Letters to the AOC: What exactly is in that trojan horse you pushed out on an unsuspecting public?
Posted on February 26, 2011
Subscribe:
RSS feed
California's 9.1 billion dollar reality check
13 Responses “Letters to the AOC: What exactly is in that trojan horse you pushed out on an unsuspecting public?” →
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
 | Delilah on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Sharon Kramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | MICHAEL A PAUL on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Cheryl Van Vliet on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Tony on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Maxrebo5 on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | SiteAdmin on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Delilah on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Sharon Kramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| SiteAdmin on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Cheryl Van Vliet on Give more money to the Judicia… |
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
Subtleties and grace. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
I resisted. Not anymore. I’m calling their bluff and want to see their cards.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
🙂
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Thank you Michael.
These are good questions, because yesterday Justice Bruniers stated that the CCMS product the AOC has “justifies the investment we have made” (I believe you can find that statement at or about the 4:46:09 mark of the Judicial Council meeting audiotape on the Judicial Council website.)
Mr. Carrizosa, I am not an expert but as a layperson I have a few questions, too, regarding the representations made at Judicial Council meeting yesterday.
Specifically at the 3:17:50 (three hours 17 minutes 50 seconds) or thereabouts mark of the audiotape, the council was given dire warnings about the costs of halting CCMS.
I believe the numbers include: Deloitte’s “reasonable” out of pocket costs of $1,000,000 PER WEEK. In addition, “several hundred thousand dollars per month” for “hosting charges”, and another “several hundred thousand dollars per month” for “development environments”, and “Stress testing/product testing environments” all of which I believe are taking place in Arizona??? Plus, “staffing implications” for Deloitte (200 people might have to be let go), and the AOC (professional staffers and contract staff).
At the same time the Judicial Council was being given dire warnings of this minimum –what– $4.7 OR SO MILLION THAT WOULD BE SPENT PER MONTH IF EVERYTHING WAS HALTED (almost $57 million per year)– during the presentation the Judicial Council was told that $25.4 million was budgeted this year for “development”, and thus far only $5.1 million had been spent.
I am confused. I think some Judicial Council members were too– because when one member tried to get into this (4:09:00-4:15:00) and assure that deployment was stopping pending the independent audit, I thought I heard mention of a “deployment budget” for this year– but that discussion about the AOC “deployment budget” for this year was hastily interrupted and re-directed, and not taken up again.
So here is my question: what is the 4.7 million per month being spent on besides development?
This is an especially important question because luckily one tenacious Judicial Council member (Judge Pines?) didn’t let the meeting end before getting, on the record, an assurance that THERE WOULD BE NO DEPLOYMENT, INCLUDING IN EARLY ADOPTER COURTS, UNTIL THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW WAS DONE. The CJ was obliged to confirm that (go to 4:49:10-4:50:45 to hear this).
So again, I would like to know on what that $4.7 million per month (and likely much more) is being spent right now, and also, what is the amount and purpose of the “deployment budget” that was mentioned but never discussed?
Regards, JusticeCalifornia
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
For the record, when I ask questions the AOC does not wish to answer, their canned response is usually something to the effect of “we don’t understand your question”.
I also sent philip a corrected email based on what I think is his correct email address because I got a bounce.
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
Another bounce to philip. Read it here friend.
Pubinfo went through.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
Trust me. You did not need to even send the email to get their attention. This thread has jumped a thousand reads in 4 hours.
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
What ethical leaders/survivors of all three branches with fond memories of the good old days should be saying to RG and his ethically challenged leftover regime:
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Baby, sometimes love just ain’t enough
— Patty Smythe
Michael Paul
March 18, 2011
I received a response from the AOC indicating that they would have all of the underlying data supplied to Grant Thornton by AOC people ready as of yesterday. I am still waiting for that underlying data.
Regarding the remainder of my questions which strike at the heart of my position and serve to collapse any argument for CCMS even further, the AOC indicates that “those are not requests for administrative records” and therefore you, the public, the courts and the legislature don’t need to know about the draconian cost escalations on telecom charges and network redesigns that will be required to give such a system any degree of reasonable performance. Pathetic.
Michael Paul
March 18, 2011
Heh. So yeah, what’s inside that trojan horse is barbarian hoardes ready to pilliage your courts and rape your women to use an analysis viewed elsewhere.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 23, 2011
Michael Paul indicates he has received 26 documents that claim to back up AOC’s assertions. JCW can either post these documents or as Michael Paul has suggested, calling it a day because even the state legislature wants an independent analysis.
If there is an interest in these documents to be posted here, which would take a few hours to post, please drop me a note or reply to this comment. If you would prefer to get an email from Michael Paul with the 26 documents, he indicated he would be happy to forward them on to anyone requesting them. Just drop him a note at michael_paul@michaelpaul.net Processing those requests would take a minute or two via email.
SF Whistle
March 23, 2011
I suspect most everyone on this board is well acquainted with the fact that the AOC has great skill at dishing up self-serving bull-shit….
Perhaps this is better released in an audio book format with Judnick reading?—-he’s never met an internal audit he did not like–
JusticeCalifornia
March 23, 2011
Why would JCW post 26 handpicked documents from the AOC? After destroying evidence while blocking auditor access, withholding information from auditors, and/or claiming information that any business would readily have available does not exist, you can be assured the AOC did not hand the entire picture over to Michael Paul, and you cannot be assured the documents are legitimate. But I think Michael Paul should give the documents to the independent auditor, with a note that these were provided to support the AOC’s stories.