This is an Op-Ed from JusticeCalifornia. As a minor housekeeping note, JCW will not be snoozing through tomorrow’s JC meeting in Sacramento but would like a report from anyone who does go. 🙂
We also just fixed broken links in this blog entry. You have our apologies, they work now.
2/24/2011
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU, FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME
According to the posted agenda for the February 25, 2011 Judicial Council meeting, a three-plus hour Judicial Council presentation on CCMS will take place tomorrow. Based on past presentations, I expect that this is going to be a propaganda-fest extraordinaire, designed to justify the Judicial Council /AOC $3,000,000,000 CCMS boondoggle and convince all present that the CCMS is just fine, great, terrific in fact.
I am reminded of the first Judicial Council meeting I listened to, namely the December 1, 2006 meeting. The Judicial Council, members of the legislature, the press and the public were presented with a new Trust and Confidence report and DVD of focus group video clips, and enthusiastically assured by top leadership that the public had a wonderful opinion of the branch, and judges in particular.
To place tomorrow’s CCMS presentation in perspective, let’s take a little trip down memory lane, back to 2006.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/age120106.pdf (Judicial Council Agenda for 12/1/06 meeting –see item 9)
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/120106item9.pdf (Judicial Council Trust and Confidence Report for 12/1/06 Judicial Council Meeting — presented by Huffman, Vickrey, Kann, Bolotte)
A review and analysis of the underlying 2005 draft and final Trust and Confidence reports, 2006 report, video clips, and other data on the California Courts website, reveals that the 12/1/06 presentation was terrifically misleading. Worse, the focus groups subject of the enthusiastic presentation to the Judicial Council, legislative members, press and the public had been conducted with patent disregard for proper focus group protocol as set forth in a prior Judicial Council report about how to conduct focus groups. In 2009 this troubling information about top leadership’s inability to accurately self-monitor and report (including fathers’ and mothers’ advocates describing similar problematic behavior with respect to the Elkins Task Force and related focus groups) was presented to key members of the legislature and others in an April 15, 2009 JusticeCalifornia bulletin that included links to relevant documents and video referenced.
The April 15, 2009 JusticeCalifornia bulletin can be found here.
Regards, JusticeCalifornia
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
For all you technology experts out there, here is where you can find the Grant Thornton Cost/Benefit report on CCMS:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/20110225itemj.pdf
I am not a technology person at all, by any means, no way, no how, but while JCW’s tech experts are hard at work doing the in-depth work/analysis of this report, I will report certain red flags I notice.
I have only gotten to page 27 of the report so far. To cut to the chase of what I have read, here is my preliminary take on the AOC’s ultimate, most fabulous CCMS goal, namely, “let’s assert control over all 58 courts, assure their dependence upon us, and most importantly, keep the bloated AOC and our buddies raking in judicial branch funds at the state (rather than local) level, and keep us in business and in control for a VERY long time” . As far as I can tell, this should scare the heck out of everyone. Someone correct me if I am wrong. JusticeCalifornia’s comments (mostly definitions) are in brackets.
Page 24
“4.2.1 Summary of alternative
This scenario assumes that CCMS is deployed state-wide to all 58 superior courts. Within this scenario, Grant Thornton assumes that all courts will operate on a standard CCMS platform maintained by AOC at the CCTC [JusticeCalifornia note: that means California Court Technology Center– isn’t this that faraway place in Arizona that Sacramento has had such trouble with?] . AOC will also implement an enterprise DMS [JusticeCalifornia note: that means document management system] solution that will also be maintained at the CCTC. Courts that have already established a DMS at the time of CCMS deployment will have their DMS solutions integrated with CCMS. For those courts that do not have a DMS at the time of CCMS deployment, their CCMS deployment will also include integration with the enterprise DMS, which will become part of the court’s CCMS solution. AOC will also implement electronic interfaces with those State and local JPs that are prepared to exchange data electronically with each court.
This scenario assumes a mixture of vendor [JusticeCalifornia note: the vendor mentioned thus far has been Deloitte] and AOC labor to deploy the CCMS implementation. In this scenario, the AOC would contract with one or more implementation vendors to assist with the following early adopter, large, and extra-large courts:
• San Diego
• Ventura
• San Luis Obispo
• Fresno
• Orange
• Sacramento
• San Joaquin
• Santa Clara
• Alameda
• Riverside
• San Bernardino
• San Francisco
• Los Angeles
The AOC would use internal staffing resources to deploy CCMS to the remaining 45 courts.”
Now people, here is just one of Grant Thornton’s many admitted caveats/limitations about its cost/benefit analysis of CCMS:
Page 3
“The scope of the CBA [JC note: that means cost benefit analysis] does not include an evaluation of current or prior CCMS work, nor does it include an assessment of the AOC’s ability to successfully deliver the system. ”
More anon.
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
More Grant Thornton caveats/limitations:
Page iii
“CCMS operations and maintenance costs are based on figures received directly from AOC CCMS project leadership. Court CCMS operations and maintenance costs primarily reflect assumed out-of-pocket expenses for courts during ongoing CCMS operations.”
Page v
“Any delays in project schedule will have a significant negative impact on CCMS ROI.”
[JusticeCalifornia note: ROI means return on investment]
“Any budget overruns by the project will increase state-level deployment costs and directly reduce CCMS ROI.”
“Any increases in court deployment costs will also directly reduce CCMS ROI.”
SF Whistle
February 26, 2011
A project as bloated and sloppy as CCMS should not be allowed to use terms from the world where actual business is transacted—“ROI”—there will never be an ROI in circumstances where you have multi-billion dollar overruns….
This strange excuse for a cost benefit analysis is laughable: You can not describe a cost benefit analysis as valid unless ALL funds are accounted for—and instead we find:
“The scope of the CBA [JC note: that means cost benefit analysis] does not include an evaluation of current or prior CCMS work, nor does it include an assessment of the AOC’s ability to successfully deliver the system. ”—
It is clear this is nothing more than a PR document intended to be passed off as a cost benefit analysis….If anyone attempted this gross a misrepresentation in the real world of business they would find themselves in litigation….?….more lipstick-on-the-pig…..
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Bottom line, the AOC wants everyone to put their eggs in one basket (the AOC basket), based on promises of future savings and trust that they and their “vendors” and contractors will manage the business of all 58 courts out of an Arizona facility, in a professional, timely and financially responsible manner.
Like I said, fool me once. . . . .
Here is an interesting news story from San Diego about more outrageous AOC waste:
http://www.10news.com/video/27004394/index.html
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
I’m happy to be thoroughly vindicated by the media on my allegations and they’ve only begun to scratch the surface. My question is why are they all still in power while conscientious citizens like Jon Wintermeyer and myself are out of a job for pointing out these costs?
SF Whistle
February 26, 2011
This 10 News link leaves you not knowing whether to laugh or cry—There should be arrests rather than resignations—
I have difficulty understanding why Madoff is locked up for the rest of his life for his abuse of investors while we call for resignations of management that has allowed theft from taxpayers—-arrest them—-
The Thornton “report” should be something paid for personally by those responsible for retaining Thornton to produce a campaign brochure—it is NOT under any circumstances a proper CBA—this kind of crap is insult to injury….
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
The experts say it’s not worth the paper it is printed on so save a tree and don’t bother printing it.
First of all we’re told that Grant Thornton is an experienced AOC hired gun consulting firm that will justify what they are paid to justify. Second, much of the underlying assumptions and data as stated in the report come from the AOC, yet are not contained in the report itself. This makes validation of CBA impossible without the presence of underlying data, such as per court licensing costs for sofware they already have and many of the other facts and figures associated with the various scenarios or even something as simple as the survey questions and survey results. The AOC will claim this as all being proprietary and not subject to disclosure.
Every major cost we outlined earlier and identified would be excluded from the report was in fact, excluded.
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
Garbage in = Garbage out.
Is there anyone willing to do an INDEPENDENT cost benefits analysis for the AOC?
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Yesterday, I believe the AOC said Grant Thornton was recommended by the OCIO. The audio cast and reports from yesterday’s Judicial Council meeting are on the California Courts webste. I am still working my way through them.
Grant Thornton was clearly and admittedly saddled with garbage in, garbage out problems– namely, having to rely on certan AOC cost representations/estimates, and also not being able to comment on the AOC’s past and current CCMS performance, or ability to deploy and manage CCMS in the future.
The handwriting is on the wall, in the news, in court reports, in letters from judges and legislators, everywhere. At extraordinary taxpayer cost, the AOC has gleefully and irresponsibly jumped into building construction, court maintenance, and computer management– rather than using existing experienced state entities.
Let’s again look at San Diego news this month:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/08/court-cost-to-fix-a-squeaky-door-46035/#
The punchline from this article — out of the mouth of AOC spokesman Philip Carrizosa:
“We are still pretty new to this world of building maintenance,” he said. “We’ve learned a lot in the past 18 months and with this proposal we will be doing things differently than in the past.”
The Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and AOC, want the public, the legislature, the Governor and the 58 trial courts to trust the AOC (which cannot even responsibly manage basic building maintenance like changing lightbulbs), to “deploy” and “manage” a massively complicated, problematic and expensive state court case management system.
Woo hoo.
Yes, notwithstanding these stories, and the scathing BSA CCMS report, doesn’t it make perfect sense for responsible legislators, trial court leaders, the Governor, and the public to trust the AOC and agree to keep lining the pockets of the three recurring names in the multi-billion dollar court construction/maintenance/computer boondoggles:
AOC
Jacobs
Deloitte.
Again, it is a damn good thing the ACJ is moving proactively to assert trial court control, and eliminate third branch “exemptions” from state law. The ACJ — along with the growing ranks of whistleblowers/truthtellers and responsible legislators– are keeping the branch from falling down the rabbit hole.
Now, where is law enforcement? How long will the FBI/DOJ let the financial rape and pillage of taxpayers continue? where are the public corruption indictments?
Jon Wintermeyer
February 26, 2011
The AOC spokesperson Philip Carrizosa needs to get the story straight before he goes on record. The history story is that the AOC has been letting Team Jacobs gouge them on work orders since 2005 in southern CA and since 2007 in the BANCRO area, that’s a lot more time than 18 months, more like 5 plus years. As I have noted before, the reason the BANCRO Courts were told that we were getting Team Jacobs as a replacement for EMCOR was because of their raved about performance reviews down there. So now the AOC’s magic of mirrors and math comes into place, because there was no waste with Team Jacobs, they weren’t working for us prior to 18 months ago according to Philip, it only looked like them. But if it waddles like a TJ, quacks like TJ, rips you off like TJ etc, etc isn’t it still Team Jacobs. So where are the AOC books for maintenance invoices for that time ? Have they been shredded after the inhouse audit team finished with them ? There were no lessons learned from the gouging maintenance costs for this time period ? Philip you need a better script writer or learn to be a better liar,like those around you in the AOC.
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
What happened eighteen months ago to give them all that education?
My whistleblower complaint to John Judnick.
The AOC hopes all of you gullible people out there are buying this as all being an innocent mistake, a series of innocent oversights on their part. Just your average, run of the mill half billion dollar plus learning experience. Nothing to worry your pretty little head over, move along now, nothing to see here.
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Yup. A whole bunch of multi-million dollar “mistakes”.
But to make y’all feel better, I have real pretty bridge for sale, if y’all are in the market for a great deal.
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
Those rave performance reviews of Jacobs in SRO were fabrications. Emcor was alleged to had been submitting false claims for work and was canned. Team Jacobs, whom AOC employees thought was submitting even more false claims than Emcor, got a no-bid contract extension into Emcor’s former service area. Out of the three initial service providers, Emcor was the only one who had a valid contractors license. Emcor was the only company that had in-depth experience in building management control systems. The management in FMU traded the petty thieves for grand larceny.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
Just imagine how much money you could skim off an unlicensed contractor to keep quiet about their status. You might even be able to collude with them to charge you more and spread the wealth around. You might easily be able to hold a company like deloitte economically hostage for a similar kickback scheme given they were embroiled in other litigation statewide. It helps to have friends in high places in the judiciary. If you are, oh, lets say, The Los Angeles Unified School District whose payroll system is screwed, instead of suing them for fouling up your payroll system, you realize that your allegations could fall on deaf ears in front of a CCMS supporting judge. So, instead of litigating to get the mess fixed at Deloitte’s cost, you find youself returning to them hat in hand with a thirty million dollar check.
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Six years of TJ and the AOC ripping the taxpayers off, and the judicial branch may not/does not have substantiating invoices for the costs/services rendered . . . .
Sounds like a racket to me.
JusticeCalifornia
February 27, 2011
Today’s story in the San Diego paper:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/26/court-repair-contract-questioned/#
SF Whistle
February 27, 2011
Isn’t the old saying something about “twice is coincidence and three times is a pattern”…
The “just under $500 crime spree is not coincidence—it is criminal activity–those that should be arrested are not simply those that provided the “just under reportable $500 service—-but also their accomplices within the branch. It does not require much beyond mild curiousity to discover this crime–
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
There is an interesting article in Courthouse News. Elaine Howle is clearly stating the real costs to be more like 3 billion dollars and has called the AOC’s Cost/Benefits analysis one that is based on unrealistic assumptions and incomplete facts and figures.
So what makes all of these people who don’t know anything about technology or software believe anything different? I think it’s time to de-fund CCMS because they just don’t get it.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/03/34643.htm
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2011
Gotta love those calling for state audits. Gotta love the JLAC committee. Gotta love the state auditor. (Checks and balances in action.)
And gotta love the press for reporting it all.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you.
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2011
And now for a little self-love, as this historic third branch revolution progresses– gotta love AOC Watcher, and JCW, who have put in extraordinary effort and hours, and those who have faithfully documented, reported and/or posted (and also put in extraordinary effort and hours). . .
We all, in our own ways but together, have done amazing things. 🙂
Let’s not forget or underestimate that.
wendy darling
March 3, 2011
And long live the Alliance of California Judges.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 4, 2011
Great article about how not to answer a question – AOC style.
Judge Pines vs. AOC Finance Department Re: CCMS costs
wendy darling
March 4, 2011
In the words of the Honorable Charles Horan, this is just more “flapdoodle” and Orwellian double-speak from the AOC. No wonder Elaine Howle and the State Legislature didn’t buy it.