The less obvious part of Pravda which is a combination of several pieces of the AOC that includes the Office of Governmental Affairs has contacted PJ’s and CEO’s across this state.
In a letter obtained by JCW, Curtis Child, the Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs urges PJ’s and CEO’s to contact the members of the Budget Conference Committee on SB 69, citing the dire consequences of the AOC being subjected to the Public Contract Code.
Mr Child explains in his plea for support “This means that for the remaining 7 projects authorized by SB 1732 and all 41 authorized by SB 1407, DGS would have to manage the bidding, enter into contracts for construction and manage the construction. Additionally, DGS does not have authority for CM@Risk, so they would use the old design-bid-build method, resulting in increased costs, lower quality and good chance for claims litigation. Additionally, the AOC has selected design firms for all the projects, but since we would not hold contracts for construction, we would likely have to assign those design contracts to DGS.”
Like that’s a bad thing? I bet the boys and girls at DGS wouldn’t be building any courthouses for $1910.00 per square foot or paying $409.00 for clock batteries.
Mr. Child goes on to explain that holding the AOC construction funds accountable to fraud, waste, abuse and public corruption laws will result in an unnecessary year delay in the creation of up to a hundred thousand jobs, projects will have to be canceled and that DGS Construction vs. AOC Construction will result in higher building operating costs and higher costs of ownership.
This is a claim from a government agency that spends more per square foot on building maintenance and operations than DGS does and gets less for it.
Mr. Child, I’m not buying your snake oil. What subjecting the construction funds to public contract code really means is the end of bid rigging, bid steering and bid shopping and construction kickbacks. It means a more open and transparent bidding process that will result in lower costs. It means that your contractors must be properly licensed and bonded and can’t go down to Home Depot and hire day laborers like they can now. Finally it means that the people who run the office of court corruption and malfeasance will have to pay much greater attention to design, instead of blowing it through so fast you end up with an overly expensive substandard building that rains indoors. (Sorry to pick on you East Contra Costa County Courthouse)
Judicial Council Watcher 
wendy darling
March 1, 2011
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” said Henny Penny.
From Wikipedia:
Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, is a fable in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase The sky is falling! features promininently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.
JusticeCalifornia
March 1, 2011
Yes, Wendy, it is ever so interesting how our novice CJ and her RG leftovers are hysterically running around and telling anyone and everyone who will listen that if there is ANY delay in ANY project set in motion by RG and his leftovers it will be positively, absolutely, horribly disastrous.
Which begs the question– for whom? Deloitte? Jacobs? The overfed, bloated appropriately-maligned AOC that is telling people to a) shred incriminating records and b) passing out million dollar bills like popcorn to its underqualified buddies with documented bad track records?
Michael Paul
March 1, 2011
Moving OCCM under DGS is a matter of paperwork. Just do the paperwork, gut the management, re-train everyone else to do things the legal way and move on. There would be virtually no interruption unless the AOC themselves created the interruption.
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2011
This should be done. The AOC has proven it cannot responsibly manage taxpayer funds or court construction and maintenance. This job should be turned over to those who have experience, who abide by the law, and who can be held properly accountable.
Michael Paul
March 2, 2011
Maybe this is best characterized by the saying,
Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.
wendy darling
March 1, 2011
From Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News Service, published today, March 1, 2011:
Judicial Bureaucrats Unveil Positive Analysis of Much Maligned Case Management Project
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A new report claims a troubled and massive IT project will eventually save at least $300 million per year, if it is installed in the state’s 58 trial courts by 2016 without any hitches. The long-overdue cost-benefit analysis was unveiled Friday and reflects a largely rosy outlook for the Court Case Management System based on a multitude of positive assumptions.
The positive cost-benefit analysis by the English accounting firm Grant Thornton follows a blistering audit by California’s state auditor saying the IT project had been mismanaged, that it had no funding source, that the large majority of trial courts did not support it, and that the judicial bureaucrats had not revealed the full cost of the $1.9 billion project to the legislature.
The cost-benefit analysis report was presented on Friday to the judiciary’s governing body, the Judicial Council, before many of its members had been able to read through it. The Administrative Office of the Courts, nominally underneath the council, promised through a press release that the report would be posted Thursday afternoon.
But it was not posted until Friday morning shortly before the Judicial Council meeting with the result that very few members of the council had read the report and no critics could prepare for public comments at the same meeting.
Presenting the cost-benefit analysis, Graeme Finley with Grant Thornton said it was unusual that a major court IT project would be conducting a cost-benefit analysis “several years into the development.” He said, “Normally, this is something you would do early on.”
The dense, 129-page report is filled with a number of scenarios and assumptions.
The most positive combination of assumptions finds that CCMS will eventually save the state roughly $300 million annually, starting in 2016. However, Grant Thornton also estimated that from 2002 to 2014, the AOC will have spent almost $1 billion just for deployment.
Finley said it will cost about $1.5 billion to develop and deploy the latest version of CCMS by July 2011.
“There are a lot of assumptions here,” said judicial council member and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Burt Pines. “I’ve seen higher numbers than this in terms of costs in the auditor’s report.”
Courthouse News obtained an independent analysis of the cost-benefit report from accountant and auditor Karen Covel with the San Diego firm Lauer, Georgatos & Covel, APC, which provides accounting services for Courthouse News Service.
Covel said the report addresses none of the “serious concerns” raised by state uditor Howle.
“In fact, the scope of the cost-benefit analysis specifically excludes an evaluation of current or prior CCMS work, and does not include an assessment of the AOC’s ability to successfully deliver the system,” said Covel. “Cost assumptions were based on figures provided by the AOC, and Grant Thornton did not audit these figures.”
“Given the State Auditor’s report and the AOC’s past performance, the CBA report should be taken with a grain of salt.” In an interview, Covel added, “If I was a decision-maker and I read the state audit then dug into this, I’d throw it in the trash.”
State auditor Howle had written that the project would cost at least $1.9 billion, not including the costs that individual courts would incur trying to implement it. “Thus, the AOC will need roughly 24 years to recover the investment in the
project once CCMS is deployed to all 58 superior courts,” Howle wrote.
Howle’s office was contacted for comment on Grant Thornton’s cost-benefit analysis, but Howle was unavailable.
AOC Finance Director Stephen Nash said the roughly $500 million discrepancy was accounted for in Grant Thornton’s decision not to count the costs of two interim versions — called V-2 and V-3 — of the IT system.
Finley added, “We consider it reasonable to consider V-2 and V-3 separate systems.”
To arrive at the numbers presented in the report, the Grant Thornton team electronically surveyed 48 courts, conducted telephone interviews with 28 courts and personally visited courts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Solano, Plumas and Ventura counties. The electronic survey was gathered through a common program, called “Survey Monkey,” used widely in college projects.
The consultant did not include a copy of the electronic survey in the cost-benefit analysis.
In his presentation, Finley also said the computer project could generate an additional approximately $197 million in revenue by 2021, provided that the AOC and individual courts are able to charge the public $4 for name searches, $7.50 for electronic document requests and $10 for credit card transactions.
Regarding the name search and document request fees, the report said, “Grant Thornton assumed that the AOC will be legally permitted to assess such fees.”
The report makes a series of additional assumptions about the project’s cost-effectiveness, including that the latest version of the system works, that all 58 courts will be on board with using it, that the system will face no delays in deployment and that AOC staff will be able to handle much of the deployment workload.
But the project still faces a major funding hurdle. The legislature has not established funding for CCMS, and most of the financing for it has come from funds for trial court operations. “We have some major issues here with funding,” said Judge Pines. “Whether its $1.3 billion or $1.9 billion, we have to have some confidence that the money will be there.”
Judge Charles Horan of Los Angeles Superior Court tried to obtain a copy of the report in order to request to speak during the Judicial Council meeting’s public comment period, but was told by Justice Richard Huffman, Executive and Planning Committee chair, that a copy was not available.
In his response to Justice Huffman, Judge Horan said it would be impossible for him to make his request to speak within four days of the meeting, as required by the Judicial Council, if he did not have a copy of the report, as the council requires an extensive summary from public commenters of the topic on which they are requesting to speak.
“How do you expect anyone to write a cogent request to speak on the cost benefit analysis without reading it?” said Horan. “We can’t read it since the AOC hasn’t released it, we cannot reply to a brief we have not read.”
Mark Moore, newly-appointed head of the project’s technical end, said the current budget approved by the Judicial Council for developing the latest V-4 version of CCMS is $25.4 million, $5.1 million of which has already been spent. “I can say confidently that we will not go over budget,” said Moore.
In August of last year, the deputy director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Ron Overholt, promised legislators in a public hearing that the entire IT project would not go over $1.3 billion, saying that the figure of $1.3 billion was “an absolute cap” for the IT project.
But earlier this month, the state auditor told the legislature that the AOC would spend at least $1.9 billion on the IT project, well over the promised cap amount.
In Friday’s presentation to the Judicial Council, Finley said, “Courts usually start out by digging a hole for themselves. Productivity goes down and there’s a backlog. You have to assume it’s going to take some time. It could be a full year before any of these benefits start to kick in.”
Finley added, “As a general rule, there are always more things that can go wrong.”
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 1, 2011
Our experts said save a tree and don’t bother printing it.
CNS’s experts say, if you did print it throw it in the trash.
Personally, I think our way is more eco-friendly. 😉
I’m an avid fan of courthouse news and Maria Dinzeo.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 2, 2011
The take-away that most people should be able to see through the Judicial Council’s lobbying efforts is that they’re flat out saying we will not be the subject of fraud, waste, abuse or public corruption laws.
Rather than subject ourselves to this level of oversight, we would rather have DGS do this work. This lobbying effort underscores the lengths that the AOC and Judicial Council will go to avoid transparency and accountability.
Think of this in terms of federal stimulus dollars when they were available. If what we were blogging about now, was being blogged about then (just 3 years ago) there would be an avalanche of support for moving these operations out of the AOC and over to DGS to qualify for those federal stimulus dollars rather than you courts having to lay off employees.
Did this discussion ever take place before?
Why don’t you think this discussion ever took place?
Michael Paul
March 2, 2011
That’s the same conclusion I arrived at. They’re willing to spin off new construction to DGS to avoid the oversight mechanisms of the public contract code. That accounts for 6.5 billion dollars of questionable AOC spending that gets placed in the hands of responsible government.
Michael Paul
March 3, 2011
I’m just an ignerunt komputer injuneer but it seems to me the person that can best answer this question too, would be on the Executive & Planning Committee. Seems alot of things blow from that general direction if you know what I mean.
What do you say Mr. Huffman, do you have an answer for the 37.5 million Californians as to why this question never came up?
Michael Paul
March 3, 2011
Let me add the 20,000 judicial branch employees that might have an interest in getting that question answered too, along with the state legislature, etc.
wendy darling
March 2, 2011
From Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News, published today, Wednesday, March 2, 2011. Long live the ACJ.
Note to JCW: Please consider this as a nomination of Maria Dinzeo and Assembly member Luis Alejo to the JCW Hall of Fame.
Legislator Calls for Defunding of IT Project
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A central coast assemblyman has called for a halt to any funding for a costly court IT project and a restriction on the ability of bureaucrats to divert money from trial court operations to support it. Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) said Wednesday that he would push the Legislature’s Joint Budget Conference Committee to insert draft language into a trailer bill that would restrict funding for the project.
Those trailer bills, said Alejo, should be voted on early next week. His proposed language would stop the Administrative Office of the Courts from spending any trial court operation money on the Court Case Management System, an ambitious IT project that has drawn increasing fire from legislators and judges.
“I wanted to make sure that in the court’s budget there was specific language to include that because I don’t want them to have that flexibility to divert critical court finding to CCMS,” Alejo said.
In a letter sent to the joint budget committee this week, Alejo said he did not have confidence in the system and “that continuing to support it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
He criticized “out of control” costs for the IT project intended to connect the state’s 58 trial courts, pegged at $1.9 billion in a report by the state auditor. The legislator also attacked the diversion of trial court funds to pay those expenses.
“Initial estimates had put the cost of CCMS at $206 million, but as of June 2010, the program has already spent $407 million and is projected to cost $2.5 billion to finish developing and training court employees and justice partners how to use the system,” said Alejo in criticizing the Administrative Office of the Courts, generally referred to by its acronym AOC. “Moreover, because of failures by the AOC to properly structure its contract with the vendor, the contract now costs $310 million, nearly 10 times the initial estimate.”
“The AOC has repeatedly cut into the operating budget of the courts to find money for CCMS,” said Alejo’s letter. “The cost of creating CCMS has devastated the courts’ ability to provide necessary services to the community and the AOC must not be allowed to continue diverting money to CCMS except when they were originally designated for that purpose.”
Alejo said in an interview on Wednesday that he thought all funding should be put on hold until there is an independent review of the latest version of the system and its practicality, as was strongly recommended by state Auditor Elaine Howle.
Alejo is a member of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee that heard testimony from Howle on February 15, where she expressed grave concern over the project’s success and cost.
At a meeting on Friday, judicial administrators from the AOC presented to its titular head, the Judicial Council, a cost-benefit analysis that predicted the project’s financial success in about ten years, assuming there were no problems installing the latest version of the controversial and time consuming program in all 58 courts by 2016.
Alejo said, “I actually have copy of it in front of me. It’s simply not enough.”
He added that the administrators need to do more to convince the legislature that the computer project works and is worthy of funding.
He suggested another hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee wherein the adminstrative office would present the results of the independent review recommended by auditor Howle.
At Friday’s Judicial Council meeting, administrators said they believed an independent review would be expensive and would delay the project’s installation schedule. Mark Moore, head of the project’s technical end, said the AOC would have to pay development vendor Deloitte $1 million a week for halting the IT pojrect in order to do an independent review.
The administrators said they had ultimately decided that the independent review should instead be put on hold while the latest version of the IT project completes development and testing phases.
“I think they’re making a major mistake by taking that approach,” Alejo said. “It would be very wise for the AOC to be open to implementing the suggestions by the auditor in a timely fashion.” He added that delaying an independent review “would be miscalculating where the legislature stands on this.”
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2011
The independent audit should take place forthwith, and it should include a comprehensive taxpayer-friendly analysis (read: no-holds-barred reality check) of a) the Judicial Council/AOC’s past and current promises/performance; b) their projected ability, based on past performance, to RESPONSIBLY (technically, ethically, practically, financially) further develop/deploy/manage their proposed CCMS system; and c) taxpayer/court-user friendly alternatives.
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2011
JCW, might I make a suggestion?
It would be helpful if JCW had a thread devoted to the pending legislation about the Trial Courts Rights Act, the construction code, and CCMS. Specifically, a link to the legislation, a link to damning information supporting the legislation (the audit reports, news reports, etc.), a list of the contact information for all those on the senate and assembly judiciary committees, and others legislators who have shown an interest in these subjects, updates regarding key dates–votes, discussions, public testimony, etc., and simple sample letters that can be electronically downloaded, signed, and sent via e-mail or regular mail.
So for those who want to help, all the information is in one place, they can check the board daily, they can make calls and send letters to the legislators easily, they can schedule attendance at hearings, etc.
Sample letter –what do you think? (ACJ members/supporters may want to weigh in privately about perfect letters to send):
Dear Senator —-
I am writing to express my grave concern about the waste and mismanagement of taxpayer funds by the California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”). Our state is in the middle of an economic crisis. Courthouses have been closed, court services have been cut, and court employees have been laid off. Yet we read every day about the AOC paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to members of its ever-expanding workforce of permanent and contract employees; funding the construction of some of the most expensive new courthouses in the country; irresponsibly spending billions of dollars on a failed computer system that has been “in the works” for over 10 years and that may never work properly; using unlicensed and inexperienced personnel to maintain courthouses at outrageous cost (over $300 to change a lightbulb!), and so much more. The AOC continues to admit and apologize for its expensive past mistakes and mismanagement, and continues to promise to do better in the future, but California taxpayers cannot afford to rely on what time and again have proven to be empty promises.
Certain members of the legislature have undertaken proposed legislation designed to stop AOC waste and mismanagement of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds.
I support [insert bill numbers] and, for the protection of the public, urge you and your colleagues to do what you can to make sure this legislation passes.
Thank you. ”
Or words to that effect. . . .
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
Someone read this post before me, walked up behind me and slapped me in the back of my head and asked me why I didn’t already take care of this using this platform.
I gave them a dumb look and said “I dunno”.
Look for heavy modifications to the Citizen Action thread soon.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
It has been suggested, that before we embark on a similar effort, if someone has or can prepare a word template that can be opened up on the internet for this purpose. In this form, you would fill in your address and choose your legislator from a drop-down menu. It, in turn would auto-fill the address to the legislator, with phone, fax and email addresses. It would populate the name after “dear” have a pre-printed message of endorsement and allow you to add your own message. You could then save it and email it to your legislator or you can print it off, sign and mail it.
As other elements of the task of developing citizen action will take some time due to current projects, with this being a specialized element specific to Microsoft word development, we seek a volunteer to design two templates. One for public contract code, one for the trial courts rights act.
If one has the skills but is unwilling to donate their services in creating these templates, we would entertain purchasing them if you give us a fixed price for each one. Contact judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com if you will donate or sell such a product to us.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
We’re getting word through the grapevine that the office of court construction and management did not, in fact have CM@Risk authority from the state legislature and that this post in this blog has enlightened our legislature greatly.
We’re trying to confirm what else we were told regarding this as that would be real news…..
JusticeCalifornia
March 3, 2011
For those of us who are not familiar with terms of the trade, what is “CM@Risk authority”, and what is the significance of having, or not having it?
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
The contractor acts as an agent of the AOC, joining the project in the design stage and gives the project a guaranteed maximum price, which isn’t always a guaranteed maximum price. Public contract code requires hard bidding. CM@risk is not hard bidding. Hard bidding is usually less expensive but has its own pitfalls called change orders. If you do insufficient constructability assessments and poor design verification then you have lots of change orders. The construction management industry says that both methods cost about the same in the end, factoring in all risks. However, CM@Risk is more convenient for the AOC project manager as the relationship can be less adversarial than a hard bid, especially when it comes to change orders.
Jon Wintermeyer
March 3, 2011
The Arnason Justice Center in CC County that was completed in the fall of 2010 in Pittsburg at a cost of $64.5 million was done CM@risk by the AOC OCCM and the CM was Sundt Contruction from Sacramento, CA. I remember the meeting at CC Court training room when mangement personnel from Sundt were introduced by the AOC OCCM Project Management Team of Pearl Freeman and Rona Rothenberg.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 3, 2011
Do you recall what the gmp (guaranteed maximum price) was Jon? CM@Risk can also milk you dry if you’re the owner not paying attention. As indicated, the so called guaranteed maximum price is rarely a guaranteed maximum price.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 4, 2011
I received your email Jon re: guaranteed maximum price.
We understand this courthouse, built by whom many consider to be the AOC’s most conscientious architect / project manager with unparalleled attention to detail amongst her OCCM peers (Pearl Freeman) experienced serious cost escalation issues that were absorbed not through the “at risk” element of the contractors guaranteed maximum price but by an increase in the GMP to the AOC.
JusticeCalifornia
March 15, 2011
The press is reporting the CA Court debacle, and the new CJ is running around crying “Foul” in an apparent attempt to generate sympathy. I agree with JCW’s comment on another thread:
“Don’t back off for even one second. The honeymoon is over. -JCW”
I was all for giving the new CJ the benefit of the doubt, even after she sat at the Judicial Council meeting last Fall, and asked members to adopt John Judnick’s self-serving report saying it was just fine that Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner and the AOC had destroyed important court child custody documents in the middle of a state audit. She, a former prosecutor with a background in domestic violence and child abuse, understood the danger this poses to parents and children in the family law system. She didn’t care. She was willing to sacrifice the safety of children, and the due process rights of parents.
I was still a hold out, even after she participated in a well-planned (but patently stupid) disinformation strategy plastered all over the California Courts website, released the same day the CCMS audit report was. We have all ripped apart that stupid strategy on this blog and moved on, but as the world looks at what has gone down here, let’s remember that this strategy remains a powerful example of exactly how the Judicial Council and AOC have –for many years– purposefully misled the legislature and the public about the cost and efficacy of the failed multi-billion dollar CCMS system.
We all know if our new CJ wants any credibility she has to clean house, starting with her most notoriously, historically bad players.
But on February 22, 2011, at her Marin County Bar Association appearance, after describing her inexperience, Cantil Sakauye made it clear that she has no intention of cleaning house. She announced that controversial Judicial Councilmember/Marin Court Executive Officer Kim Turner is a VERY important part of her new Judicial Council venture involving placing Court Executive Officers like Turner in courts all around the state. Let’s face it—a major function of this new program is to make sure the trial courts “follow the party line” and to provide information to top leadership about who needs to be “brought into line”. The selection of Turner as a major player in this program is telling. Turner is the former assistant to Turner’s self-described “friend” and “boss extraordinaire”, former Marin Court Executive Officer John Montgomery. Montgomery was arrested in 2005 on 10 felony counts of conflict of interest after funneling over $650,000 in court funds to his live-in girlfriend during his tenure as Marin CEO, and engaging in other improper expenditures. Turner was the subject of at least two separate AOC misconduct investigation reports, and was criticized by top leadership in the 2005 AOC report for signing off on Montgomery’s improper expenditures, and waiting so long to report him. She was also the subject of public demands for a criminal investigation at an October 2010 Marin public protest regarding her destruction of court documents while a state audit was pending.
So while the new Chief Justice is running around telling the world how mean everyone is to her, and how she should be “given a chance”, the world needs to be reminded that in fact she has already been given many chances. Instead of throwing open her doors to those she serves, cleaning house, and welcoming much-needed and constructive criticism from the state auditor and legislature, she continues to knowingly, willfully and purposefully support and implement a corrupt and outdated construct that has brought disgrace and disrepute to the branch.
She has made her own bed in the very messy judicial house she has moved into, and is being forced to sleep in it.
Life isn’t going to get better, until she changes the dirty sheets, and takes out the garbage.
The public gets it. The legislature gets it. Many judges get it. The press gets it. The nation is getting it. Corruption and oppression in the CA Judicial Branch will not be tolerated anymore. The new CJ needs to get it, or get out. For the sake of the branch.
JusticeCalifornia
March 15, 2011
One more thing.
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye did indeed desire, seek and accept the job she now has. She definitely knew what she was getting into. Many of us posting on this blog did not, when we took the jobs we now have (or, for some, the jobs they have lost).
So Cantil-Sakauye must stop blaming anyone and everyone other than herself, for where she presently, and VERY predictably finds herself (baby, the handwriting has been on the wall, and you ignored it); and she must stop whining/complaining; and she must stop trying to take the “easy” way out. All of those habits/traits are unbecoming of someone who aspires to be a leader. I was once told that if you want to play with the big dogs, you cannot pee like a puppy. I pass along that advice to our new CJ.
I say that as a female lawyer who quite unexpectedly has been in the trenches for years.
No excuses.
Once again, CJ C-S, get it, or do the branch a favor, and get out.