spend any more money down that rat hole and just let courts do what they want to do. It was a grand idea that was just too expensive for the real world and has too many problems.”
“I think it should be ended,” he concluded. “It’s time to accept that they are human, that they made a mistake in that they did not account for the economic realities and the cost went out of control. They need to say to the courts, ‘You’re smart enough to be able to get the systems you need for your courts, now go do it.’”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/04/45335.htm
*********************************************************************************************************
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 4, 2012
JUdge Horan naied it:
“If the past is a guide to the future, and I believe it is, the AOC will use the 8 million not to simply obtain the artifacts and code, but to try to once again breathe life into this Frankenstein monster of a system,” said retired Judge Charles Horan. “Then they will try to engineer a shotgun wedding. Hopefully, courts will resist the notion of becoming the bride of Frankenstein.”
It is time for a recall!
unionman575
April 4, 2012
I note the reference to off the shelf software. Holy Shit! Who would have thought of that??? NOT the geniuses at the AOC!
And you have to love the conclusion:
“”This statewide system initiative will leverage the technology available today, streamline court processes, and provide up-to-date information to better serve the public.”
That sounded like a plan. What resulted, though, is an expensive disaster. It was wise to shut it down.
—————————————————————————————————————–
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_20322360/editorial-putting-aside-costly-upgrade-courts-case-management
Editorial: Putting aside costly upgrade to court’s case management system was the best choice
By Daily News
Posted: 04/04/2012 12:13:10 AM PDT
Updated: 04/04/2012 12:14:50 AM PDT
THE basics of sharing information among California’s 58 Superior Courts are a mess. Details of a case in one court can’t be shared with another court in a different county except by actual paperwork, which can take weeks to obtain.
That’s the way it was 10 years ago, when the ambitious California Court Case Management System was begun. And that’s the way it is still is in most counties – even though the state has spent half a billion dollars to connect courts.
The failure of the Court Case Management System has already cost taxpayers $500 million. Rather than throwing good money after bad, court officials made the right decision last week by scuttling the program, even though a $200,000 consultants’ report recommended spending $1.3 billion to finish the project.
Of course it makes sense to upgrade the system, but not by throwing good money after bad. And not when budget cuts have closed courts one day a month and litigants have to wait for paper reports to be delivered. That means people involved in court cases have to wait days, even weeks, for paperwork – paperwork – some of it in the form of carbon copies. Try to find a computer-savvy young adult who has even heard of carbon paper.
The expense and the mismanagement of the Court Case Management System are reminiscent of other infamous software projects. Remember the $95 million the Los Angeles Unified School District spent on its payroll system that overpaid or underpaid thousands of district employees for months? That project grew by another $37 million just to fix the software at a time when teachers were being laid off.
In both cases, the software was created from scratch. Hasn’t anyone in charge of software projects heard of tweaking off-the-shelf software that already is proven?
Meanwhile, funding for courts and construction of courthouses has been cut by hundreds of millions, which makes mismanagement of the information-sharing project all the more galling.
The consultants point to a impressive success in Orange County, where an earlier version of the software is being used. Six other counties, including L.A., have reported some success with the software, even though communicating with other counties still isn’t possible.
Even the primitive systems counties have now are falling apart, causing high maintenance costs.
The project had an impressive beginning and was supposed to allow the public to access information, file documents electronically and make payments online, instead of having to go to a courthouse.
A project statement said, “Judges and law enforcement agencies will have real-time access to court information across all counties at their fingertips.
“This statewide system initiative will leverage the technology available today, streamline court processes, and provide up-to-date information to better serve the public.”
That sounded like a plan. What resulted, though, is an expensive disaster. It was wise to shut it down.
Wendy Darling
April 4, 2012
Also published late today, Wednesday, April 4, from Courthouse News, by Bill Girdner, and, as usual from Bill Girdner, well worth the read:
Funeral for a Tech System
By BILL GIRDNER
A half-billion dollars is a lot to waste. But so is $8 million.
The California courts’ governing council voted last week to spend that additional sum salvaging pieces from a 10-year computer project that turned into a financial train wreck
The wreckage is in the form of computer code, millions and millions of lines of code, more than it takes to run the biggest jetliner on earth, code that the state paid $520 million to accumulate.
“Our court has struggled since inception with the quality of the product, its design deficits, and overall system performance,” said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl in Sacramento. “Our court’s experiences have left us with a jaundiced view.”
The council had the choice to end the madness, the choice to say, no, no more money.
That is what a legislative leader had told Judge James Herman a week earlier when the judge was testifying in the Assembly. “Using the parent language, we’re taking a little time out here,” said Gil Cedillo who chairs a budget subcommittee.
A week after that hearing, the council considered a motion by Judge David Rosenberg to not spend “a penny more” on the computer project.
That motion was thumped, 17-1 against.
Instead the council voted to back a motion by Judge Herman to spend another $8 million.
A big part of that money is intended for “leveraging” of the software.
But no trial court — not one — has adopted the final software, CCMS V4. The reasons include design and performance problems in the earlier version, the fact that it eats up staff time, and the millions that it costs to install.
What does the bureaucracy want to “leverage” out of that. Is it the design problems or the inefficiency or the ability to burn millions.
Another big chunk of the $8.6 million goes to “terminate” the final V4 version of the software. But V4 never got started. It is not installed in any trial court.
The only element of the software that might seem valuable is the e-filing element, that allows lawyers to filed documents over the Internet.
But big California courts have gone right around V4 to set up e-filing through private contractors. The contractors install e-filing for basically nothing in exchange for the ability to charge the lawyers for the delivery.
That means there is nothing left to save.
On the other hand, that $8.6 million would come in very handy for trial courts fighting savage budget cuts. Last year, San Francisco’s courts had to fight the central administrators for a $2.5 million loan while the San Joaquin courts basically had to beg for $2 million in bailout funds.
I was talking with my aunt about all this on my walk home at the end of the week. And she asked me how the courts got into this fix.
Partly it was the times, I told her.
Software and the Internet were relatively new to bureaucracies 10 years ago.
The officials involved were inexperienced with technology and bought the false promise that e-filing would allow them to fire staff. The state budget was flush and it was easy enough to look around and find an expensive consultant and say, “you do it.”
There is a second element, which is that through some ineluctable law of government, bureaucrats constantly seek to expand their zones of power. The administrators tried to use the new technology to exert greater control over the trial judges.
There is a third element which is that the administrators and members of the council appear to have been seduced by the techno jargon used by the consultants. It seemed to hypnotize the council members and make them helpless in spending more and more money on the system. Even on the way to its funeral.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/04/45336.htm
*****************************************************************************************************************
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 4, 2012
CCMS may need its own 12 step program.
Wendy Darling
April 4, 2012
Some of think it needs an intervention and then sent to involuntary rehab, JCW. You know, where the doors are locked, there are bars on the windows, you don’t get to leave without permission, and visitors are not allowed.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 4, 2012
I have a one step program: Recall the Chief Justice.
wearyant
April 4, 2012
Ohmigod, Girdner totally gets it! Court officials totally inexperienced with technology! E-filing would allow them to fire staff. Bureaucrats constantly seek to expand their zone of power.
And I know for a fact these bureaucrats wanted to exert greater control over the judges.
Girdner, I applaud you for your intuitiveness into this very real mess in the judicial branch. Long may you thrive. I also admired your father.
May some sense of honesty return to our judicial branch. Tani is not honest. She needs to be recalled.
Long live ACJ!
Recall the current chief justice!
unionman575
April 4, 2012
Girdner gets it. He nailed it in his article.
The humps at 455 Golden Gate Avenue should give it a a good long read.
Wendy Darling
April 4, 2012
“The humps at 455 Golden Gate Avenue should give it a good long read.”
That assumes the humps can actually read. Apparently not, since they can’t seem to even get their story straight regarding the BSA audit of CCMS and AOC mismanagement, and it’s been 14 months now. Which means, Unionman, that the humps at 455 Golden Gate Avenue will ignore the article, and tell anyone who might ask that Girdner is “misinformed.” You know, along with the “misinformed” at the Bureau of State Audits, the State Legislature, the Sacramento Superior Court, the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Alliance of California Judges, Court Executive Officers, court employees, and pretty much anyone else as well.
Yep, that’s the problem, Bill Girdner and all the rest of us, we are all just sooooooo “misinformed.”
Long live the ACJ.
And long live bloggers in jammies.
unionman575
April 4, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
April 5, 2012
I suspect the keeper of the government purse (legislature) will teach them to read this time around when the branch gets fucked hard financially (again) this summer. The legislature will power down Tani and Crew with a funding allocation that will make their heads all spin.
With half a billion wasted, courtrooms & courthouses closing throughout the state, and more mass employee layoffs, we are reaching critcial mass..and it all begins with a Recall.
Before we even get to the AOC, we must dispose of the ultimate master through a CJ Recall.
unionman575
April 4, 2012
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/system-347558-computer-california.html
Published: April 3, 2012 Updated: April 4, 2012 6:50 a.m.
Editorial: Government not computer-savvy
California courts fiasco latest big-money bungle of major computer system project.
anna
April 5, 2012
Read carefully, these assholes are touting “arbitration”!!!! That’s Tort Reform. Do any of you know how expensive “arbitration” is? The retired judge gets paid up to 10 grand a day, that’s before the SOB even issues one ruling. You think any individual [other than the very wealthy] can afford that? Did you know that “arbitrators” don’t have to follow the law? So much, for the rule of law. Why do you think all employers want arb. clauses in their employment contracts? To f*^K the employee.
I told you these fu^%ers [tort reformers] come out of the wood work at these times.
Our court system is/was the only way to equalize the playing field for workers, and the ordinary citizen against, abuse, by very powerful defendants. They want to dismantle it. However, these very big corporations, want to go to the courts for their disputes. Why? because it’s cheaper than arbitration. It also creates transparency, and the courts have to follow the law.
But the little guy shouldn’t be allowed to go to court. That is only for the big guys.
Wake Up!!! Team George must be creaming his shorts.
They are taking the only thing the “little guy” has. [access to the courts]
It’s what Team George and his corporate friends wanted. They want to starve the beast [govt] on the backs of the little guy. They want to tell you, you have rights, however, they won’t let into the only place you can have them enforced. [the courts]
wearyant
April 5, 2012
You’re talkin’ JAMS, right? Over 20 years ago, judges who were on the A-list of the then power mongers would get appointed to JAMS with totally screamin’ per diems. I won’t hazard a guess how much, but I assume that’s what you’re referring to as ten grand a day. Is that where it’s at now? Ten grand? Whoa.
versal-versal
April 5, 2012
4-26-2010,Hon Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the Court of Appeal stated,”Computer systems up and down the state are failing. And so CCMS is the fix. Otherwise we’re going to engage in another patchwork quilt of one county having Sustain, one county having Legacy , another county having a whole other different system which can never speak to each other, which involves millions of dollars and training as well. We’re looking at a broader fix for the branch ” This was the mantra that led us into this half a billion dollar fiasco. I really doubt computer systems all over the state were failing.Maybe a few, but they weren’t allowed to create their own solutions as the JC/AOC was mandating a centralized controlled system CCMS. Was it a problem that two systems couldn’t speak to other? No as I hardly think Alpine would ever need to speak to San Diego. And what millions would be lost how? Actually it was billions on CCMS. Now thanks to this CJ’s handpicked JC , we somehow need to spend another 8 million plus to “salvage ” CCMS or perhaps keep it alive? All these editorials cited above are great.However they lack just one thing, a call to investigate how an anti-democratic branch of government managed to waste at least 520 million dollars of taxpayer dollars on nothing . The JC/AOC needs to be held accountable and needs to explain to the under siege California taxpayer how and why a half a billion dollars was spent on absolutely nothing in this economic environment. All should demand to know, 1. When was the decision to create CCMS approved? 2. Who in the branch actually approved it? 3. Why was Deloitte selected as the vendor for this project ? Who else was considered if anyone? 4. Who actually made the decision to use Deloitte and when? 5. Why did the then CJ, and J Bruiners fight so hard to block a state audit of CCMS? 6.. Who at that point within the JC/AOC actually knew CCMS was a failure and would never work despite public claims to the contrary? 7. On what basis does the JC/AOC through its spokesperson Ms Kozak claim that the State Auditor’s figures about the multi millions wasted on all this are wrong? We all deserve answers to these questions and more ..Until then, we need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ .
JusticeCalifornia
April 5, 2012
Perhaps our gambling barmaid is thumbing her nose at everyone, and moving right ahead with CCMS via bait and switch? I mean really, why did CCMS need another $8 million right now? Let’s see. Let’s start by looking at the Grant Thornton report. Oh my, the very first necessary steps to even get V-4 ready for deployment by November 2012 cost $8 million.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemD.pdf
Page 27
San Luis Obispo Court Deployment Costs: These costs include the contract staff engaged on-site to support the San Luis Obispo deployment, and the funds agreed by the AOC and by San Luis Obispo to be provided to the court to support the court staff engaged in the deployment. This category also includes an estimate of the funds required to implement and host at the California Court Technology Center (CCTC) a Document Management System (DMS) that will be integrated with CCMS V4 and that will support the needs of San Luis Obispo and of other additional courts. The Jan 5th budget estimated these costs at $8,261,942.
Page 56
One-time Statewide IT costs for the CCMS V4 deployment comprise those costs that are related to statewide assets and that are incurred during deployment of CCMS but not during M&O on an ongoing basis. The one-time statewide IT costs estimate includes the following elements:
CCTC Document Management System Costs. These include the build-out of the shared DMS environment at the CCTC, and the professional services costs associated with implementing the DMS at the CCTC and integrating the DMS with CCMS.
Release 1 of CCMS. Before CCMS V4 can be deployed at any court, the core software must be brought up-to-date with all legislative changes since the design requirements were ‘frozen’ during CCMS V4 development . The AOC has 85 legislative changes, 76 enhancements, and 25 bug fixes that they would like to incorporate into the CCMS V4 core software to create a ‘CCMS V4 Release 1′ that will be ready to implement at the early adopter court. Deloitte is currently completing the design work for these changes under an existing contract, but a new contract for approximately $5m will be required to apply all these changes to CCMS V4 byNovember 2012. We assumed that all the estimate $5m would be expended in FY 12/13.
anna
April 5, 2012
You’re damn right. It’s not dead, there is too much to hide, and too may promises were made.Only if an investigation is done will we find out anything. CCMS is a cover for a lot of shit. Indictments need to be issued, or we will never be rid of this albatross.
wearyant
April 5, 2012
I totally object to the jc/aoc having access to $8.6 million! Why should we have to accept their claim (or grant thornton) it must be $8.6 million to “wind down” CCMS?
If ever there was a reason for emergency legislation, this is it. These fools will continue on and on wasting California taxpayers’ dollars ad infinitum. The jokesters at jc/aoc must be cut off!
Pass AB1208!
Recall Tani!
Long live ACJ!
Stuart Michael
April 6, 2012
Moving to Sacramento could transform the AOC
The SF location makes it very difficult financially for trial court employees to work for the AOC which is why there are very few AOC employees with real trial court experience and why qualified state employees from Sacto with skills the AOC needs can’t afford to take AOC positions in the City
If collective bargaining and civil service protections are good for trial courts they should apply to the AOC as well. Had they been in place maybe there would have been more Paula Negley’s willing to blow the whistle instead of hiding under their desks
this would end another legacy from Vickrey