Will the AOC be accepting a defective CCMS to save face?

Posted on April 26, 2011

51


Along with information being provided by others here on the site we’re also getting information that leads us to believe that the JC/AOC may be accepting CCMS as it stands regardless of the state of the application in an effort to save face. 

They wish to present the appearance of being so far down the rabbit hole that there is no way to return. Basically, a bunch of people will be denying you their honest services in an effort to buy yet more time for CCMS development.

There is also some leaks about possible strategy to manage the project in light of bleak funding prospects. There is no way that the Judicial Council themselves could have approved the expenditure of 1.9-3.0 billion dollars without first knowing where it was coming from or how much it was projected to cost. In various circles, the AOC has described the development of CCMS as an iterative process, yet there is no documentation supporting CCMS being developed as part of an iterative software development process according to the audit report. This would not be an iterative software development process but an iterative contract amendment process.

The leaks about managing the project go along the lines of deploying the system (when it works) to three early adopter courts, then abandoning the project due to a lack of funding and political pressure, not because it is a flawed product.

Do you know any of the CCMS testers? Do you know if the product will function as designed using real life data payloads and multiple simultaneous users? Will these systems be operated out of the CCTC or locally, like they do in Orange County?

Tell us more about the JC/AOC accepting a defective application to save face.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Appended: A little historical analysis behind the creation of CCMS and empire building from one of our respected posters.

1.    1992 –  Bill Vickrey arrives from Utah.  Being promoted from a probation officer to head of their Dept of Corrections to the head of the Administrative Office of the Utah Courts almost overnight.  The plan he uses in Utah is supplied from the National Center of State Courts (NCSC).

2.    November 1992 – The Judicial Council has a dinner meeting in SF.  The discussion is held regarding the fundamental change and “updating” of the role of the Judicial Council by Bill V.  This model follows that he used in Utah as provided to him by the NCSC.  Under the leadership of CJ Malcolm Lucas, Vickrey’s ideas aren’t too important.

3.  1996 – The arrival of “the ego” Ronald George.  From his time as Criminal Presiding Judge in Los Angeles, colleagues viewed him as being an egomaniacal wonder.  Latches on to Bill V, as they both have the same “vision” for expansion.

4.  1999 – Takeover of the New Judges’ Orientation (NJO) program.  New judges report to 455 Golden Gate Avenue for a weeks indoctrination.  The highlight is a visit to the Crystal Palace and a picture with he Chief and Bill V.  The message of this week long training is that you work for us, the Chief Justice and Judicial Council controls the courts. (You work for Ronald, not Arnold…not the people)

5.  The “Vision” for Courts in California.  The Judicial Council adopts the new vision for the courts, in which the CJ will have power to control the trial courts.  Under the theory that it is important to have continuity of leadership, the JC and AOC think the CJ should have influence/power to appoint local PJ’s and CEO’s.

6.  2004-05 – Effort to take over the entirety of the Superior Courts by the proposed amendment to Article VI.  The Chief, JC and AOC almost made it happen. They claimed the move was orchestrated by Dunn and Ackerman.  A lonely member of the CJA Executive Board sees what Terry B. Friedman  is trying to get through a consent calendar and the fight is on.  Dick Ackerman denies he proposed this amendment, rather it was a proposal of the Chief and the AOC.  Ultimately George loses this battle and the Declaration of War has been proclaimed.

7.  Post 2005 – Relationships between CJ and the CJA fall off a precipice.  Terry B. Friedman is installed on the Judicial Council and still considered a “good earner” despite the fact he couldn’t deliver the CJA on Article VI.  Jim Mize has been “shrink-wrapped” by Sacto Superior Court and is off the stage.

8.  CCMS issue really surfaces between 2004 and 2009.  The Judicial Council records are all over the map on when it was developed and approved.  The 1992 JC minutes talk about a concept of a statewide system.  The 2000 minutes claim to have approved the concept for development of CCMS.

No one ever explains who, how or why a consulting firm like Deloitte is chosen for this job.  Seven degrees of Kevin Bacon show relationships between many UCLA people (Friedman, George, Shapiro, and Deloitte executives at UCLA Board meetings).

9.  2000 – AOC/Judicial Council posts on Serranus (password protected website for the Courts) show that Shiela Calabro is in charge of a computer system  being developed for the Southern Region, but it could have applications for the entire State.

10. 2000-2002 – Minutes from Judicial Council meetings allude to or authorize Sheila Calabro to oversee CCMS.

11. 2003-10 – Per Deloitte, mainly Mr. Robinson, we are always at a “tipping point” and the successful conclusion of CCMS is right around the corner.

12. 2-8-11 – Mr. Bruiniers is the latest stooge installed to oversee CCMS and we are 60 days from implementation.

13. 2-28-11 – CCMS is in final product testing and is ready to be delivered and installed in the early adopter counties.  A matter of days until the final product is good to go.

14. 4-11 – Insiders at the JC say that Cantil-Sakauye decided upon the “retirement” of Bill V., early adopter counties will be given CCMS and then the remainder will be shelved until further notice.

How many hundreds of millions to be wasted????????

______________________________________________________

A fascinating history about the State of Pennsylvania & Deloitte can be found in the following links:

http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=65524&p=3&topicID=25053465&page=1&sort=

And an SEIU piece about it… sound familiar?

http://www.seiu668.org/presidentupdate/SWEB___STAFF_Update_10_28_09.aspx

_______________________________________________________

Deloitte’s Marin County woes:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207821/Marin_County_alleges_SAP_Deloitte_engaged_in_racketeering

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/marin-county-claims-racketeering-against-deloitte-and-sap-part-one/12749 (This link takes you to many other Deloitte failed implementations and is a fascinating in-depth analysis)