Posted on May 5, 2011
Placeholder. JCW participants should determine what goes on this list and recommend possible resolution(s)
_____________________________________________________
Attached is a letter from the California Judges Association to the Chief Justice and the recommendations of their membership.
 | Delilah on One Shot. |
 | Tony on AB 1389 Sobriety Checkpoints (… |
 | Maxrebo5 on Another round of construction… |
 | Gwendolyn Hall on Five Yards is sufficient … |
| Delilah on Another round of construction… |
 | Michelle on The number of county courts op… |
 | Wendy Dsrling on The number of county courts op… |
 | SiteAdmin on The number of county courts op… |
 | amcri on The number of county courts op… |
 | widgeen@aol.com on The number of county courts op… |
 | Patricia Dowling on The number of county courts op… |
 | sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| MaxRebo5 on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
Judicial Council Watcher 
Mrs. Kramer
May 5, 2011
I have three to begin with:
1. All areas of concern as called out by state audit of the AOC/JC.
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/california-state-auditor-
releases-their-audit-on-ccms-and-it-aint-pretty/
2. Lack of oversight, abuse of power and conflicted interests in the Commission of Judicial
Performance aiding lack of oversight, abuse of power and conflicts of interest in the JC/AOC.
3. JC policy which aids the abuse of due process via unpublished opinions in the state
of California. http://www.appellatelaw.net/ca/nonpublication.htm
wendy darling
May 5, 2011
Published today, Thursday, May 5, 2011, from Metropolitan News-Enterprise:
Superior Court Judge Horan Set to Retire Tomorrow, by a MetNews Staff Writer http://www.metnews.com
Long live the ACJ.
Chuck Horan
May 5, 2011
Understand that this is my retirement from the bench, NOT from the ACJ! LOL I made my age requirement (60) in February, and already had the time (23 years). Waited to leave until my court (LA) voted on AB1208 in April, and then decided to hang in until the committee heard the bill. One more day of court. It will be weird not going in to a courtroom after doing so almost every day since 1976, when I got out of law school! Wow, time flies.
Long Live Wendy.
And the ACJ. lol
wendy darling
May 5, 2011
Thank you, Judge Horan, for your many years of honorable public service and your service to the law. We have never met in person, but I have sat in the gallery of your courtroom a time or two. You have served with integrity, and good humor, and, from what I personally know, treated everyone who appeared in your courtroom with respect. You will be missed, and the California judicial branch, and in particular the superior court bench, will be a bit dimmer come Monday, without your gracious presence.
It is good to know, however, that we still have the contribution and benefit of your presence and wisdom regarding the ACJ and the many governance problems facing the branch. I suspect you will very busy for at least the next several months.
And, perhaps, someday, you and I might meet while casting a fly rod somewhere along a trout stream in Paradise Valley, beneath a wild Montana sky.
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
May 5, 2011
OMG! I think I might be in love!
JusticeCalifornia
May 5, 2011
Congratulations on your retirement, Judge Horan.
I would suppose that in addition to having time to relax and enjoy life, a retired judge has a lot more time and freedom to speak, write, organize, lead, take action, attend legislative sessions, and/or teach than a sitting judge. . . .
JC
courtflea
May 5, 2011
Godspeed Judge Horan and keep up the good fight…if you can find the time in your new life!
JusticeCalifornia
May 6, 2011
What the CJ should know. Here is a start. . .
1. Respectfully, third branch oppression will not be tolerated. Third branch oppression is guaranteed to create fierce and determined court reform activists. At all levels, and in all branches of government. Because it is so wrong.
2. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
3. If you think Sacramento, Marin, and Nevada County family court victims have raised a ruckus, check out what’s going on up North in Shasta County, and pay close attention to and investigate what has been and is going on in Department 12. I hear reports and complaints have been made about Department 12 for years, and no one has done anything about it except brutally retaliate against anyone who complains, and mess with the court files (Gotta tell you, one of these days someone is going to get whacked but good with Govt. Code 6200). Judge Baker says the Department 12 buck stops with you. The AOC says the Department 12 buck stops with you. I guess the buck stops with you, and since you have been told about it, you are going to responsible from here on out.
4. Why on earth did you select Kim Turner to serve on the CCMS committee? Marin County is the wealthiest county in CA, isn’t it? Yet, it’s online services are ridiculously archaic– so that is obviously by choice. What’s up with that? John Montgomery’s girlfriend got $650,000 in Marin court IT contracts while Turner was the court assistant CEO– what exactly did Montgomery’s IT girlfriend do for the court for that kind of money? And did you hear about that Marin court clerk who apparently went into the court system last year (2010), and without notice to the parties or lawyers or any notation in the record altered a 7-month old order and register of actions entry in a manner that fixed a little due process problem one bench officer had? I mean seriously, doesn’t that undermine the integrity of all registers of actions and minute orders in Marin County, if someone can and does just go in and change the official record without notice or notation anywhere? And wasn’t this type of access and ability to alter court records flagged as a potential problem and brought to Turner’s attention via that 2008 operational audit of the Marin court?
Click to access 2.pdf
Chief Justice Cantil Sakauye, wouldn’t it be prudent to appoint the very best, brightest, most ethical, successful, adminstratively and technically savvy people you could find to “oversee ” a complicated $3 billion IT project that has been criticized from top to bottom?
4. Suggestion for a new research assignment for your legal advisors:
You are new to the position, as everyone has noted. You have inherited problems and problem people from RG, as many have noted. You have a unique opportunity to clean house and define yourself by asking for the resignations of those around you and starting anew.
If you a) personally know Judicial Council members, AOC staff , CJP members, and/or other top branch personnel / appointees/contractors have violated the law, engaged in retaliation, waste or gross mismanagement, destroyed documents, altered official files and file entries, covered up rather than cured misconduct ,and/or other such behavior, but b) ignore, cover up and/or facilitate rather than take steps to cure such behavior; and/or c) knowingly and intentionally choose to keep or place individuals who have engaged in such behavior in positions of trust, then is your choice an adminstrative act subject to legal consequences if foreseeable harm to the public ensues?
Commercial IT
May 6, 2011
Good morning, JusticeCalifornia. I noted your appearance before the Judiciary Committee during the videocast re AB1208. I’m staying out of all that. I’m just interested primarily in the CCMS problems and would be willing to help with that if asked to do so.
The problem you pointed out with a clerk altering court records is unfortunate. Such problems are not entirely preventable in an electronic environment. People can be a problem. As experienced IT people know, there is a saying that it’s not Boris in Russia that’s the problem, it’s Mabel in accounting. That being said, there are ways to isolate/limit the problem down to a particular position/worker such as a central clerk. The problem in Marin County, as elsewhere in the court system, comes down to lack of IT knowledge and experience. That county has other IT problems, such as the MERIT project which made several lists of worst IT boondoggles, biggest IT failures of the year, etc. last year. You may have heard about the two lawsuits filed by the county over that mess. Those problems are unrelated to the courts.
As I watch the CCMS debacle unfold and move along, I realize that, like most other such debacles – Pentagon Papers, Abramoff scandals, defense spending contracts, Bernie Madoff – the dam will eventually break. It can’t go on forever simply because the state is broke and places to extract money from to continue this useless project are rapidly disappearing. This is a process. It’s frustrating to watch it burn up scarce taxpayer money but it’s a process. It has to run its course. It may require personnel changes before progress can happen. When the project peters out, then people in charge may be willing to listen to reason and may be willing to accept help. But not until then. So I keep telling myself to just be patient and go back to doing other things in the meantime.
The solution to the problem of creating electronic court records and managing them is surprisingly simple. But you either know how to do it or you don’t. There is no in-between. The current world of electronics is such that data management systems can be created very rapidly with no bugs, with the software being easy to use, and the process being inexpensive. In a parallel vein, note how easy it is to fly to New York now but 150 years ago, the airplane had not even been invented and the task of going coast to coast was extraordinarily difficult and time consuming.
The technology tools to handle the court’s data management task exist now. They have existed for 10 years or more although present versions are much more adept. The possible speed of creating solutions with such tools has speeded up dramatically. I have been involved in the use of such tools and have been frankly amazed at the evolution of the tools. I was recently able to assemble a customized application involving more than a million lines of code in about 10 days and have it in the hands of a customer in New York with no bugs. The necessary time (and cost) to accomplish the tasks of creating software components for the courts, assembling them into a system, installing them, and educating users has shrunk to the point where it can flow so quickly that it practically blurs any lines between these sub-tasks. You mention membership on a CCMS committee. Such committees are no longer needed. The software could be created in less time than it would take to set up a committee meeting that would accommodate members’ schedules. That is the current state of computer technology. If intended end-users have just general knowledge of how to run a current Windows PC, everything could be done by remote. I could do it from a beach in Florida.
Will the courts take advantage of this current state of affairs? Eventually I believe it will happen. We will just have to patiently wait and see what the new CJ is going to do.
For those of you (007 comes to mind) who believe that it must be time consuming to create a solution for the courts, must be expensive, must require work by numerous people, must require enormous amounts of training of end-users, must require enormously expensive equipment, and any solution(s) must necessarily have bugs when first created, I would suggest that you broaden your outlook and be willing to absorb knowledge about the current electronic environment. Instead of being sure that such problems still exist, take a look around at current software creation processes. Look at actual current examples. Forget about what might have been true in 1980 or even 1990. Forget about what your “expert” friends tell you. Believe your own eyes. The advent of modern tools has erased all of these problems. In the world of modern business, with mid-level executive personnel who are generally tech-savvy and who can operate and manage a modern Windows PC pretty well, the creation of sophisticated computerized solutions is proceeding at blinding speed. Management of huge amounts of data with easy to use tools is easily accomplished now.
As an interesting test of the evoluation of technology, on Thursday I sold software to a nice lady who has a need to manage data in a fairly sophisticated manner this Saturday instead of doing it all on paper, as in the past. She discovered on the Internet that software to do it existed. She contacted me. The available software can shrink the time required to sort the data by a factor of many thousands to one. So she bought a portable computer on Monday. She admits to being technologically challenged. She wasn’t aware of the concept of templates or where her Microsoft Templates folder was located. She has bare minimum knowledge of computers. She has never used a spreadsheet or done any complex calculations with a computer. So will she be able to do it by Saturday? I have my fingers crossed. Several customers with standard computer knowledge were able to do it in a similar time frame but ….
The software has many features that modern court system software should have. For starters, it has no bugs so that problem does not exist. It has many color coded items and easy to understand screen displays. It has an embedded self-teaching tutorial. The complexity is hidden from view and the user is shielded from the complex operations. The software is highly flexible. It operates at blinding speed for virtually all operations. This lady and her situation presents a perfect model of what could be done to yank the court system almost overnight from the dark ages into 2011.
JusticeCalifornia
May 6, 2011
So what the CA Chief Justice should know:
YOU OWE IT TO THE CA PUBLIC AND VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE OTHERS THAT HAVE TRUSTED TOP CA LEADERSHIP TO CHECK OUT ALTERNATIVES TO CCMS. AT THE VERY LEAST, HAVE A GENUINE , NEUTRAL, PUBLIC, EVIDENTIARY HEARING ABOUT THIS.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 6, 2011
Regarding item # 3 Justice California – That’s quite a fireworks show up there. We came across http://www.blindbulldog.com/ . This is a JC/AOC assigned judge that is re-appointed every sixty days (going on three years) that is causing all this strife and conflict?
This should serve as a litmus test for our new chief justice. Isn’t she the one that re-appoints department 12 every 60 days? For 3 years?
JusticeCalifornia
May 6, 2011
JCW, I do believe “temporarily assigned family court presiding judge” Jack Halpin has been there longer than 3 years. . . . .I WAS TOLD TODAY HE HAS BEEN “ASSIGNED” SINCE 1994!!!
Ummmmmmm…….. I do hope someone was playing a trick on me, or had the wrong information, but I asked a person specifically to check at the Shasta Superior Court today, and that message was left on my voicemail.
Whether it is four or 17 years, there are a whole lot of families who are very unhappy about having this judge — who has apparently ripped an enormous number of children from their parents — jammed down their throat, especially because they have no say in the matter. Assigned judges are neither elected nor appointed, and they are not subject to oversight by the CJP. Complaints must be made to the Shasta court and the AOC, and as far as I can tell, the Chief Justice gets to make the ultimate determination as to whether the assigned judge will be stay or be replaced.
A box of complaints about “temporary” Judge Jack was delivered to the AOC last October, I understand, but NOT A SINGLE PARENT who submitted their information seven months ago has gotten a response to their complaint. He keeps getting reappointed, and reappointed, and reappointed.
Parents have necessarily taken matters into their own hands, and created a grassroots court reform movement. What this little group has done in the last year by sheer guts and determination is amazing.
Rumor has it the Shasta court is also having trouble keeping Department 12 staffed, as no one wants to work there.
The branch had a chance, and didn’t respond, so the people are taking it to the streets.
Chief Justice, you have a golden opportunity to listen to those you serve. The ball is in your court.
JusticeCalifornia
May 7, 2011
More information related to that permanent (3 years? 4 years? 15 years? how long has it been?) “temporary assigned judge” serving as Shasta County’s presiding family court judge, about whom so many complaints reportedly have been made over the years, to no avail:
Description of the assigned judges program:
Click to access Assigned_Judges_Program.pdf
“How long do assignments last?
A judge can be assigned for any length of time, depending on the court’s need and the judge’s availability. Assignments are generally granted for up to 60 days. The Chief Justice can renew an assignment if the presiding judge or justice or his or her designee requests the renewal.”
California Rule of Court regarding evaluation and complaints about assigned judges:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/7260.htm?title=ten
relevant excerpt:
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
Rule 10.603(c)(4)(E)
“(4) Oversight of judicial officers
The presiding judge must:
(E) Assigned judges
For each assigned retired judge:
(i) Complete a confidential evaluation form;
(ii) Submit the form annually to the Administrative Director of the Courts;
(iii) Direct complaints against the assigned judge to the Chief Justice, by forwarding them to the attention of the Administrative Director of the Courts, and provide requested information in writing to the Administrative Director of the Courts in a timely manner; and
(iv) Assist the Administrative Director in the process of investigating, evaluating, and making recommendations to the Chief Justice regarding complaints against retired judges who serve on assignment. ”
In other words, folks, this Shasta County community has been deprived of its Constitutional right to partipate in the selection and retention of its family court judge, and also of its right to submit complaints to the only official state judicial oversight/disciplinary entity that exists– namely the Commission on Judicial Performance (I anticipate that will invoke a few reactions).
The Chief Justice has the sole power to appoint, re-appoint, and remove that judge.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU. YOU BETTER MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW:
Were ALL complaints forwarded by the presiding judge to the Administrative Director of the AOC? Did the AD properly send ALL complaints to the AJP for review and investigation? Did the AJP and AD engage in proper investigation and evaluation? Did the trial court presiding judge cooperate and provide all relevant information, fully and honestly? Did the AJP prepare a proper report, and send it to the AD, so it could timely be provided to the Chief Justice BEFORE the next assignment was made? Were complainants notified in any way of actions pending or taken?
HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS, THE PRESIDING JUDGE EVALUATION SHEETS, THE ASSIGNMENT AND RE-ASSIGNMENT REQUESTS AND ORDERS, LENGTH OF ASSIGNMENT AND REASSIGNMENT TIME, PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSIGNED JUDGES, AND NOTES OF ACTIONS TAKEN REGARDING ASSIGNED JUDGES BEEN RETAINED BY THE TRIAL COURTS AND THE AOC? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
CHIEF JUSTICE , MARY ROBERTS, AOC AD, TRIAL COURT PRESIDING JUDGES AND CEO’S, PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OR AUTHORIZE THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS. BRAD CAMPBELL, PLEASE DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE DOCUMENTS.
[Sorry for all the caps, just wanted to make my points.]
Mrs. Kramer
May 6, 2011
I have a question for Commercial IT. When entering judgments in the computer, is the Notice of Entry of judgment along with a bate stamped copy of judgment itself entered? Also, how does one determine who assigned a particular judge to a particular case?
Commercial IT
May 6, 2011
In a good modern system, there would no Bates stamp per se since that is a mechanical stamp system that is used with paper. However, there are electronic equivalents. In a modern system, each case (electronically a “record”) would be assigned a sequential number automatically, by a central clerk using functions that extend a series. Hundreds of new cases could, for example, come over to the clerk from a large volume agency such as the district attorney’s office and be “filed” (i.e. assigned sequential numbers with basic descriptive data being entered in a core data file and initial documents such as a complaint being placed on the central computer) within minutes. There would be no need for a “runner” from the DA’s office. These documents could be made available to the public within minutes if necessary.
In a modern system, all documents, including Notice of Entry of Judgment would be electronic. If they require calculations (additions, multiplications, etc.), the code for making such calculations can be embedded in the template. I have several examples of such templates available in case you’re curious how this can work.
As for determining who assigned a judge to a particular case in a modern computer system, that depends on whether such information is available in the database. If it is, it can be searched for and determined.
Mrs. Kramer
May 6, 2011
Thank you. I would be curious to see the templates and to understand how one determines how a particular judge is chosen for a particular case. My email is SNK1955@aol.com.
Back to contributing to a punch list to insure integrity in our judicial branch.
I propose that whenever a complaint for ethics violations is made against a Ca Supreme Court justice, a Judicial Council justice or a Commission on Judicial Performance justice, that the complaint is to be sent to the Bureau of State Auditors to assure unbiased review and independant oversight.
Commercial IT
May 6, 2011
I have supplied an example template of what could be done in a modern system, primarily to confirm that your computer is up to current standards. It is an electronic abstract of judgment with self-calculating features.
As for how a particular judge is chosen for a particular case, that’s not electronics. That’s some local system based on local policy. Of course, cases in the trial courts are sent out primarily based on which courtroom is available next.
Mrs. Kramer
May 6, 2011
Thank you!
Mrs. Kramer
May 7, 2011
How about this as the first Action Items for the CJ to impliment? According to the State Auditors, “The AOC’s current cost and benefit information does not clearly indicate whether CCMS is a cost‑beneficial solution. According to the 2007 consultant study and the AOC’s estimated support costs for CCMS, statewide deployment will provide net quantifiable benefits of $78 million annually, including savings from electronic filing and self‑service case inquiries, among other things. The AOC’s records show that the statewide case management project will cost nearly $1.9 billion, which includes the costs for CCMS and the interim systems. Thus, the AOC will need roughly 24 years to recover the investment in the project once CCMS is deployed to all 58 superior courts.7 The AOC’s estimated benefits could be reduced if funding shortfalls limit or delay statewide deployment. Although the Office of
the State Chief Information Officer’s (Information Office) April 2010 report noted, and we agree, that some of the benefits from CCMS were not quantifiable, such as data sharing across courts, without a cost‑benefit analysis the AOC is unable to demonstrate that the benefits of CCMS outweigh the nearly $1.9 billion cost.”
Action Item #1 Provide a cost/benefit analysis of continuing with the development and implimentation of CCMS.
Action Item #2 Provide an analysis of long term strategies for funding the continuance of the CCMS project.
Action Item #3 Explain how the required central hosting of CCMS will benefit the courts that state they require individualized local hosting.
Action Item #4 (pg. 51 of report)
To better manage costs of future IT projects, the AOC (and JC) should take the following steps:
• Estimate costs at the inception of projects.
• Employ appropriate budget and cost management tools to allow it to appropriately budget, track, manage, and estimate costs.
• Ensure that cost estimates are accurate and include all relevant costs, including costs that superior courts will incur.
• Disclose costs that other entities will likely incur to the extent it can reasonably do so.
• Update cost estimates on a regular basis and when significant assumptions change.
• Disclose full and accurate cost estimates to the Judicial Council, the Legislature, and stakeholders from the beginning of projects.
• Ensure that it has a long‑term funding strategy in place before investing significant resources in a project.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 7, 2011
Regarding Action Item #1 – The AOC commissioned Grant Thornton to provide a cost benefits analysis. That analysis was manipulated by the AOC with lots of wishful thinking and false assumptions to show that this project will make $300 million dollars a year – as long as the AOC can pile on new, unreasonably high fees that don’t currently exist.
Regarding Action Item #4 – Much of this would rely on a cultural change within the JC/AOC. No government organization personifies the public cultural abdication of responsibility more than FEMA after Katrina or the JC/AOC with respect to its pet software project. The JC/AOC utilizes committees to abdicate that responsibility through diffusion of that responsibility. A few key individuals made up their mind that this project would be delivered regardless of the costs. They happen to be the ostensible leadership of the organization. Rather than take ownership for the gross mismanagement, they appoint committees to provide cover for their poor management decisions. A standard M.O. repeated as if it were a broken record.
JusticeCalifornia
May 7, 2011
Yes, JCW, that has certainly been the case. But this is our “what the new CJ should know” thread, and she should know about all these good ideas.
Mrs. Kramer has some excellent ideas. What would also be ever so interesting: a public hearing at which ALTERNATIVES to CCMS were discussed and perhaps even demonstrated — and at which the AOC and its committees would be required to answer questions about CCMS and comment on alternatives. I think that is the least the Chief Justice could do in the course of her quest to justify CCMS.
The CJ solicited lawyers to pitch CCMS at the 1208 hearing but really what they were asking for is not CCMS itself, but rather a modern system that does what CCMS has promisesd to do.
Some have suggested a system like PACER. Commercial IT clearly has some ideas he would like to demonstrate. I am sure that a lot of people have ideas about what is affectionately being called the California Court boondoggle.
I have heard reasonable system could be had for $10 million.
Chief Justice: let’s have an open, unfettered public forum about CCMS. Let’s pit Justice Bruniers and the CCMS “oversight” committees against some true experts and the public’s inquiring minds, and see where we end up. What a great and easy step towards transparency that would be. And how fascinating for everyone!
Mrs. Kramer
May 7, 2011
JCW, yes. I believe what you say to be true. This is what I want to know from the new CJ & JC: They have already spent the $1.9B, right? So:
A. How much more will they have to spend to make CCMS functional?
B. What evidence is there that this is a feasible use of future tax dollars?
C. From where do they foresee these tax dollars allotted to the judicial branch coming when there are many fixed costs that must be paid first from the allotment in order to keep the courts running in a down economy?
D. How do they justify more expenditure into an IT project that requires a centralized hosting as the core for the project, when the courts and the audit have told them in no uncertain terms that the need is for the courts to keep local hosting in order to fit individual needs?
E. And if they are intending to put more money in CCMS, what has the new CJ and the JC done to provide oversight and Evidence Based Practices (EBP) from here on out to:
• Estimate costs at the inception of projects. (or finishing the project)
• Employ appropriate budget and cost management tools to allow it to appropriately budget, track, manage, and estimate costs.
• Ensure that cost estimates are accurate and include all relevant costs, including costs that superior courts will incur.
• Disclose costs that other entities will likely incur to the extent it can reasonably do so.
• Update cost estimates on a regular basis and when significant assumptions change.
• Disclose full and accurate cost estimates to the Judicial Council, the Legislature, and stakeholders from the beginning of projects.
• Ensure that it has a long‑term funding strategy in place before investing significant resources in a project.
If they can’t corroborate EBP starting today regarding their future intent with the new IT system, then are they asking us to blindly throw stretched and good tax dollars after bad?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 7, 2011
Mrs. Kramer,
They have not spent the 1.9 billion dollars yet. They didn’t know how much this project would cost because they didn’t do their homework. They’ve spent about 25% of that figure. To pay for what they have paid for regarding ccms thus far they have taken money from trial court trust funds without the consent of the trial courts and plan to do more of the same in the future. This is part of what AB1208 sought to address is the taking of this money. The AOC has not identified any funding source to convert courts or court justice partners (like the district attorney) to the new systems and has accepted the software without proof of merchantability and fitness for its intended purpose, mostly to cover their ass. All of your other questions are excellent. 🙂
Commercial IT
May 7, 2011
And to add to what JCW has pointed out, agencies like the district attorney should be included in the original planning for a case management system. The basic system would integrate them into the overall arrangement. No add-on later. The clerks in the district attorney’s office should be able to send a huge group of cases to the superior court clerk electronically and have all of them filed within minutes, with sequential case numbers assigned. The deputies would have all the case material with them on their laptop computers. Discovery to public defenders and private counsel would be electronic. The in-court clerk would receive all the basic materials on each case electronically from the central clerk’s computer. This technology exists now, or perhaps I should say the tools exist to create such a system. It would work smoothly, just like other modern software.
…(jcw combining posts)
May I add one important item? Talk to someone who actually knows how to write modern software.
…(jcw combining posts)
I like the idea of doing a demonstration. How about next week? I’m ready with some prototypes of several major components. Arrange for it and let me know when.
…(jcw combining posts)
And BTW, Mrs. Kramer, were you able to try out the automated software I sent to you?
…(jcw combining posts)
Good morning, JusticeCalifornia. One comment about PACER. That is a document retrieval system. The documents to be made available to the public are collected in a library and on-line access is then given to that library, with a payment system associated with it. That is much different from a system to create and manage data concerning trial court cases. A complete management system could include public document retrieval but it would only be a small part of the overall system. Stocking the public access document library could be a routine task assigned to a clerk at each county, with further assembly being done centrally to create a pooled array. I know how to do all this and it’s relatively simple but first the basic data management system should be created, then the filtered extraction process would be created.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 7, 2011
The Chief Justice can also read this document. Well evidenced and thought out, it serves as a testimony of what happened to get ccms off track. It’s a masters thesis
WHAT CAN PROJECT MANAGEMENT HELP US UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CCMS) IMPLEMENTATION IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY? http://www.csus.edu/ppa/theses_projects/thesis_bank/2009/ALANIZ.pdf
Mrs. Kramer
May 7, 2011
Yes. There seems to be many good source documents out there. If you want to cause change for the public good, I think you have to “ask for the order.” Spell it out what you want her to do, why it is necessary and send it to her while cc’ing other stakeholders, who are also impacted.
I would think those parents up in Shasta county would have some experience based suggestions of policy implimentations that could aid to improve the judicial system; or the justices in Riverside who had to go to the legislature to even been heard of a request for a new district; or the San Diego parents who have had the CJP turn deaf ears of problems in the family courts; or the attorneys who have tried to rework Ca’s abuse of unpublished opinions, or…the list is probably endless of people who would like to help the new CJ get off on the right foot.
We just need a vehicle to do it in a professional, effective manner, seems to me. Who knows? Maybe some of what is needed would be appropriate to be included in the final product of AB1208.
The underlying problems with all of these problem areas seems to be lack of transparency, lack of response to legitimate concerns, lack of oversight and much CYA.
Commercial IT
May 7, 2011
I read the master’s thesis. Fine, but what’s the point of it? Has almost nothing to do with the problem at hand. Look at carefully at what it is. It’s a thesis by a graduate student in the School of Public Administration. Not computers, not technology, not anything to do with modern technology. It’s about administration of public projects. Many of the references cited predate the dawn of the modern computer era. It’s just pointless academics.
JusticeCalifornia
May 7, 2011
I disagree. I thought the thesis had a lot of good information in it about the importance of having responsible planning, processes, reporting, oversight, and qualified personnel that were and still are clearly lacking with respect to CCMS.
I never really thought about CCMS being used as a worldwide textbook example of an IT project gone wrong in every possible way. But that is exactly what CCMS has become, and it undoubtedly will be cited in books, papers, seminars, etc. for years to come as what not to do.
And guess what? The biggest judiciary in the Western World is fast becoming the very same thing.
The ACJ correctly stated that CCMS is but one aspect of what is wrong with the branch.
Adherence to the rule of law and service to the public are supposed to be the branch’s top priority, but the public is screaming at the top of its lungs that the branch isn’t delivering. Judges have voiced their discontent with the status quo in the strongest terms I have ever seen, and so has the legislature.
Top leadership has not been listening. Instead, it has responded by following Senator Darrell Steinberg’s 2006 battle plan to “build as big a wall as possible and play defense.” Chief Justice, it is time to politely say “thanks but no thanks” to that strategy, and listen to the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s advice. Come out from behind the barricade, take honest stock of the very big problems you are facing, and work together with all stakeholders to come up with a mutually acceptable strategy to resolve those problems.
Commercial IT
May 7, 2011
Are you under the impression, JusticeCalifornia, that changing oversight of CCMS, or changing program managers, etc. would make a difference? What about the problem that some of the technology envisioned by CCMS is impossible? I’m not talking about the ultimate goals being impossible, but the methods.
JusticeCalifornia
May 7, 2011
Commercial IT, I am not supporting CCMS in the least. I do not have the personal expertise to support it. And I haven’t heard a thing that suggests that it will ever work properly, or that given the current economic climate there is a snowball’s chance in hell that $1.5 -2.5 billion or more will materialize to deploy it before it ages out, or that it will ever be managed or work in a manner that justifies the expense. Even now, top leadership is admitting problems still exist, and is continuing to say (as they have for years) that they are just a couple of months away from a finished product.
We have been told that the CCMS process as envisioned is like sucking a bowling ball through a garden hose.
I am suggesting that ALL alternatives should be considered.
My point about the thesis was that one could conclude that if you want a successful large-scale IT result you better have good people in place who a) know what they are doing and have done their homework (including consulting with top-notch experts); b) have researched and acknowledged the needs, strengths and limitations of the project (after consulting with top notch experts) and its intended users, and c) therefore have a viable plan and product that stakeholders can buy into.
Commercial IT
May 8, 2011
Okay, JusticeCalifornia. I can buy into those points generally. The bowling ball/hose analogy relates to the problem of inadequate bandwidth to support the CCMS architecture. It is a dead cold stopper. The technology to support the CCMS architectural scheme does not exist yet. Maybe in 10 or 20 years but not now. Knowledgeable IT people would know this and would not design a system the way CCMS was designed. This is one of several areas in which there are currently insurmountable technological barriers to CCMS working properly. I know of at least five such areas.
What I was emphasizing is that no matter who manages CCMS, or how much money they pour into it, it won’t work the way it was intended to work because it can’t. They don’t need any more managers, or better managers, or for that matter any “program managers” at all. Far more complex software is written regularly without any such position in the creation scheme. I am familiar with that because I live in that world. Most people aren’t. What they need and don’t have is someone who can write modern complex data management software.
JusticeCalifornia
May 8, 2011
Commercial IT, you should spell out all areas in which you think CCMS will not work. That is what this particular thread is for. What the CJ should know. (Let’s assume she hasn’t been told by her people, and hasn’t read AOC Watcher or Judicial Council Watcher.)
Commercial IT
May 8, 2011
Okay, JusticeCalifornia. Here is an outline of the major problem areas that prevent CCMS, as designed, from ever working properly.
1) Communication bandwidth and processor problems. Current bandwidth technology will not adequately support the planned operation of CCMS. Maybe in 10 or 20 years but not now. The Sacramento performance situation is a clear warning. And there were likely performance warnings at a prior stage of development and apparently ignored. When I have encountered such warnings (usually by way of compiler performance), I have heeded them immediately and looked for a different route to the end. There is a different route that would work for managing data from all 58 counties but using it requires starting over.
2) Bugs. The last count I heard was 9,253 bugs, with 838 remaining to be solved. This will be a never-ending problem. It is symptomatic of extremely sloppy coding.
3) Incompatibilities. Both internal (between components) and external (vis-a-vis ubiquitous standard software such as word processors). This problem cannot be solved within the CCMS architecture. It’s an absolute do-over situation.
4) Interface. The interface(s) is a major structural component of the software. It can’t simply be fixed. It has aspects that are many years out of date. This will interfere with worker productivity in a major way and render the software economically inefficient. This requires starting over, with the user interface(s) being the initial development target.
5) Interoperation with justice partners. This is something that should have been planned back at the beginning. Trying to do it now sets up another never-ending project. Systems that are going to engage in bilateral data exchanges must be planned in parallel. And if some such exchanges are impossible, workarounds must be designed right at the beginning. I have worked on such setups and can guarantee there is no substitute for taking the incompatibility problems into account right at the very beginning.
Mrs. Kramer
May 7, 2011
K. So they have “only” spent $500M so far.
It is transparent of why they would be greatly embarassed by that audit report and want to downplay the dire problems it called out — by cramming the completion of this project down the courts’ throats.
But, it is a current mistake to plan a future mistake to hide that they have made a past mistake. If that is what is occurring, that is only to their best interest, and adverse to the courts’ and public’s best interest.
This is especially true when they are using the public’s money, the money is thin, and the functionality of our nation’s largest judicial system hangs in the balance. They do not appear to have the vast amount of dollars required to complete the project without cutting into funds allocated for necessary fixed costs, i.e., keeping courts open daily.
So where is the EBP justification for putting even one more penny in CCMS without first establishing a game plan which adheres to the clear directives of the State audit?
Also, am I missing something? It seems to me that the fatal flaw in CCMS is that it requires a central hosting system to achieve its ultimate goal. But the courts and the audit have clearly stated they need local hosting to accomodate their individual needs. If they need local hosting then why are we spending all this money for centralized hosting, when we don’t even have the tax dollars right now to keep our courts functioning regardless of where the IT system is hosted?
That seems to me like going into debt to buy a glitzy two seater Mercedes when you have seven kids to get to soccer practice and you are living on public assistance.
What could be written, point by point, and sent to the new CJ to assist her to assure she is doing the wise thing from here on out before she allocates, or does not allocate, more money to the problem plagued project? What point by point could be sent to her of other problem areas in need of addressing in our judicial system?
Commercial IT, I have not tried the automated software yet. Will do today. Thanks for sending.
Mrs. Kramer
May 7, 2011
What does the Bureau of State Auditors know of this? and “Commission on Judicial Performance (I anticipate that will invoke a few reactions)” more like Commissioned Judicial Performances by bad actors.
JusticeCalifornia
May 7, 2011
If you are talking about the assigned judge issue, I am not aware that the Bureau of State Audits has been informed yet. The story is still developing. But you are right, the BSA should be informed.
I would really, really like an audit of how, at all levels, whistleblowers or even just those who have voiced complaints or asked for/reported legitimate information or simply actively asserted protected rights are being treated within the CA third branch. Litigants, court employees, advocates, judges, the press, and all others. (As in Person A, who is a court reformist or even just an ethical person/professional/neutral, is crucified for alleged behavior, while person B, a court supporter, is regaled after engaging in known bad behavior that is far worse than person A’s alleged behavior.)
I think the statistics would be shocking. The branch has as much power and discretion to dispense injustice, as it has to dispense justice, and virtually nonexistent oversight.
I mean let’s say, hypothetically speaking, a Chief Justice knew very well that she/he and her/his people were hiring or appointing and reappointing (an administrative procedure) people who were known for selectively brutalizing whistleblowers and critics at ALL levels– or engaging in financial mismanagement or fraud– and/or covering up bad acts.
Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, the Commission on Judicial Performance , and the courts themselves were purposefully staffed (an administrative procedure) IN PART with some who themselves are known to be compromised, and/or who are known or can be counted upon to selectively turn a blind eye to patently horrific offenders who support top leadership, while directing full attention to and reporting minor or nonexistent issues regarding those who support court reform.
Hypothetically speaking, how do you get at that? And to whom do you report? And who has jurisdiction to and will prosecute if crimes were committed?
While this debate goes on, certain known bad apples are going to continue to be targeted by the wronged and the public. This will inevitably reflect poorly on the entire branch, but since there is no effective oversight what is the alternative?
Mrs. Kramer
May 8, 2011
Justice California,
As I understand it, when Ca employees or agencies are deliberately indifferent to stop (or are aiding) with crimes of which a citizen or citizens are being harmed, the Bureau of State Auditors must be informed before one can make a claim for damages against the state for the employee’s or agency’s deliberate indifference causing the damages. The most famous recent Ca case of deliberate indifference is the Jaycee Dugard case. And I would be willing to bet $3M that you may take the word “hypothetical” out of your writing when discussing the CJP.
“The State of California has reached a $20 million settlement with Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped in 1991 at age 11 and found in August of 2009 living in a shed in the backyard of Phillip Garrido, a registered sex offender who had been on parole since January of 1988. Garrido allegedly fathered two children with her, and he and his wife have been charged with 29 felonies in connection with the woman’s captivity. The state attorney general’s office issued a report stating that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation failed to properly keep tabs on Garrido or properly supervise the officers assigned to his case. “While it is true that Garrido’s California parole was never officially violated, our review shows that Garrido committed numerous parole violations and that the department failed to properly supervise Garrido and missed numerous opportunities to discover his victims.” The report also indicates that, at one point, parole officers visiting Garrido actually spoke to Dugard and one of her daughters, but failed to investigate their identities or their relationship to the parolee. The settlement will go to the woman, now 30, and her daughters.”
The state did not fight this one because of concern of public outcry if they did, as I understand it. I wonder how many Ca citizens have been harmed by the deliberate indifference of the CJP’s failure to discipline judiciaries for proven legal and ethics violations?
JusticeCalifornia
May 8, 2011
What the CJ should know about the new Redding courthouse:
Some of Redding’s leading citizens are very upset about the proposed teardown of an historical building:
http://blogs.redding.com/mbeauchamp/archives/2011/05/the-dobrowsky-h.html
http://blogs.redding.com/dsmith/archives/2011/05/lets-save-the-d-1.html?partner=RSS
And certain Shasta County family court reformists are wondering– Building a fancy new courthouse? Saving houses and trees? Sounds great, but how about worrying about what is going on INSIDE the current courtrooms first? How about protecting Shasta County children and parents, and the Shasta County community’s Constitutional rights to have a say in who sits on the bench? How about having court reporters available? And qualified mediators and other court personnel as required by law?
These are problems going on around the State. Top leadership is focusing on multi billion dollar construction projects and multi billion dollar case management systems, paid for by a public that is being denied the basics, and suffering mightily as a result.
Today is Mother’s Day, and next month is Father’s Day. For those whose children have been ripped from them, these are the most painful days of the year.
As I said above:
“Respectfully, third branch oppression will not be tolerated. Third branch oppression is guaranteed to create fierce and determined court reform activists. At all levels, and in all branches of government. Because it is so wrong.”
Happy Mother’s Day, Chief Justice.
JusticeCalifornia
May 8, 2011
There are going to be two peaceful demonstrations tomorrow.
One is in Sacramento, at the Capitol.
Monday, May 9 , 2011-DAY AFTER MOTHERS DAY–SACRAMENTO, CA
Mothers and supporters meet to bring attention to the broken Family and Juvenile Court
Systems which harm victims of domestic violence and child abuse
Afternoon schedule:
Noon Assemble to pray at the West side of CA State Capitol
(10th Street between L and N Streets)
12:30 March from the State Capitol to the Appellate Court.
1:30 Demonstration
3:00 Assemble in the Committee room at the Capitol. Assembly
Member Fiona Ma is the keynote speaker
And one is going to be in Redding, California at the Shasta County courthouse steps, starting at 7:00 a.m. Mothers, fathers, supporters, church members and others will gather to protest and educate the public about what is happening to community members in the family court.
Delilah
May 9, 2011
More whining. Many judges “did not participate in the survey.” What happened to the honeymoon? Mother Hubbard still needs time to see what’s in the cupboard. ??? Pathetic.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/crime-courts/ci_18021830?source=email
Michael Paul
May 9, 2011
Justice married accountability, yet on their honeymoon justice chose to instead sleep with ignorance, malfeasance and mismanagement. That would end any honeymoon.
Pathetic indeed.
Chuck Horan
May 9, 2011
It is very interesting to me that the fact that “only” 900 judges voted in the CJA election is now being argued by the Chief Justice as a factor pointing toward satisfaction with the status quo.
80% of the 900 or so who DID vote were dissatisfied with the Judicial Council.
Speaking of stats, here are some for the Chief:
44% of elegible voters turned out when the Chief was on the November, 2010 ballot.
10 million people voted in the election. Of those, only 7 million voted in HER contest. So, of the ten million who turned out to vote for governor, etc, 3 million didn’t bother to expend the energy necessary to check either box in her contest.
Now, of the 7 million who DID vote in her contest, 67% voted for her, 33 percent against her.
67% of 7 million is 4.6 million people. There are about 22 million eligible voters in California.
The Chief got only 20% of the eligible vote, and UNDER 50% of those who went to the polls! Does that mean that somehow those who voted for her should have their selection diminished somehow, or that the Chief really wasn’t elected, or that her opinions should be discounted due to her relative lack of support in the electorate? Of course not, and she should not make arguments that the CJA vote was anything other than a complete repudiation of the Council’s oversight of the AOC.
wendy darling
May 9, 2011
The Chief Justice’s posturing and selective view of things just diminishes whatever marginal credibility the Office of the Chief Justice and the judicial branch as a whole has left. Her “honeymoon” was over when, in the face of the BSA audit report, variously described by members of the State legislature as scathing, atrocious, and horrifying, she defended and praised Bill Vickrey for his management of the AOC. Even worse, when members of the State Legislature took the unprecedented action of sending a letter to the Chief Justice calling for Vickrey’s termination for his abysmal and failed mis-management of the AOC, and in particular CCMS, the Chief Justice’s responded by attacking the State Legislature, criticizing the State Bureau of Audits, and continuing to defend and praise Vickrey and “the house that George built.”
The Chief Justice has been a voting member of the Judicial Council for several years. She can’t say she didn’t know or wasn’t aware of the problems in the branch prior to accepting the CJ position; she participated in, defended, and endorsed, the very actions that have now left the judicial branch in disrepute and disgrace. As Calderon pointed out at the hearing on AB 1208, there is absolutely nothing preventing the Chief Justice from exercising leaderhip or from changing AOC policy and correcting branch mismanagement, including retaliation against those who have reported or spoken out about branch misconduct. She has chosen not to do so.
And FYI – the serious problems facing the judicial branch aren’t “in the cupboard” -they’re on the table. Deal with it, or resign and let the Governor appoint a Chief Justice who is prepared to exercise the necessary leadership to restore integrity, ethical conduct, credibility, accountability, real transparency, and public trust in the judicial branch.
And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 10, 2011
For our new CJ, running the biggest judiciary in the Western World isn’t hard at all.
http://www.pacificcitizen.org/site/Default.aspx?tabid=55&selectmoduleid=373&ArticleID=877&reftab=36&title=California%E2%80%99s_Chief_Justice:_The_%E2%80%98Living,_Breathing_Example_of_the_American_Dream%E2%80%99
“A graduate of the University of California, Davis law school, Cantil-Sakauye has been a judge since 1990 and has served as a prosecutor and aide to former Gov. George Deukmejian, but she credits an earlier job with helping her develop the ability to quickly and accurately assess situations — a waitress job at a Sacramento restaurant.
“I’m a pretty good waitress,” she said with a laugh. “I worked at night in college so I organized my time and I became really efficient with making coffee with one hand and filling water pitchers with another.”
During her first year in law school, Cantil-Sakauye also worked as blackjack dealer at the Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, and while waiting for her bar exam results, she cocktailed at a local bar.
“I have no doubt that if my grandmother or my mother had my opportunities they would do much more. I feel like the recipient of tremendous love and sacrifice and I would never let them down. And it is the gift that keeps on giving because in addition to giving me the opportunity, they showed me the strength,” said the chief justice.
“It’s my ancestors’ history, my family’s history that gives me perspective, so when the branch is under challenge and the branch is under attack and we are having problems, that’s not hard. Hard is when you have to work in the fields. Hard is when you can’t marry the person of your choice and you have to go out of state like my uncle did to get married to his white wife. Hard is when you’re told to queue up and leave your home in 48 hours and you’re gone for four years and you come back to nothing. That’s hard.
“What I’m doing is challenging.”
What the Chief Justice needs to know: Hard is when for thousands of Californians, the American dream turns into this:
You played by the rules, worked hard, got married, had a couple of children, struggled to buy a house, and saved a little money. Your marriage fails, and you are forced into the California family law system, where you are bankrupted paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers and family court appointees, and you suddenly and without warning lose your children based on the recommendation of an unqualified overworked court mediator who spent one hour on your case. Hard is when you spend the next 10 years going home to an empty apartment (because that is all you can afford), wondering WTF happened. Hard is when you find out that the judge who let this happen isn’t elected or appointed, or subject to disciplinary action, and/or is historically problematic, and oh, by the way, the money the branch could have spent on genuine branch oversight, accountable judges, and retaining qualified court personnel to prevent this from happening, was spent on a $3 billion dollar computer boondoggle that will never work, $2,000 light bulb changes, some of the most expensive courthouses in the country, real nice Judicial Council parties and committees, certain consulting court CEOs who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to specialize in shredding documents and tampering with court files so no one can see what happened to you, highly paid private and in house lawyers and an entire PR department to make sure no one hears you complaining or believes a word you say, political lobbyists, and lots of other helpers whose job it is to protect the person who made it all possible: the Chief Justice of the largest judiciary in the Western World, who thinks the status quo is just fine, and running the branch isn’t hard at all.
Michael Paul
May 9, 2011
Someone needs to explain the unlicensed contractor fiasco and the lack of accountability on that from a judicial branch standpoint to the public.
Not only were they unlicensed but they were grossly overcharging you for their unlicensed services as a sole source provider. Who is benefitting from these special arrangements chief justice because it isn’t the courts and it isn’t the people of the state of california.
The only person thus far held accountable for this fiasco is me for pointing it out.
Michael Paul
May 9, 2011
Whoops. Forgot. Jon Wintermeyer was canned too for pointing it out.
Mrs. Kramer
May 9, 2011
Action Item 4 of Items 3,752: Impliment mechanisms for oversight of AOC/JC/CJP to curtail retaliation by judicial monarch and their respective agencies against “rebel” whistleblowers of fraud, waste and corruption in our judicial system and the state.
Appears disrespectful, disingenous, demeaning and dangerously defensive to characterize judiciaries (and others) to be frivilous “rebels”; when these “rebels” have successfully caused a state audit of AOC/JC & resultant legislation to aid wise use of tax dollars and re-instillation of democracy in our courts.
REBELS “Re-Establish Basic Ethics in our Legal System” Will the state’s contracting board soon be deemed rebels, too?
JusticeCalifornia
May 9, 2011
From the prior version of AB 1208:
“The design or construction of a court facility shall not be
undertaken in a county without the prior and final written consent
and approval of that court’s trial court management. The location of
a court facility construction project shall be approved by that court’s
trial court management. A pending construction project that is not
yet under construction at the time this section is enacted shall be
submitted for approval of the trial court management of the affected
court as soon as possible. All court facilities within each county
shall prominently display the name of the county in substantially the
following manner: “Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of name of county].” A court facility shall not be
named except by, or with the written consent of, that court’s trial
court management.”
Of course this makes sense. Communities in the state have differing needs, views, and priorities.
Case in point:
http://anewscafe.com/2011/05/06/meeting-monday-on-downtown-courthouse-plan-old-trees/
http://anewscafe.com/2011/03/29/vigil-supports-downtown-trees/
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/mar/02/editorial_courthouse/
What the CJ should know: Just because 1208’s provisions have been simplified, the CJ should not forget the widespread support the prior version of 1208 has garnered, and assume the only issue she now has to deal with is whether top leadership can continue to unilaterally raid trial court funds.
Kudos to the ACJ for bringing these issues to the table. One size does not fit all.
Mrs. Kramer
May 9, 2011
http://anewscafe.com/2011/05/06/meeting-monday-on-downtown-courthouse-plan-old-trees/
“The preferred site, approximately five acres at Oregon and Yuba Streets, is within the Market Street Redevelopment area, and the Redding Redevelopment Agency is assisting the AOC in acquiring the site.”
Februaary 2, 2011 So Cal Public Radio,
How redevelopment agencies work and why Gov. Brown wants to scrap them
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/02/02/how-redevelopment-agencies-work-and-why-gov-brown-/
“….’those monies’ don’t come cheap. Local governments fund redevelopment agencies by diverting property taxes that would otherwise go to school districts or police and firefighters. The people living in cities and counties with redevelopment agencies still need schools, cops and firefighters, so the state government makes up the difference to pay for them.
“The state is essentially subsidizing a huge program that we’re not sure is benefiting the state as a whole,’ said Mark Whitaker with California’s Legislative Analyst Office, a non-partisan body that advises lawmakers on fiscal policy….
…Brown offered a similar rationale for his plan to scrap redevelopment agencies. He estimates the move would save the state $1.7 billion in the next fiscal year. Brown said he wants to take some of the savings and give that money to school districts and fire department around the state. Assemblyman Mike Gatto backs that plan in principle.
‘We’re not trying to take anybody’s money,’ said Gatto. ‘We’re trying to get rid of a subsidy that’s existed for too long, that at the very least needs to be tweaked to some degree.”
…(JCW combining posts)
Sorry for the additional post. I used to sit on the local Historic Preservation Commission. We used Redelopment Block Grant Funds to form a residential Historic District adjacent to the downtown that was also being redone with redevelopment monies. The people of Redding should know that this is the REAL purpose of redevelopment funds, i.e. to make areas of the city more viable for the citizens.
San Diego, 2007, Can redevelopment funds be used for historic preservation?
Click to access RC-2007-1.pdf
“Redevelopment funds can be used for any of the designated purposes set forth in the
California Health & Safety Code sections 33020 and 33021. Under these sections,
“redevelopment” would include “rehabilitation” of historical properties within a redevelopment area, as it provides a direct benefit to the project area. For example, funds can be used for historic facades.”
…(JCW combining posts)
Hmmmm? Quick search and I think the AOC and the Redevelopment Association (RA) may have a little problem with their proposal to use tax dollars to tear down a beautiful home of historic value along with removing antique arbores under the premise of public best interest redevelopment and by eminent domain.
Seems RA is making promises to “reform” themselves if Gov Brown will not ax all the money to the Redevelopment Agencies.
SELF-PROPOSED REFORM NUMERO UNO:
“Tighten Definition of Blight to Stop Inappropriate Uses of Redevelopment and Ensure It Focuses on Areas Most in Need”
Cal Senate Bill 286 introduced on May 2, 2011 …a bill that would impose tough new reforms to increase accountability….
Click to access 05-02-11%20SB%20286%20FINAL.pdf
How do a beautiful old house and its’ arbores qualify as blight in Redding in need of being destroyed by redevelopment tax dollar funding? Could it be that AOC has simply found another source of to fleese the public’s coffers? Court employees excluded, court houses are not famous for bringing desirable elements into an area of redevelopment or any other area.
JusticeCalifornia
May 9, 2011
Thank you Mrs. Kramer, I passed the info along (late this afternoon, but better late than never).
Meanwhile Brad Campbell of the AOC’s Assigned Judge’s Program has confirmed that Shasta County’s Retired Judge Jack Halpin has been “temporarily” assigned to the Shasta Court since 1994.
Let’s do the math. 17 years. At least two, and perhaps 3 elections cycles (every six years, except the first retention election could be earlier if appointed mid-cycle. ) Reappointments every 60 days? Perhaps 103 reappointments?
The Governor did not appoint him to his present position, and the Shasta community has not had an opportunity to vote him out. And word is there have been lots of complaints about Judge Halpin, internal and external, for years. Yet, the Shasta community is unable to report him to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Mr. Campbell reported there are other assigned judges that have been assigned for years and years.
We will see where this goes, because it is definitely going somewhere. This is a usurpation of the public’s Constitutional right to elect its bench officers, and when the need arises, to report them to the only state judicial oversight/disciplinary entity that exists– the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Mrs. Kramer
May 9, 2011
You are welcome. Hope it helps. This was such a great program back in the 80’s. Now it just looks like a cash cow for the well connected at the taxpayer’s expense. Sad. Link to the March 2011 State Controller’s audit report of the Redevelopment Agencies (RDA). Says $5.5 annual budget. http://sco.ca.gov/Press-Releases/2011/03-2011_RDA_Review.pdf
Reads like one could white out “Controller audit of RDA” and fill in “BSA audit of AOC/JC”.
Some highlights (lowlights) called out on California’s Capitol Blog:
The review exposes the difficulty of holding redevelopment agenceis accountable for their funding decisions when existing legal standards are so loose that any area can be deemed “blighted.”
“The lack of accountability and transparency is a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety,” said Controller Chiang. “In whatever form local redevelopment takes in the future, the level of oversight and openness must be consistent with the amount of public dollars entrusted to their care.”
“For a government activity which consumes more than $5.5 billion of public resources annually, we should be troubled that there are no objective performance measures demonstrating that taxpayer’s are receiving optimal return for each invested dollar,” said Chiang.
The Controller found no reliable means to measure the impact of redevelopment activity on job growth because redevelopment agencies either do not track them or their methodologies lack uniformity and are often arbitrary.
The report also identified several missed payments to school districts and widespread accounting and reporting deficiencies, questionable payroll practices, substandard audits, faulty loans, and inappropriate use of affordable housing funds.
Coronado’s redevelopment area covers every privately-owned parcel in the city, including multi-million dollar beachfront homes.
In Palm Desert, redevelopment dollars are being used to renovate greens and bunkers at a 4.5 star golf resort. That redevelopment agency receives the 10th-highest tax revenue in the state, with a fund balance worth $4,666 for each of the city’s 52,000 residents.
…. the report found that redevelopment dollars often went to city or county payroll without evidence that those dollars actually supported redevelopment services.
In the City of Pittsburg, the redevelopment agency signed a service agreement with the city and transferred $3 million to the city’s general fund. But no documentation exists to show that the $3 million actually went to redevelopment services.
Five of the 18 redevelopment agencies failed to make $33.6 million in required payments to schools within their redevelopment areas. When redevelopment agencies fail to make these payments, it increases the state general fund’s financial obligations to local school districts.
While redevelopment agencies are able to borrow funds in order to make these school payments, none of the five agencies attempted to do so.
All the agencies made the required deposits into their Low & Moderate Housing funds but the review found that many of them made inappropriate charges to this account that were not directly related to affordable housing, as required by California’s Health and Safety Code.·The City of Los Angeles inappropriately charged 20 percent of its redevelopment administration costs to the fund (amounting to $833,000).
·The City of Hercules inappropriately charged $9,600 of its lobbyist expenses.
The report also found that independent audits often failed to identify major audit violations and did not include all required information.
Two of the redevelopment agencies made questionable loans to their cities’ general fund. In Pittsburg, the agency loaned $16.6 million in fiscal year 2009-10 without interest to the city for specified projects. By the end of the fiscal year, $15.4 million was unspent, allowing the city to earn interest on those funds.
The City of Calexico’s redevelopment agency loaned $1.75 million to the city in 1993 with 6 percent interest. The City Council, acting as the agency’s board, lowered the interest rate to 1.42 percent in 2004. While the loan was supposed to be fully repaid by 2009, the city still owes $1.1 million to the redevelopment fund, based on information provided to the Controller’s office.
…(JCW combining posts)
Not to belabor the point, but these redevelopment tax dollars in Redding going to the AOC to remove the “blight” of historic bungalows and aged trees, to build a new courthouse within the district, so the funds could be accessed by the leadership of the judicial branch, appears to be one more fleecing of the people by the judicial council. Wonder how many redevelopment dollars have been allocated to this project for our legal leaders?
So now we have audits of the AOC/JC and the RDA exposing fraud, waste and abuse by the well connected. Let’s see, who should be next to remove cronyism in our judicial branch at the highest levels? Could it be….the Commission on Judicial Performance?
…(JCW combining posts)
Last post on this. Look what they did in Redding in Nov 2010 that appears to get around the fact that Redevelopment funds are for the removal of “blight”. By amendment, they added the words “Planning Activities” as proper usage of Redevelopment funds, which would appear to aid the AOC to access the tax payer funds for a new courthouse by eminent domain of an non-blight property.
ttp://www.ci.redding.ca.us/cclerk/Minutes-2010/RRA/11-15-2010.pdf
PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT OF THE 2010-2014 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR
THE MARKET STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (R-030-145-275)
The hour of 5:15 p.m. having arrived, Chair McArthur opened the public hearing relative to
amending the 2010-2014 Implementation Plan (Plan) for the Market Street Redevelopment Project Area (Market) to include “Planning Activities” to the list of potential Programs/Projects component. The following documents are on file in the Office of the Redding Redevelopment Agency (Agency): Affidavit of Publication – Notice of Public Hearing
City Clerk Mize advised that no comments had been received to date.
Assistant City Manager Tippin highlighted the Report to Redevelopment Agency dated
October 14, 2010, incorporated herein by reference, to modify the five-year Plan for Market covering the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014. He explained that its purpose is to document the link between the proposed actions set forth in the Plan and [note
“and”, not “for”] the elimination of blight as identified in the Market Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Tippin explained that amending the Plan to include “Planning Activities” to the list of Potential Programs/Projects component of the Plan would allow for planning efforts associated with the development and/or updating of plans associated with both capital and housing activities.
************
Council sidesteps Brown’s budget:
http://www.redding.com/news/2011/mar/21/redevelopment-council-sidestepsbrown-budget-plan/?partner=RSS
Judicial Council Watcher
May 10, 2011
Let’s please try to limit this thread to specific information the chief justice needs to know about issues under her direct control. If you’ve posted more than three posts in series, I combined them in this thread to attempt to make it easier on readers.
Note to all JCW posters: Unlike AOC Watcher our threads never expire. Take a look around – you might find a better place to post a comment than the latest thread.
Mrs. Kramer
May 10, 2011
How about this on the punchlist?
When applying tax dollars for the acquision of land and construction of new court facilities in collaboration with designated usage tax dollars alotted to a state agency, the CJ should verify that the AOC’s partnering agency is using their designated tax dollars for the joint venture as is designated by law.
JusticeCalifornia
May 10, 2011
JCW, one of the MAJOR points our CJ must know about all levels of the branch is this:
If top leadership will not listen and be responsive to important issues facing the branch, and instead resorts to oppression, people WILL find other ways to be heard.
This may not be particularly pleasant for the branch as a whole — like reading about assigned judges, the CJP, or even brand new redevelopment issues no one ever thought about until yesterday.
The court reformists I know are NOT opposed to judges, new courthouses, or good computer systems in general.
They ARE opposed to corruption, fraud, retaliation, illegal behavior, waste, mismanagement and cronyism within the branch; a complete lack of oversight within and of the branch; and the fact that the public is expected to suffer, shut up and pay for all of the above.
Bad apples may not spoil the whole branch, but they are spoiling the public’s trust and confidence in the whole branch.
Those within the branch need to figure this out.
I think it was Judge Gilliard who at one point hit the nail on the head: the AOC treated whistleblowers very poorly, without consequence, and now the entire branch is subject to whistleblower provisions (albeit watered down). I daresay a blog or two we know about arose in connection with whistleblower retaliation issues.
Perhaps one of the MOST important things the CJ should know is that the CJ needs to come out from behind the barricades and play ball, as the legislature suggested, instead of whining in newspaper articles that court reform legislation she doesn’t like is “disrespectful”, or how the CJA poll doesn’t really mean what it says.
Bottom line: she needs to clean house at all levels, or others will do it for her. And once the house is cleaned, she needs to invite others to the table.
Nuff said.
JusticeCalifornia
May 10, 2011
Oh my.
1. The ACLU and tea party have joined forces to sue Redding for trying to infringe on free speech.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/tea-119845-ocprint-party-redding.html.
2. Yesterday’s small handful of morning Shasta family court demonstrators were reportedly “protected” at all times by between two and eight uniformed officers who pleasantly stood by, and a leaf blowing gardener who made taped interviews a bit difficult. The normally bustling family courthouse was reportedly uncharacteristically empty.
3. Yesterday evening’s Redding AOC meeting about the new courthouse was reportedly well attended and interesting, with many expressing opposition to the AOC ‘s plans. I heard someone indicated that the AOC has dropped its estimated cost of building the courthouse from $211 million to $168 million. (Can anyone confirm that, and explain, if that estimated $43 million (20%) price drop is true, how it happened?)
Mrs. Kramer
May 10, 2011
Well that IS interesting. So you have the far left and the far right speaking together about their right to speak in a small California town where there is a mother speaking out of how the courts are trying to silence her of how they took her child and preservationists complaining of the courts and the local government misapplying funds that are meant for the people – with the governor and controller agreeing…AND a website that is followed by judiciaries and whistleblowers who are complaining of the same thing as the left, right, mothers and preservationists in the small town; following what is going on in this small town. Sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up!
I say, when we get our punchlist done, that we all go to Redding and leaflet the town!
Judicial Council Watcher
May 10, 2011
I’ve attached a letter to the primary post that was sent by the California Judges Association on behalf of their members. That letter includes a punchlist of recommendations.
JusticeCalifornia
May 10, 2011
Kudos to the CJA, and the ACJ. Very fine letter. Hot damn.
wendy darling
May 10, 2011
Posted late this afternoon, Tuesday, May 10, 2011, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Northern Courts Reject Massive IT Project in Answers From CA Survey
By MARIA DINZEO. http://www.courthousenews.com
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 10, 2011
What the Chief Justice should know: George’s house was built on ethical and financial quicksand, and you are surrounded by his architects.
Retreat to higher ground.
wendy darling
May 10, 2011
And please do so quickly, because the Office of the Chief Justice and the judicial branch as a whole is sinking fast.
Mrs. Kramer
May 10, 2011
That is a very smart letter. Well written in the right tone and encompassing in its concept/content in just two short pages. Its clear that the judges, by and large, are of the opinion that the leadership of the Judicial Branch has become a heavy handed, undemocratic, bureacracy that is unable to acknowledge and/or correct error when brought to their attention.
The judges deal with the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice when faced with this mindset. But the public must deals with the Commission on Judicial Performance when faced with this same mindset that has trickled down into some courts.
This letter clearly reflects the frustration and desire for change by the judges. What is not addressed and is also in dire need of change is the impact on the public who have experienced the same lack of respect, lack of democracy and inability to admit error by the courts.
Further house cleaning measures are required to the Judicial Branch to reinstill democracy, not just for the judges but also for the public. These are required within the Commission on Judicial Performance who is charged with overseeing ethics for all courts — while it has also been experiencing the wrong mindset, itself.
SF Whistle
May 10, 2011
Mrs Kramer–
I’m suspect you take a glance at the “pending cases” page on the CJP website every so often:
For those that never have try this:
http://cjp.ca.gov/index.php?id=7
I think it’s fascinating that there has only been a single case filed by the CJP for the first five months of 2011—-I’m sure we should interpret this as clear testimony that it is possible that there is only one bad judge in the State this year?—I believe I read that the CJP has support staff of 18 and a budge that exceeds 4 million dollars?—-I bet they worked overtime to net this bad boy in their web? Last year I believe they slapped the back of hands of 8 Judges—
I recently read somewhere that the impact of a CJP “admonishment” is the equivalent of a soccer mom bawling out a child from an opposing team—shame on you…naughty boy….
It’s clear that we live in a wonderful place and people like you and me are “shrill and uninformed”….
THE CJP IS A JOKE—–laughable if it were not so blatant and sad knowing that they exist in name only….a deadletter address for complaints to be sent and die—created to provide a cathartic exercise for abused litigants and a chuckle for any judge that finds he / she has been the subject of a complaint….
Mrs. Kramer
May 10, 2011
Yes. I read the CJP site frequently. Although one will see no mention of it on the site, I am aware of several, who have filed legitimate complaints with the CJP regarding serious, life changing complaints of ethical breaches in the courts, only to be dismissed without even a cursory investigation.
I am also aware of some justices sitting on committees and commissions in “the house that George built”, who need to be removed from their committees for using their positions and their courts to practice politics in such an egregious manner that they have also earned the right to be removed from the bench.
In rounding out the re-instilling of democracy and proper use of tax dollars by our courts, I believe an audit of the CJP by the Bureau of State Auditors is required. If anyone should wish to contact me off board of this matter, my name is Sharon and my email is snk1955@aol.com.
JusticeCalifornia
May 12, 2011
Mrs. Kramer, see:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/11/3617420/lawmaker-calls-for-toppling-californias.html
CJ: what you should know about whose heads should roll in order to restore trust and confidence in the branch: So long as you keep Verna Adams and Kim Turner on as your advisors, you will be considered three compromised birds of a feather. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not. . . .you know what to do.
JusticeCalifornia
May 13, 2011
Chief Justice, and the legislature:
Forced ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) measures are reportedly being actively used and abused by certain courts and others to infringe upon the BASIC due process rights of CA citizens guaranteed by the U.S. and CA constitutions.
In ALL legal arenas.
Pay attention.
JusticeCalifornia
May 14, 2011
What the CJ should know about this latest Herman debacle:
Lap dogs are no longer in vogue, in fact they only draw attention to the fact that the top leadership’s super secret tricks on how to manage the branch must be recognized and discarded for what they are:
http://www.ehow.com/video_4974174_train-blind-dog.html?cp=1&wa%5Fvlsrc=continuous&pid=1&wa%5Fvrid=82e0320c%2Dbd03%2D4b09%2Db904%2D8fd4c5508fb8
“So when your blind dog does the behavior you want, like down, your dog lies down, and when that behavior happens, then you would mark the behavior. A good way to do that is with a clicker. You would click for that behavior and you would give the treat, so it’s not a whole lot different. It’s pretty easy to do. The only thing you might have to do is get your dogs attention, which we have to do with seeing dogs as well. So usually just calling your dogs name, reminding them what it is they’re working for and then rewarding the proper behavior. ”
http://www.ehow.com/video_4974173_train-dog-stop-barking.html
“When you’re working on teaching your dog not to bark, one of the best ways to do it is to teach your dog to bark on command. So that gives you an opportunity to reinforce your dog for barking, and an ability to ignore when they bark off of command. So, with positive reinforcement, you would find an opportunity when your dog typically barks. Reward that, name it, so when you ask your dog to speak, your dog will bark and then that gives you the opportunity again to ignore the behavior when it is given without the command. The other thing you would do with barking off command is to manage the behavior. It’s reinforcing for most dogs to bark, so you, when a dog barks, looking out the window, seeing someone coming, you would acknowledge what your dog is barking about, and then, require or request that they cease barking, and if they don’t then you would manage the behavior. Remove them from the stimulus, the window, maybe crate them, redirect them. Give them something different to do. A reward would be anything your dog would find reinforcing. It could be a toy, it could be a small treat.”
How to Train a Dog for a Show | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/video_4974176_train-dog-show.html#ixzz1MOYdEKIr
“When you’re training your dog for a show, this is a good time to get help from a professional. Check in your area for confirmation classes. Dog training clubs usually do offer such options. It’s important that your dog be very comfortable being handled. You want your dog to be able to handle a judge or a stranger you know, handling their ears, and their tail and everything so you want to be doing a lot of touching and making sure your dog is comfortable with that. Working up slowly to a stranger, doing, a friend doing the touching, and then a stranger doing the touching. Be very careful to keep everybody concerned if your dog is at all concerned. The other thing that’s really important in a show atmosphere is that your dog be comfortable working with a lot of distractions, so usually a lot of people and other dogs present. And so you want your dog to be very good at focusing on you and screening out all of those other distractions.”
Enough disrespectful behavior by top leadership. No more circus clowns or trained animals.
We are talking about the largest judiciary in the Western world.
Honest debate is necessary. Judges are supposed to be ethical, independent advocates for truth and justice, not trained dogs who lie down, tolerate manhandling, and bark on command.
JusticeCalifornia
May 15, 2011
I was provided this article:
http://iepolitics.com/2010/07/16/the-sentinel-sheriff%E2%80%99s-department-gathered-photographs-of-da-mike-ramos-cavorting-with-prostitutes/
and am forced to question whether the Adam Torres referenced therein is the same one just appointed to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Chief Justice: what you should know: is he one and the same? Please let us know.
JusticeCalifornia
May 16, 2011
Gosh so many court online services have been and/or are down.
Right now it is the SF superior court.