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:
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.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)
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 26, 2011
Once again, the JCW hits the bulls-eye! CCMS is the Achilles Heel of both the JC and AOC. I am convinced that it is the key reason that HRH George suddenly decided to “retire”, leaving in his place a woefully unprepared and inexperienced successor (exactly what he needed for his legacy.)
All the oversight committees in the world cannot save this “thing” that is CCMS. The supporters can probably justify the costs associated with propping up the “early adopter” courts with the case management hardware and tools that they have used in Orange County to make CCMS “work.” They cannot justify such expenses on a larger scale.
The hope is that CCMS will fade to a hum in the background as the JC/AOC switches gears and focuses on new projects. The demise of CCMS will be blamed on: the status of the economy; the ACJ and other critics; local courts and justice partners inability to front the money necessary to implement CCMS. Every excuse under the sun will be used except one: It will not be the fault of anyone associated with the Judicial Council or AOC.
Don’t let go of this issue. Per Mr. Bruiniers, CCMS should have already been deployed in the early adopter counties (per his video on April 9th where he said within 60 days.) Keep on this!
JusticeCalifornia
April 26, 2011
Perhaps those responsible for reviewing and signing off on the project (including the CJ and members of the JC and AOC and others involved, including Deloitte) — thereby apparently assuring the public and everyone else that the product and project are trouble free, bug free, financially viable and advantageous, and ready for deployment– should sign declarations of due diligence and offer up conditional resignations and forfeiture of their compensation in the event it’s found to be a big lie.
Commercial IT
April 26, 2011
A good system for creating and managing electronic records in our superior courts could be created and deployed to all 58 counties within a few months. It should only cost a few million dollars. So, you might ask, how could the AOC have spent around a half billion dollars and nine years and produced nothing of any value? Because not a single person anywhere in the entire project knows how to write modern software or assemble modern components into a system. Not one! And they absolutely refuse to accept help.
007
April 26, 2011
Was wondering when Mr. Powers would find this blog.
Commercial IT
April 28, 2011
Let me ask you a simple, direct question, James Bond. How many complex database applications have you personally and single-handedly written within say the last 2 years? Have you sold complex database application software to others?
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 26, 2011
This comment really applies to both this subject and the prior post on the “Big Lie”.
Today’s edition of the Daily Journal has not one, but TWO replies to the letter to the editor submitted by Quentin L. Kopp on the 18th of April The two contributors today wanted to “set the record straight” and correct errors that the “Q” allegedly made in his editorial. These contributors were none other than Ming Chin and Douglas Miller. I frankly won’t say anything negative about Justice Chin, but will observe that he does not appear to be the same person he was prior to his medical problems (brain injuries) a few years ago. Douglas Miller is one of, if not the biggest, Judicial Council toadies on the planet. Check out his profile at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/4thDistrictDiv2/justices/miller.htm You will see two pages of listings of Miller’s committee memberships with the Judicial Council and AOC.
Both Justice Chin and Mr. Miller claim that the AOC doesn’t set policy. Note they say nothing about the Judicial Council, which also has no authority to set policy for the trial courts of California. Yet each and every action taken by the Judicial Council since 1997 clearly demonstrates that people like Mr. Miller and other Council members think they do make policy.
When HRH George “commanded” that the trial courts close the third Wednesday of each month in 2009, how was that not “making policy”? Those of us who questioned the wisdom of his dictated closing of trial courts in this fashion and asked whether the Judicial Council had authority to make such an edict were subjected to comments like the following. When discussing those of us who wished to propose local alternatives, such as staggering and reducing certain calendars and services on other days of the week, but keeping our doors open; HRH said: these are “…persons who in the past have shown little or no interest in our efforts to maintain and increase access to justice…So one might question whether these concerns are totally genuine or would reflect instead perhaps some personal concern about the implications, financial and otherwise, to oneself from closures and from the pressure to engage in voluntary furloughs on a day a month.”
Gee, in hindsight, looks like we were right and HRH was wrong (again!) The closures as mandated by the Judicial Council and HRH were one of the biggest disasters and management blunders ever perpetrated on the public.
For Mr. Miller to proclaim that: “The long-term planning on the Judicial Council is not secret. Our strategic and operational plans were adopted after input from the public, judges, justices, court administrators and justice system partners” is laughable.
From the very website Mr. Miller refers to, you see the following:
The 28-member Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California
courts, the largest court system in the nation. (Guess they forgot to update their site, since they now claim they never said they were the policymaking body)
The Judicial Council is composed of 28 members:
• The Chief Justice;
• 14 judges appointed by the Chief Justice (1 associate justice of the
Supreme Court, 3 justices of the Courts of Appeal, and 10 trial court
judges);
• 4 attorney members appointed by the State Bar Board of Governors;
• 1 member from each house of the Legislature; and
• 7 advisory members who include court executives or administrators
and the president of the California Judges Association. (Pretty stacked group don’t you think? Clear evidence the Chief controls this body.)
Development of the operational plan began in January 2007; stakeholders participating in
the process are listed below.
• Judicial Council members
• Judicial Council advisory committees
• Judicial Council task forces
• All presiding justices and judges
• All superior court executive officers and appellate court
administrators
• The California trial courts (via local priorities submitted on the
Serranus Trial Court Planning Web site)
• The Executive Team of the Administrative Office of the Courts
(regional administrative directors and division directors)
• The State Bar of California
• The public (via the Judicial Council’s public trust and confidence
assessments)
(Note: Any input by trial courts or the public was limited to push-poll type questions that had been posed by the AOC staff)
Members of the Judicial Council love to claim that they always entertain “public comment” upon the various rules, policies and procedures that they implement. Problem is, much of the crap that they circulate for comment is unintelligible, incredibly lengthy, or has an unrealistic turn-around date for responses. Everything submitted to committees or the Council as a whole is predestined in its outcome. There is little, if any, honest open discussion or debate. As pointed out in an earlier post, over 800 pages of material on a “consent” calendar can hardly be described as promoting open discussion and dialogue. Until this past year, virtually every recorded vote of the Judicial Council was unanimous. Why? HRH gets what he or she wants.
Senator Kopp/Judge Kopp is a great public servant. Well into his 80’s, Judge Kopp is exactly the type of person that the Judicial Council and AOC executives despise. They cannot marginalize him, they can simply protest and pick on one small component of his editorial to try and contest. Bottom line, Quentin was 100% correct.
Since it is now plainly evident that any of us who thought there might be hope for change with arrival of the new Chief Justice were sadly mistaken, the only way the public can hope to control this beast that is the AOC is through the pocket book. Everyone is urged to contact their elected representatives. Since the AOC is a creature of statutory creation, and not a Constitutional being, the Legislature can control the agency through appropriations. Why not eliminate six levels of administration at the AOC and sadly, terminate about 95% of the lawyers who are simply sitting around “making work” or fostering work for Judicial Council committees and subcommittees. At least that would be a start…
wendy darling
April 26, 2011
The word from Sacramento (Jeff Gorel’s office) : the members and staff of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review were not included or informed of any meeting or discussion about removing the hearing on AB 1208 from the Accountability Committee to the Judiciary Committee. Apparently, this was all done “behind closed doors” and those involved are not sharing what political concessions were offered or made to make this happen; it’s not even known if Calderon, the sponsor of the bill, was even included, or just informed after the fact, just as the Accountablility Committee was.
There should be a concern at this point that efforts are being made by certain elected representatives in the State legislature to “help” their friends in the judicial branch, in particular the office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, to kill AB 1208. Steinberg, in particular, apparently doesn’t want this bill to get to the Senate for a vote.
Just as with the former’s governor’s commuting of the sentence of Fabian Nunez’s son to “help a friend,” the pubic doesn’t need this kind of “help.” These are elected representatives, who occupy a pubic office, the purpose of which is to serve the best interests of the pubic, not “help” their friends.
It is in the best interests of the public that AB 1208 be enacted. It is 13 years overdue, and the time for a Trial Court Bill of Rights is now. It cannot wait any longer. The public needs to let the elected representatives of both the State Assembly and the Senate that they need to set aside their political aspirations to higher office or an appointment to the bench, personal loyalties, and friendships, and do their public duty for which they were elected to public office. They do not hold pubic office in order to help friends evade accountability or to usurp the law, including the State Constitution.
And if they can’t do that, then they have no business holding their public office, or asking the public to vote for them to put them there.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 26, 2011
Wendy is absolutely correct! Wendy should be commended for all of her hard work and great posts over the years.
Word I’m getting from my high school friends is that if they cannot kill it in the Assembly Committee (pulling it to Judiciary) the line in the sand will definitely be in the Senate. If Sen. Darrell Steinberg, Senate pro Tem Leader, (and classmate of HRH Cantil-Sakauye) has his way, the bill will be quietly killed in whatever Committee he assigns it to. I’m sure his just reward will be a seat on the 3rd District Court of Appeals or, shall I say it….the Supreme Court. His background as a labor lawyer for CSEA, an ALJ, and time on the Sacramento City Council suggests he should jump to the head of the class and go right to the top! Never mind the slugs like us who have heard 300+ DUI trials, “complex civil” trials, countless murder trials, sexual assault trials, 3 strikes trials and the like.
I wonder…has Mr. Steinberg ever been inside a real courtroom? Or, seen what many of us schlep each day to keep the calendars moving? What does that matter, he (or she) who has the gold makes the rules…
I grew up in a household where my Dad said, “Don’t call me sir, I work for a living.” Having started my career when Lyndon B. Johnson was President, I think I truly now understand what my Dad meant…
wendy darling
April 26, 2011
If Steinberg, or anyone in the State Assembly or Senate, is willing to use their public office to twart the State Constitution, and the clear directive from the State Legislature to the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council 13 years ago regarding the Trial Court Bill of Rights, in order to “help a friend,” one can only imagine what they might be willing to do to “help a friend” from the elevated position of a seat on the 3rd District Court of Appeals, or, dare we even think it, the Supreme Court.
Long live the ACJ.
CCMS Insider
April 26, 2011
At this point, it may not be fair to characterize CCMS (v4) as being defective. The questions you pose are on point though and unfortunately, this is one of those ‘only time will tell’ things. Therein lies the problem – one would have to agree to fund a CCMS deployment on an ‘iterative’ basis to determine where the functional and design defects may lie. An expensive and risky catch-22 by any definition.
The real problem as I see it remains funding; even if you assume for a moment that CCMS does everything that Team Deloitte is warranting. Why? Because you are funding the unknown. Government traditionally has been willing to fund the unknown, but perhaps taxpayers in this state and court stakeholders have finally had enough CCMS cash calls to say no more. Private markets certainly don’t fund the unknown, but for kicks, why not consider a quasi-privatization of the courts as it relates to CCMS. It’s not without precedent and consider for a moment the potential value of the data and documents that exist in aggregate in the California court system. For a global legal data provider, the commercial dollar value is in the billions – certainly more than enough to fund CCMS as currently proposed.
But why isn’t the private sector jumping at the CCMS opportunity? It’s because the CCMS vision as proposed is too risky – there are too many unknowns. Consultants, however, deal in the unknown and in fact, they are comfortable there because iterative processes fund the partnership pyramid through the change order function. No one knows for certain how much it will cost to convert all California court systems over to CCMS, no one knows how many data centers the AOC will end up needing to support all the courts or how many courts end up being hosted locally, no one knows the costs to aggregate and centralize the local data stores, no one knows the costs to get the CCMS data exchanges up and running, no one knows the costs of the central document storage system CCMS envisions, no one knows the costs to get the electronic filing adoption rate to that fairly tale number presented in the CBA, no one knows the costs that the AOC will have to incur to run such an operation, and no one knows how much it will cost to maintain and support CCMS. This is all new ground folks. Oh, is anyone willing to wager how long this will take? Every guess to this point has been wrong, every timeline has been missed and the hard work is just beginning. Why is there a belief that all of this can change now? In the end, it’s all guessing.
The CCMS vision isn’t sustainable from a fiscal perspective. It’s a great vision but so was the Spruce Goose. Scale down the vision and actively seek alternative deployment scenarios and solutions. These things exist but they won’t be found in any of the oversight committees (how many do we have now?) because too much is personally invested as your blog post calls out.
And for our CJ – a lesson in leadership. When is the right time to cut your losses? The answer is always, not soon enough. Query any CEO of a major technology company about your CCMS dilemma and you’ll learn for yourself what the smart money would do. Scrap CCMS, take your lessons learned and move on. Your write-off will be a drop in the bucket compared to what you will spend over the next 10 years trying to get the vision executed. You get to pick your legacy on this one but I don’t know any business executive that would bet on CCMS – heck, they’d probably get fired.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 26, 2011
CCMS Insider’s position is what many of us were questioning back in 2003-04; when the first true public discussion of CCMS came up from the basement of 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Why not, as many of us then asked, base the system on the federal software, PACER? Why not have a software development company take the ball and run; giving them the rights to software development in exchange for a free system, or one developed at a minimal cost to California taxpayers? Why in the world would you contract with a “consultant” who has no stake in the outcome; has only profit to be gained for each system change (enhancement); has a contract that expired before the system was even delivered; and has an untoward relationship with members/former members of the Judicial Council, including HRH George. Since California has the largest state court system in the Country, an effective system developed here should, theoretically, be marketable in the other 49 states. No answer to this inquiry was forthcoming from the Judicial Council or AOC.
One has to question, who’s palms were greased in this entire process? Why is Mr. Robinson, the Deloitte executive who once said on a Judicial Council video: “We are this close” and “at a tipping point” for the development of CCMS now the Chair of Deloitte? Given the revenue he was able to deliver to Deloittee, at the expense of California taxpayers, why wouldn’t he now be the CEO????
These questions will remain unanswered, as the “bested and most wonderfulest” Chief Justice in the history of Kali-fornia has suddenly retired and we are left with one who knows nothing, sees nothing and asks nothing….much like Sergeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes, except perhaps she is better looking.
The confluence of events that have faced us over the past eight years leave many to believe, myself included, that Kali-fornia is broken. Governor Brown is trying to deal with the problems, but finds himself facing State completely different that that when he was V.1 (Governor Moonbeam); a Legislature that is incapable or unwilling to make the hard decisions to right the fiscal ship (as it would cause them to be voted out of office or unable to ascend to a higher office) and a Judicial Branch led by people who are more interested in who will qualify to get the corner suite at the next Judicial Council meeting or retreat (Ala Brad Hill in San Francisco’s Crystal Palace,) than seeing that the system is crumbling around them.
My advice….after 40 years in public service, look to another State, or Country, for your retirement planning….we are toast…
lando
April 26, 2011
Comments like those made by J Miller about the AOC not making policy are very troubling .Judge Kopp’s insightful editorial explains the symbiotic relationship between the AOC and JC that creates judicial branch policy with no constitutional authority. As Woodhull points out court closures are the most stark example of this, along with the funding and mandating of CCMS. If I recall correctly J Huffman as head of a JC committee mandated that Sacramento had to continue to use CCMS over that trial courts objection .Certainly there is no constitutional authority for that. All this leads us back to the importance of AB 1208. Thanks W.Darling for pointing out the potential legislative roadblocks ahead. Given this information, everyone that follows these vital issues needs to e-mail to your local state representatives your strong support for AB 1208 . If these legislators have Facebook or Twitter pages we need to express our support for 1208 there as well. I suspect this site has a large following and lots of supporters so this is one great place to get grassroots support for 1208 so that a single powerful legislator can’t just ignore the many who are calling for change and reform of the branch.I would respectfully request that JCW should set up a string for everyone here to toss in their ideas as to how we can best present our case for reform to the legislature.
versal-versal
April 26, 2011
N Woodhull is right. The only long term solution to any of this is to cut the AOC’s budget. I feel bad for the people that might get laid off as part of that process but a good start would be to stop funding CCMS except to courts who have no viable case management system and have waited the 7-9 years it has taken for CCMS to someday be deployed. Wasn’t the latest deployment date per J.Bruiniers sometime in early April? Guess we missed that tipping point as well. By cutting the AOC budget the legislature can insure the AOC performs the statutory function they were established for, to support the trial courts rather than attempt to dictate to them and control them.More importantly if the AOC was reduced in size we would save tremendous taxpayer dollars in these financially troubled times and the JC would have no ability to have their unconstitutional polices implemented.
CCMS Insider
April 26, 2011
I neglected to include a link to a technology blog post entitled: “Court technology is at the forefront of most State of the Judiciary Addresses.” The operative word here is ‘most’ because guess who isn’t included. I only feel shame for our once proud court system after reading through this list of wonderful accomplishments by other state judiciaries.
http://courttechbulletin.blogspot.com/2011/04/court-technology-is-at-forefront-of.html
versal-versal
April 26, 2011
oh by the way I have it on good authority that the JC will pawn off CCMS to the unlucky courts that signed up for it first and then will “allow” any other court to go out and get their own system. Only problem is that since the JC/AOC has absorbed so much money for their failed statewide system many of the trial courts may be hard pressed to fund new case management systems now. In my opinion if this retrenching on CCMS happens it is only to take the wind out of AB1208. It also saves face for the JC/AOC as the reality is CCMS is no where near deployment to the trial courts despite what J Bruiniers and whatever the various 5 ! overlapping JC/AOC committees proclaim.
courtflea
April 27, 2011
V-V bravo, excellent observations. As a huge step backwards as this is in this high tech day and age, the courts without a case management systems can buy some really old technology used currently by several courts that will actually work and is really inexpensive. It is not the greatest, but it will at least get them through until the courts get together to hire Bill Gates or the Apple guys to build them a CMS software for just a few simple millions 🙂
Excellent idea as well NW to have the JC/ other suck up players sign off on the successful delivery of the project! I think the ACJ should pose that question to them….if they can say on the record the “product is gold”!, etc. they should be happy to eh? and if they won’t, well then that is very telling.
courtflea
April 27, 2011
AOC’s CCPOR Computer Program Honored
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Administrative Office of the Courts, which has been plagued with criticism over the development of its computerized case management system, on Friday announced that it is being honored for the technology project which was leveraged from the beleaguered CCMS program.
A spokesperson for the agency said The Center for Digital Government has selected the California Courts Protective Order Registry program as this year’s recipient of the Best Application Serving an Agency’s Business Needs Award.
The center, a national research and advisory institute on information technology policies and best practices in state and local government, is slated to present the award to the AOC at a ceremony May 9 in Sacramento. Each year the center presents awards recognizing California state and local government and education organizations for their dedication and contributions to improving the efficiency, economy, innovation, functionality, performance expectations, and collaboration of information technology, according to its website.
Mark W. Dusman, director of the AOC’s Information Services Division, remarked that CCPOR is not just a judicial branch IT project developed with limited resources—this was a successful, close collaboration by the AOC with the superior courts, law enforcement, and the California Department of Justice.”
He explained that the web-based application “uses technology consistent with the strategic direction of the judicial branch,” and “contains elements from the California Court Case Management System, which is now in its final stages of testing.”
CCPOR is designed allow judges and justice system partners to view exact electronic images of restraining and protective orders issued from all participating counties, including the conditions and notes contained on those orders, an AOC release said. It is intended to replace an earlier statewide program which could only store information about issued orders and was inaccessible to judges.
The judiciary has invested heavily in technology projects in recent years, and drawn fire for its development of CCMS, which has ballooned in cost from an original estimate of $260 million to over $1.9 billion, according to findings by the state auditor released earlier this year in a scathing report that accused the AOC of mismanagement and hiding the true costs of the project.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2011
Uh huh. On the consulting page of this offical sounding organization, the website advertises its wares:
“Helping clients find and win state and local government business”.
http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/industry/
I daresay the current CCMS JC/AOC debacle presented the ” Center for Digital Government with a lucrative business opportunity. . . .
Here are the counties involved in this project:
http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/ccpor/documents/ccpor-courtslive2010.pdf
I think it is safe to assume that technology allowing smaller courts to view each other’s restraining orders (which, forgive me, sounds a bit like exchanging pictures on facebook) is a bit less demanding than what CCMS purports to do. . . .
While we are on the topic of technology, and the viability of CCMS, perhaps the Center for Digital Government can answer or respond to, publicly and in writing, all those unanswered questions/issues about CCMS that were raised by Michael Paul and others.
What are the legal and practical implications of storing CA court files in AZ?
Can bowling balls of information be sucked through garden hoses?
Have all 900 errors really been fixed – and how do you know that?
Will the system possibly/likely/definitely be aged out before it can be successfully deployed, tested, refined and adapted in all 58 counties as you suggest?
Is the system is worth $3 billion? (laugh out loud).
What is the status of the independent audit of CCMS?
How much has been spent on CCMS development thus far this year, and how much is projected to be spent, this year?
How much has been spent on CCMS deployment thus far this year, and how much is projected to be spent, this year?
Come on, CJ/AOC/JC, cut the last minute pr garbage and put your mouth where you are putting the public’s money: officially answer those questions, in writing, before Friday’s JC meeting.
Michael Paul
April 27, 2011
Don’t hold your breath. I have already asked some of these questions and the answer I got back was that these requests for public information were not for administrative records.
About The Center for Digital Government – eRepublic, the owners of TCDG is a private media marketing company that targets public CIO’s and government IT decisionmakers. Most of their largest advertisers, including deloitte have their hooks into CCMS and CCPOR.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 27, 2011
A pravda mercenary… how quaint. Trickle down economics at work. A hundred million dollars of public IT money to Deloitte, Oracle and others buys a million dollars worth of erepublic advertising who then grants an award to the idiot who spent the hundred million dollars.
Your tax dollars at work. If Dusman had any self respect, he would ask them to mail him the award. Since he has none, you’ll be seeing him at the awards ceremony with Mr. iPad in tow.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2011
In a true case of exalting form over substance, Marin was first county to implement CCPOR, while, according to a “Keeping the Promise” report issued by the CA attorney general’s office in 2005, Marin has had the worst record of issuing restraining orders after hearing of any county in CA with a population of $100,000 or more. It had the third worst record of all CA counties.
Not surprisingly, by 2009, our district attorney announced that domestic violence was the number one crime in Marin County. 88 percent of cases referred to the district attorney’s office in the prior five years were related to domestic violence. As of July 2009, two of the three homicides in Marin that year were related to domestic violence.
And, we are already seeing new DV offenders and mentally impaired individuals developing, namely children of abusers who were knowingly and purposefully taken from their protective parents and placed with their abusers by certain Marin mediators and judges/commissioners some years ago. (No, it wasn’t an accident or a mistake. Everyone knew exactly what was going down.) These children are growing up and acting out, in a very predictable manner guaranteed to keep the courts and the family and juvenile law machines (therapists, counselors, lawyers, institutions, etc.) going for a very long, long time. The child custody mediation files involving these cases were destroyed by Kim Turner, the AOC and Verna Adams in 2009.
Further, very wealthy Marin County certainly could but does not have an online register of actions available as so very, very many courts, large and small, already do. Perhaps that is because then, Kim Turner and/or other court personnel could not go in and in true 1984 fashion, modify the truth via modification of minute orders and log entries, as has happened in the past.
As many have repeatedly noted, there is no question that a workable, financially feasible case management system is desirable. The issue is whether CCMS is it and I think the overwhelming consensus based on past history and internal and external audit reports is: NO.
Mrs. Kramer
April 27, 2011
“E.republic, a 20-year old publisher serving the state and local government and education technology markets, has solved the data riddle with a business intelligence group that accounts for 20 percent of the company’s overall revenue and is its fastest growing and highest margin operation.
The company’s flagship data product, Digital Government Navigator, covers bids and contracts awarded from state and local areas and offers subscribers a breakdown on data points such as budgets, the procurement process for each jurisdiction and key contacts.
Subscriptions range from $5,000 on the education side and $25,000 for the government side and members can also tap e.Republic for custom research ranging from $5,000 to $10,000.
e.Republic is now expanding to market advisory services that show clients how to act on the data. “We can give clients a lot of information but they really need help in how to interpret that data and translate it into market strategies,” says McKenna.
Wonder if they assisted the unlicensed contractors with bids and procurement of government contracts?
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 27, 2011
As expected, Feuer has pulled AB 1208 from Accountability to his Judiciary Committee, hearings to take place on May 3rd. Despite Assembly Member Calderon’s expressed belief that his bill will still get a “fair hearing” I am afraid that once again we’ve seen that the new boss is same as the old boss. Sad day in Kali-fornia.
wendy darling
April 27, 2011
Published today in The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw: Trial Court Rights Act Pulled From Committee, by Cheryl Miller.
The article is not keyed for subscription access only, so if someone wants to read the article, just go to the home page for The Recorder, http://www.law.com, and click on the article.
Long live the ACJ.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202491736031&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
courtwatcher
April 27, 2011
CCMS’s posts are spot on.
At Friday’s JC meeting Justice Bruiniers and Moore will give a presentation on CCMS. It will be positive and will try to preemptively address any criticism regarding functionality, project management or schedule.
However, the presentation will not address how the AOC plans to fund the 58 county deployment. Nor will it address the issue of how over $200 million (at least) of TCTF money has been spent on a system that the AOC cannot afford to deploy. There will not be any discussion of why the AOC recommended the JC continue to fund CCMS development when AOC knew 4 years ago there was no funding for deployment.
No JC member will ask why the AOC continued to go forward with a project that was estimated to costs at least $1.0 billion when the AOC was unable to ever produce a viable budget or identified funding source for the project.
The issue is not functionality of the system. That is a red herring. Even if CCMS works as well as Justice Bruiniers and the others say it will, the issue of funding remains. The AOC cannot afford the system and it never could.
Its failure to develop a viable funding strategy is only part of the problem. The bigger issue is that it continued to tell the JC and legislature that everything was going great with the project even when it knew continued funding of CCMS would drain the reserves in TCTF and other funds. The AOC recommended expenditures of substanital amounts of money for the CCMS project, when it knew the only way it would ever be deployed to all 58 courts was if the legislature stepped in with hundreds of millions (500+) in additional funding.
The TCTF money is now gone. There is no money to backfill the signifcant reductions to the trial court’s operating budgets over the next 3 to 5 years. Courts will have to rely on their own reserves to support operations. The CCMS project will no go further than the early adopter courts. Courts will be left on their own in terms of case management systems. Since Courts will have spent all of their reserves on operations, they will not have enough money to purchase their own systems. The trial courts will lag 10 to 15 years behind the technology curve, which is exactly where they were in 2002 when the CCMS debacle began.
courtwatcher
April 27, 2011
And no one from the AOC or JC will be held accountable.
Mrs. Kramer
April 27, 2011
ox·y·mor·ons. Rhetoric . a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness”
“AB 1208…would remove some of the centralized branch underpinnings..The Rules Committee…sent the bill to the Accountability Committee, a fledgling watchdog….purview of the Judiciary Committee. Feuer, a member of the Judicial Council, has been a traditional ally of the Administrative Office of the Courts and a supporter of branch centralization efforts….the Rules Committee voted to send AB 1208 to the Judiciary Committee…Calderon..asked that the bill be pulled from Accountability…Judiciary Committee is now scheduled to hear AB 1208…..Calderon said he remains confident the committee will approve his bill.”
So what does a fledging watchdog committee do if not look into the need to change course in the courts when even the state auditors have blasted them for being out of control? And how are centralized underpinnings to be removed when the bill was taken from the watchdog and given to a centralized “underpinners” to review? And why would anyone remain confident that over a bill where there is obviously a power struggle occurring in the legislature of who even gets to hear it; those who are going hear it are going to vote themselves out as centralized underpinners who control the courts?
Looks to me like politics is alive and well. Deals were probably made that some sort of oversight will be suggested by Feuer with the understanding that JC will keep control of the money. Walking oxymorons got slapped on the wrists behind the scenes and were made to state, “I promise I won’t do it again” (while you are looking).
Origin:
1650–60; Greek *oxýmōron, neuter of *oxýmōros sharp-dull, equivalent to oxý ( s ) sharp (see oxy-1 ) + mōrós dull ( see moron)
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 27, 2011
Speaking of irony, at the same time the legislative leaders are saying this bill is too important to be heard by a fledgling oversight committee, HRH Cantil-Sakauye keeps appointing fledgling committees to oversee CCMS.
Since so few members of the public seem remotely concerned that the JC/AOC has burned a billion dollars on a giant paperweight, it is no wonder we are going broke…
007
April 27, 2011
And therein lies the challenge with CCMS, AB1208, or any other judicial branch related issue: the public doesn’t care. The majority of press coverage on these issues is in legal-profession related outlets. The public doesn’t read or hear from these outlets. They all hear about education, social services, and state worker labor contracts but hardly anything about the judiciary.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2011
Sounds like there exists a need that must be filled.
An organization dedicated to informing the public as to all of the issues, and doing so in terms of what it means for them. It would be nice to have a PAC component.
So many members of the public are mad as hell about what is happening in the courts, but don’t know where to go or what to do to take action.
Yup. A need that must be filled.
The public is not constrained, as judges are.
Top leadership, in trying to shut down 1208, may get FAR more than they bargained for.
They have no idea of the depth of conviction and will of those whose children have been ripped from them, or who have been bankrupted by the money-go-rounds, or those who are held for ransom in traffic court to pay for court follies, or those who have suffered unimaginable and ongoing retaliation.
I do believe it’s a matter of raising public consciousness, and providing a mechanism allowing participation.
Hey Paula, Michael, wanna start a new entity with a PAC component? And a separate blog aimed at educating the public (like this one educates the branch) about the issues, and how the issues affect them, and how they can take action?
Interesting idea. . . .
Michael Paul
April 27, 2011
Something like a 501(c)3 with a 527 counterpart? Sign me up.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2011
Exactly what I had in mind, Michael.
Mrs. Kramer
April 27, 2011
I have a degree in marketing and 30 years experience in sales. If you were going to start a public awareness campaign, I would suggest you study these below noted, old, conservative think-tanks; and then mirror what they do. Because this is who you are really up against.
Although the elements all play into the equation, this isn’t about a botched computer system or unlicensed contractors or a bill or rights for judges.
Its about who controls the largest judicial system in the US and can they keep control in the hands of the few elite.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
http://www.atlanticlegal.org/
http://www.heritage.org/About
These guys have been marketing concepts to gain industry control of policy for a loooooong time. You can find many cross over names in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library, where they honed the tricks of their trade.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
Mrs. Kramer
April 27, 2011
Two more key players:
Institute for Legal Reform (branch of the Chamber with strong democrat connections)
http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/index.php
Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/clp.htm
Case Law from the bench of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court that completely changed laws:
Coldwell Banker v. Salazar A real estate agent owes no duty to a child harmed by a property they sold, even if the agent failed to disclose a known hazard, because the child was not a party to the contract.
Rattan v. USAA
Insurers are not responsible for bad work of contractors hired to do work that is insured. (Even if the insurer had input into who the insured hired)
There are two more that I don’t have the names of right now.
One is that beneficiaries of trust deeds do not have to be disclosed or be able to show they own the note. It’s enough that their agent is disclosed. (ridiculous, if you can’t show you are the one owed something, you can’t foreclose for non-payment to you)
An attorney can be held responsible for strategically litigating, even if the error occurred before they even took over the case and the client involved was not their client. What that does is discourage attorneys to take over cases where the client was not happy with the prior attorney.
And of course, there is the stealth establishment of CCP 425.19. If you author policy for the US Chamber, you are permitted to use criminal perjury to strategically litigate agaisnt anyone who speaks against the interests of the US Chamber.
Michael Paul
April 27, 2011
I’m not out to set up a public policy institute. My model would be something more agile like http://moveon.org since I already have quite a bit of experience with that model.
I want to move people and public opinion. They will move the politicians nicely all by themselves.
Mrs. Kramer
April 28, 2011
Never under estimate your opponent. Not that I know all, because I certainly do not. Yet I have learned a thing or two from misstakes I have made while changing public perception for the good of the people.
Michael, I think you could do it and restore integity to our courts!!! You have exhibited skills that I could only hope to have. It is my opinion that you need to study who your opponent really is and how your opponent works before you make the first move into changing public perception.
Think globally. Act locally. Out of adversity comes change.
SF Whistle
April 28, 2011
Michael. JC, Paula
I commend the three of you and believe that the type of entity that you contemplate could be a powerful tool.
Mrs. Kramer’s observation about knowing and understanding your opposition is sage advice inasmuch as the AOC / JC have constructed the evil empire in ways to fend off any moves designed to challenge or threaten all the power that King George centralized….HRH built his kingdom in ways very resistant to attack…
I believe strongly that your entity can and will achieve exponential growth if you reach out and invite existing, seemingly disparate groups an opportunity to properly join together and recognize our shared enemy—–an out of control court system—a court system that frequently undertakes retaliatory acts as response to any questioning, complaint or criticism….a court system that has been corrupted by a small inner-circle demanding loyalty.
Your contemplated entity should provide a place for mother’s group to join father’s groups and motorists to join with family court litgants—etc–etc—creating a powerful centralized voice to demand reform—to turn back the clock to a time when it was a clear expectation that Judges would simply follow the law.
I believe I am reading in your last few posts about the planting of a seed that can swiftly be germanated and grow tall and strong—-I am certain you will discover that there are thousands of concerned members of the public that will join you three and stand together demanding reform….You can create a legacy work—make history–
Even as Wendy’s mantra regarding the long life of the ACJ is as meaningful as it is—-I wish you only the best in your contemplated efforts—I, for one will help and support you in anyway that is helpful—Please—Please—“Just do it”…..
wendy darling
April 27, 2011
Posted late today (6:24 p.m.) from Maria Dinzeo and Courthouse News:
Trial Court Rights Bill Moved to Assembly Judiciary Committee
By MARIA DINZEO
Of particular interest is the ending to Dinzeo’s post:
Opponents of AB 1208 have been pushing for delay by changing the bill’s timeline for consideration to two years.
Calderon also said that while he had considered making AB 1208 a two-year bill, “that offer is no longer on the table. It was rejected by the Judicial Council. I was trying to find a solution that was acceptable to all parties that would also allow the chief justice some time to become familiar with the issue and make changes if necessary. It appeared to me to be the responsible thing to do, but the Judicial Council was not interested,” he said. “They’re willing to run the risk.”
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 28, 2011
Gee, I guess her HRH is a little thin of skin. Kate Mosher of The Recorder reports that HRH addressed an annual luncheon of trial threatens to undo the 14 years of the “House That George Built”. I am missing this point, this is bad how?????
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 28, 2011
Sorry for the last post. HRH told the assembled group of trial lawyers at their annual luncheon yesterday that AB 1208 threatens to tear down The House That George Built, and would reverse the progress made over the past 14 years. She still does not address the merits of the Bill….
SF Whistle
April 28, 2011
This is a very telling admission—confirming she has no plans to reform only to preserve—dig deeper into her foxhole and fight—
JusticeCalifornia
April 28, 2011
Interesting, Judge Woodhull.
In contrast, State bar executive officer and former Senator Joe Dunn spoke at the Marin County Bar Association luncheon yesterday. I was prepared not to like him. Instead, I found him to be an engaging and informative speaker and politician. He did not say a word about AB 1208, or solicit those assembled to be mouthpieces for the judicial branch.
Speaking of politicians, top leadership has taken Darrell Steinberg’s 2006 advice about dealing with challenges by “building as big a wall as possible and playing defense”. That battle plan is pretty much destroying the branch. Top leadership is supposed to serve the judges and protect the public– it is not the other way around.
It is unfortunate that top leadership did not take a more constructive approach, and avail itself of seasoned negotiators to help address the issues facing the branch.
And yes, top leadership — supposedly comprised of the some of the best legal minds in the state– should long ago have addressed the merits of AB 1208 , and explained how it does something other than what was promised back in 1997. The silence is deafening.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 28, 2011
I’ve appended the primary post with some brief research provided by one of our respected posters that provides a CCMS/empire building timeline for our readers.
JusticeCalifornia
April 28, 2011
007
April 28, 2011
Re: “No one ever explains who, how or why a consulting firm like Deloitte is chosen for this job.”
Deloitte was selected in 2003 after a ‘bake-off’ between them and BearingPoint/IBM. The evaluators included court representatives (LA, OC, Ventura, SD, Sacramento(?)) as well as AOC staff.
Commercial IT
April 28, 2011
For those not familiar with the situation, Deloitte Consulting is an alter ego of Bearing Point.
007
April 28, 2011
It is today…but they were two totally separate entities/companies in 2003.
Mrs. Kramer
April 28, 2011
Informative timeline. What is Beth Jay’s role in all of this? Where does she fit in the equation?
Found the following on the net that the Supreme Court has ordered the State Bar to reply to a matter concerning Jay, the Bar and the Ca SC. I have no idea if this is accurate information or not.
February 7, 2011:
http://lesliebrodie.posterous.com/?tag=bethjay
“According to confidential sources in California, Patricia J. Barry, an attorney who has dedicated her career to civil rights, women’s rights, and workplace freedom, has filed papers with the California Supreme Court which also request information about the peculiar nature of Beth Jay’s contact with State Bar officials. The sources maintain that the California Supreme Court issued an order directing the State Bar of California to otherwise submit a reply to Barry’s requests.”
I have been complaining and evidencing, for over two years, to the State Bar of a CA licensed attorney suborning perjury by an author of policy for the US Chamber. This unbridled criminality has aided with the continuance of billions in insurer fraud written into CA public health and workers comp policy.
McConnell, Huffman and George all have been made aware and evidenced of the perjury/suborning of perjury. Yet they issued rulings/issued opinions ignoring the evidence of the US Chamber author’s perjury and a CA licensed attorney’s suborning of it, along with ignoring the evidence of the impact this has had that is adverse to the public’s best interest.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that one cannot legally use perjury to make up a needed reason for malice in a libel litigation over the first public writing of how the Chamber got their fingers into the mold issue.
It doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand that licensed attorneys cannot suborn perjury while strategically litigating over a multi-billion dollar matter.
Do you think Beth Jay could be part of my problem? Who is this person in the big scheme of things?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 29, 2011
Warning: Graphic Language
Judicial Council Watcher
May 1, 2011
The next phase in CCMS should likely be much like the last phase in CCMS, except the people at the AOC are “accepting” the application and likely starting the warranty period as a result. With 28 “moderate” defects no less. We could not help but notice that the AOC’s OCIO recommendations list hasn’t changed much since it was first released, which suggested a host of actions prior to the application being accepted. Mr. Bill steps down at the end of June, the latest ready date for our beloved CCMS.
We’re not sure what the AOC’s issue with honesty is or what they have against honesty but no one in their right mind would continue to perpetuate a scheme such as this without getting something for it.
antonatrail
May 16, 2011
Saw this on Facebook —
http://www.4-traders.com/news/Superior-Court-of-California-County-of-Santa-Clara-Automates-Case-Processing-with-Digital-Pen-and-Pa–13628252/
The Santa Clara superior court clerks are using digitized pens on minute orders in the heavy-volume misdemeanor courtrooms to help prevent repetitive injuries and capture info for the “complexity of the case information” required for the case management system. Aren’t they supposed to go hat in hand to SF and kiss someone’s ring, plus bow and scrape, to get permission to do anything innovative? Or is Santa Clara asserting some local control? I thought Santa Clara was one of the AOC cheerleaders. Has another county peeled off from the lock-step? (heh heh)