As many have alluded to, mismanagement of the CCMS project is only the visible part of an expansive iceberg appropriately named “Abdication of Responsibility”
Unfortunately because JC members only meet six times a year to have their puppet strings pulled, mismanagement of this project lands squarely in the hands of AOC senior management – as do most other cases of mismanagement that amount to other AOC icebergs. We’ve received a number of documents to support our argument that this project remained on autopilot without any oversight and with precious little input from the trial courts.
Chief among them is the AOC’s own re-write of history called the “Judicial Council Policy Reference Manual 2010” where it goes to some length describing the process that the JC/AOC undertook to develop CCMS. Page 100 (which is page 3 of the reference manual attachment) indicates that CCMS will be deployed to the three early adopter courts being San Diego, Ventura and San Luis Obispo making it clear that further “statewide deployment to the remaining courts will continue when funding has been appropriated“. This document, written in August 2010 makes AOC’s intentions perfectly clear. You will have spent as a taxpayer just over a half billion dollars to deploy this application to three out of 58 courts and rely on legislative appropriations of between 1 and 2 billion to complete deployment. Appropriations is the pre-baked August 2010 excuse that the JC/AOC cannot move forward on George’s bridge to nowhere. Blame our gross mismanagement on the legislature not giving us enough money to mismanage. We will force the legislature to fund the program or to end the program. Regardless, the legislature will be the party of no and not the AOC. A similar showdown with the legislature (we affectionately call operation backfire) came with Ronald George’s decision to “show the legislature what a lack of funding will result in” by shutting down the trial courts and giving that money to CCMS.
This half-baked plan was rolled out prior to George ever leaving office. Likely along side the planned retirements of Calabro and Vickrey. The CCMS ship was sunk in August 2010 and the AOC knew it. They’re just trying to keep their best poker face going and big checks to deloitte going out in the hope that you dear reader don’t read too closely or ask too many questions. After all, these mis-managers need a year in service at the higher pay grade to retire, which is the only real reason they’re sticking around.
When you look at the JC/AOC’s version of history in their policy reference manual and compare this version of history with other information, it becomes apparent that the people who only meet six times a year aren’t getting any of the information they needed to provide oversight from the AOC.
In 2004, the legislative analysts office warned the legislature and the AOC of everything that eventually came to fruition regarding the gross mismanagement of the CCMS project. (See legislative analysis of state trial court funding from 04-05) Can you find these notes, warnings or action items related to this dire warning in any judicial council meeting minutes? Are they written into the policy reference manual that someone actually paid attention to these warnings? Did the AOC take any opportunity to mitigate the risks presented?
What it shows is that between 2003 and May, 2007 there is hardly any mention of CCMS in judicial council meeting minutes. Certainly, there wasn’t even acknowledgement of the risks presented by the LAO report written in 2004 by either the AOC or the Judicial Council. It was in that lack of reporting period that hundreds of change orders to the application were pushed through the CCMS trio of SRO Director, IS Director and Finance Director without so much as blinking. “It’s just like I tell my husband, you would never believe the price of shoes these days” was one argument made to justify huge sums without question.
In 2008 Mr. Bill came up with a Funding Strategy, an executive update that he presented to the legislature. Again, referring back to Judicial Council meeting minutes or even the policy reference, there is no mention (except in the executive update to the legislature) that the program was slated to cost over 1 billion dollars. Even then, you have to add up the columns to come to that conclusion. Furthermore the funding strategy represents that the trial courts “will commit” 250 million dollars out of trial court reserve accounts that held only a hundred million dollars. Four hundred million dollars was up in the air as to where it would come from way back in 2008 and knowing the fiscal situation this state was in, AOC management concealed all of this simply by not revealing it. This was way back in 2008 when this state was already in a deep financial crisis that was getting deeper when no representation as to the total costs of this system were made to anyone that could have said or done anything about it. No one was permitted to ask why because AOC management concealed the facts, not letting having any party have all the facts with which they may have made more effective decisions. And now, we’re going to reward their mismanagement with fat pensions as parting gifts.
They want you to believe the application has been accepted and delivered, yet numerous recommendations of the OCIO and BSA and even the state legislature remain outstanding. A “core application” has been accepted with “modules” appearing in July. Just after Vickrey and Calabro vacate their offices, we’re going to hear that the July module delivery will need more time and significantly more money. Instead of Vickrey and Calabro misleading you about the completion of CCMS, that task is now up to Mark Moore.
The AOC is and has been on autopilot for at least 8 years. It hasn’t had any Judicial Council oversight (or any other oversight) of any of their programs in all of that time. Even when the OCIO and BSA audits were released to the AOC, you don’t see acknowledgement, action items or anything else that would lead anyone to believe that the AOC or Judicial Council had received this information in any judicial council meeting minutes. After robbing trial court trust funds for so long and living high off the trial court hog, the AOC finally recognizes after being told by others for years that it does not have the money to move forward. Add AB1208 to the mix and the various opinions of statewide trial courts that were given to the BSA and it becomes apparent that there is little support for CCMS as envisioned. The AOC’s opposition to AB1208 is rooted in their desire to continue to use those funds without permission because the representation was made in 2008 to the legislature that the trial courts would commit those funds. Don’t worry. It’s all being rolled out in a manner that’s supposed to keep you comfortably numb by those who know what’s best for you.
Courthouse News: Northern Courts reject massive IT project
Metropolitan News-Enterprise – CJA provides member survey comments to chief justice.
Courthouse News: Zingers from California Judges Association survey quoted in letter to chief justice
RELATED: Bill Girdner Editorial (Courthouse News) The Dark Castle (known as the AOC)
RELATED NEW: Bill Girdner Editorial (Courthouse News) “Jackpot” (Someone credible from Orange County is laying out the unvarnished truth about CCMS)
.
CCMS Insider
May 11, 2011
Speaking of v4 early adopter courts, it seems San Diego has decided to leave that elite group and will be staying with v3 for the foreseeable future. The court just issued a RFP (link below) entitled CCMS E-FILING PROJECT. Buried in the document (pages 21-22) is reference that v3 is the platform of choice with v4 to be dealt with at some point (years) in the future.
A vote of no confidence for v4 or just a court frustrated by uncertainty and the endless cycles of broken promises from the AOC?
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/SDCOURT/GENERALINFORMATION/NEWS/RFPANNOUNCEMENTS/RFP_YR3629_110511.PDF
Judicial Council Watcher
May 11, 2011
We were whispered in our private message window that “this San Diego Courts RFP is a train wreck that will have San Diego paying twice for the same services” and that it will likely “be Deloitte that implements it due to the narrow vendor selection criteria.”
Edited to add a second message from a poster that didn’t wish to post it indicating that the narrow vendor selection criteria defines OneLegal.
Wendy Darling
May 11, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 1:06 p.m., from Courthouse News by Maria Dinzeo:
Zingers From Judges Association Quoted in Letter to Chief JusticeBy MARIA DINZEO
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 11, 2011
A somewhat related editorial was released by Bill Girdner (the link is at the bottom of the primary post above ) called “dark castle”.
Wendy Darling
May 11, 2011
News quote of the day, maybe even the news quote of the month, from Bill Girdner’s article, “Dark Castle”:
But the accountant also took a look at the survey’s written answers.
“It is astounding to me that the AOC didn’t utilize the expertise of the courts themselves as its primary input in the design stage,” she said. “After reading through all the surveys, this seems to me to be the most significant of the AOC’s many failures. They had a wealth of information, knowledge, and experience right there at their fingertips, but chose to sideline it.”
Actually, the AOC, the Judicial Council, and the Office of the Chief Justice did something a bit more pro-active and deceptive – they chose to intentionally ignore that “wealth of information, knowledge, and experience right there at their fingertips,” attack and discredit those that attempted to bring the information forward, and “mislead” the State Legislature. Not suprising, much less astounding, to those all too familar with the entrenched mis-management practices and “many failures” of the AOC, the Judicial Council, and the Office of the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 11, 2011
The evidence is overwhelming.
Top leadership is failed leadership. On an unimaginably grand scale.
Triage is necessary.
The entire Judicial Council, AOC leadership, and CJ committee members, and perhaps even CJP Supreme Court appointees, should offer up their resignations, and the Chief Justice should accept them, in tiers, starting with the known worst offenders. This is not the time to be a demure starry eyed sychophant pleaser. The CJ should hand in her own resignation if she isn’t up to the task.
The CJ is going to need help (real help) figuring out who should be axed first, who should or could remain, and who could serve as forward thinking, ethical, experienced, learned replacements with strong leadership and administrative abilities. I will wager a lot of people have given this a lot of thought (hopefully the CJA and the ACJ and other stakeholders are conferring together about this very thing). Hopefully the CJ will seek wise counsel from these stakeholders.
Meanwhile, those of us on this blog have our own ideas about who should exit, post haste. Perhaps for purposes of this blog, we could do this on the “what the Chief Justice should know” thread, or?
If ever there was a time to speak up or forever hold your peace, this is it.
Wendy Darling
May 11, 2011
Well, the Chief Justice could always start with axing the Director and Assistant Director of the AOC’s HR Division. That would fall into the managerial category of a “no-brainer.”
courtwatcher
May 11, 2011
I wonder if anyone on the Judicial Council was even aware that the 2008 “Funding Strategy” had a $400 million funding shortfall built into it? If they were, do you think they would admit it now?
Did anyone from the AOC ever bother to tell the JC that not only was this project going to cost more than $1.0 billion, the AOC had no idea of where it was going to get at least $400 million needed to complete the project?
Trial courts budgets will be cut an additional 6.8% next year. In previous years, when the legislature reduced funding to the courts, there was money in the reserve accounts of the funds used to support the trial courts. The impacts of the cuts were mitigated by the funds in the reserve accounts. However, the reserves in those funds have been exhausted because they have been used for CCMS. Therefore, the reductions will be passed on directly to the courts with no funding offests. This will be devasting to the courts.
To date the mismanagment of the CCMS project has only resulted in the OCIO and BSA issuing critical reports. The real-world impacts of the JC approving the continued funding of CCMS will be felt by the courts and the public this July when the new fiscal year begins.
Wendy Darling
May 11, 2011
To which the Judicial Council and the AOC will say to the trial courts the administrative equivalent of “let them eat cake.”
Long live the ACJ.
SF Whistle
May 11, 2011
The “real-world impacts” do not seem to register with the public—reduced funding to courts, courts with lights-out….no court reporters…increased fees…reduced services….an emphasis upon “scripted outcomes” rather than due process….
The real-world impacts are all about a judicial branch that has been crippled by inneptitude, corruption and mismanagement—-NO ONE IN ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE HIRED BASED UPON BUSINESS ACCUMEN OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE—-NO ONE HAS RUN A BUSINESS—
Do you suppose that Arnold reviewed the CJ’s CV with a focus upon her business skills?—
WHAT ARE THE “REAL-WORLD” IMPLICATIONS TO THE BSA ISSUING A “CRITICAL REPORT”—shame on you—naughty boy—–
JusticeCalifornia
May 11, 2011
I think the implications may become more clear and swift as the BSA continues to investigate institutional misconduct, and educate the legislature.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/11/3617420/lawmaker-calls-for-toppling-californias.html
(thank you for sending this story my way, you know who you are)
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
I still don’t understand why they even started this project that has the requirement of a central server as its main premise, when some of the trial courts told them they need to keep individual control to run their courts. Am I not understanding something correctly?
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
Forgive me if my questions are way off base. I am not technologically savvy but I am trying to understand how the $1.9 B CCMS is (or ever was) suppose to help move court needed info in a systematic manner.
So, if San Diego is intending to allocate funds to make v3 more functional for their individual purposes and CCMS v4 requires one central server with no interlocking capabilities for individual court systems/servers; then does that mean that if San Diego did decide to go with v4 at sometime in the future that all the monies they are spending on v3 now to customize, would be for naught?
CCMS Insider
May 12, 2011
Pretty much. However to do what San Diego wants to do with v3 will be far cheaper than anything they do with v4. Think oil change cost delta between a Corvette and a Ferrari. I know the analogy isn’t a good one but maybe the AOC PR folks will like it and run with it.
CCMS Insider
May 12, 2011
(1) Control of data and the computing environment and (2) cost savings. As to #2, please don’t laugh as normally that is what one gets with a centralized computing environment.
Michael Paul
May 12, 2011
Here is the please don’t laugh part of the equation.
Following the link below (purely as an example, AOC gets a little better pricing than this for the most part..) larger courts would not be able to use typical T1 circuits. (The hose part of the hose and bowling ball analogy) They might have to upgrade their interconnecting circuits to something above (possibly far above depending on the number of CCMS seats in any given courthouse) and where that file was stored, something T3 or above. (upgrading to a firehose instead of a garden hose)
For any reliable diversity and to keep courts in business utilizing this centralized model, one would be negligent not to consider carrier diversity. One line should be on AT&T and another line would be on another carrier like Verizon. This way, dropping the telecom circuit doesn’t put a court out of business like it would today if they were on CCMS and EFS was centralized at the CCTC.
Now imagine some 300+ court buildings upgrading their connections to the CCTC across the state to telecom lines that cost them twenty++ to fourty times ++++ as much per month as they pay now just to move these gargantuan files efficiently. The judicial branch does not currently employ carrier diversity but if they did, those line costs would be doubled again to ensure reliability.
If there were not large files to move, open, upload or download or if the CCMS server architecture was based on a replicating hub/spoke architecture with a mothership at the CCTC, cheaper telecom lines could be utilized more reliably.
Michael Paul
May 12, 2011
I forgot the link. http://www.infobahn.com/research-information.htm
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
How is that even remotely possible that they spent $500K with the goal of establishing a system in which accurate info could move systematically, quickly, and economically; yet no one bothered to see if the system had the capability to move the required info that is necessary for the courts to function?
Another bad analogy: That is like designing and building a customized Ferrari only to find out hundreds of thousands of dollars into the project that they forgot to put an engine in the design. It may look pretty, but it is not going anywhere.
So here is my next question: If the intent was an all encompassing ability to move info in all California courts and San Diego is out; then how is it feasible for LA and the others to stay in when they have voiced the same concerns San Diego has of their needs for customization/local servers to effectively run their courts? Does LA want to continue to chip in to buy the Ferrari with no engine?
Michael Paul
May 12, 2011
500M not 500K. $500,000,000.00 Five Hundred Million Dollars. A whole lot of tortillas. That is the other part of this don’t laugh equation. It started out only to cost 260 million. However, in 2004 they ignored legislative warnings to management and kept on spending “because nobody knows what they’re talking about”, to paraphrase Wendy Darling.
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
“$500M” I can’t even count that high! 🙂
Michael you write, “If there were not large files to move, open, upload or download…cheaper telecom lines could be utilized more reliably.”
If there were not large files to move, open, upload or download we wouldn’t need any system at all to be reliably utilized for anything, which sounds like what we have spent $500,000,000.00 of tax dollars on…so far.
$500M for a system incapable of reliably being utilized to move, open, upload or download large files and projecting to spend $1.5M more on this nonsystem, system? How is that even possible that there is no one in charge calling BS and DEMANDING that they pull the plug?
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
I have no technical background but even I can understand that you just nailed why CCMS could never work for its intended purpose of systematically and efficiently moving required documents in a cost effective manner, “if the CCMS server architecture was based on a replicating hub/spoke architecture” Fatal flaw. It’s not.
wendy darling
May 12, 2011
Well, actually the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Adminstrative Review, and the Bureau of State Audits, have all, in fact, stated, in one form or another, that the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC should “pull the plug” on CCMS, and have stated that the State Legislature should suspend funding appropriations for CCMS pending an independent cost-benefit and viability analysis.
While the State legislature has the authority to control the proverbial purse strings, it does not, however, have the authority to demand or “order” the judicial branch, the Chief Justice, Judicial Council and the AOC to do “pull the plug” on CCMS. Other than cutting off funding appropriations, the State Legislature can only make recommendations or requests that the judicial branch take certain actions (such as the letter requesting that Bill Vickrey be terminated after the release of the BSA audit on CCMS.) As everyone knows at this point, the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, are free to ignore, and frequently do ignore, the recommendations and requests of the State legislature.
While, with the one hand the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, are always quick to trot out the “co-equal branch of government” and “separation of powers” rhetoric, with the other they can’t keep enough distance between the judicial branch and branch administration from the attendant obligation to “co-equal” ethical administration, transparency, accountabilty, and fiscal responsibility. They want the one, and can’t hide behind it fast enough, but they don’t want the responsibility of the other.
What we all get instead is more flapdoodle from the Ministry of Truthiness.
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
Got it, Wendy Darling. So, if one, such as I (me?) who has no technical background and can’t even count to $500 whatever it is, can understand that Michael Paul just summed up the fatal flaw in CCMS in less than 50 words,
“If there were not large files to move, open, upload or download or if the CCMS server architecture was based on a replicating hub/spoke architecture with a mothership at the CCTC…..”
then I would say that the new Chief Justice has hit a highly visable, easy to understand, watershed early in her position of leadership.
Is she to be trusted by the people of California to do the right thing by us or is she going to allow the antics, conflicted interests, imperialistic attitudes and CYA’s that got us into this mess in the first place to continue?
She appears to me to only have two choices. When re-instilling public confidence in our judicial system, with her decisions over future expenditures for the dead horse, CCMS, being indicative of who she really is and indicative of if she capable of true leadership; is she going to be able to fish or should we be helping her to cut bait, now? At this point in time, California does not need a female version of CJ George. I am sincerely hoping that is not who she is.
JusticeCalifornia
May 12, 2011
Can the CJ be trusted to do the right thing?
In late 2010, Tani Cantil-Sakauye (after she was nominated but before she took office) was given the interesting dirty job of introducing the John Judnick report on the Kim Turner/Verna Adams/AOC destruction of Marin court child custody documents to the Judicial Council, and, along with Judnick, asking the Council to accept the report. Judnick was asked a pointed question about the report and document destruction, and he lied to the Judicial Council in response. Our CJ – who had received information which she knew contradicted what Judnick said — sat demurely, obediently and quietly, and didn’t say a damn thing to correct Judnick, or suggest the document destruction was inappropriate. She was silent although as a mother , former prosecutor and wife of a former police officer, she certainly understands how the destruction of child custody evidence in the middle of an ongoing custody case can compromise the integrity of a custody proceeding, a parent’s due process rights, and most importantly, the safety of children. And also, how destruction of a family court’s child custody evidence in the middle of a state audit just might impact the audit of that particular family court – and compromise the safety of children. She did it anyway.
It was almost like a macabre test to see if she “had what it takes”. She clearly passed the test.
A sad but true story.
I am not holding my breath to see if she does the right thing. Instead, I am sort of anticipating a hostile takeover by the judges of this state who do not want a Chief Justice who uses the skills she learned as a waitress and blackjack dealer to assess the current state of affairs in the judicial branch and announce they are not hard to deal with. Sorry to be blunt, but I have been at this way too long, and seen way too much garbage, to put up with this silliness.
Michael Paul
May 12, 2011
All of the new courthouse designs and specifications were based on a 10GBase-T architecture. In plain english, courthouses whose internal data networks are capable of data transmission ten times as fast as today’s personal computers. East Contra Costa County (to my knowledge) was the last 1G courthouse built.
The networks inside the courthouse are between two and two thousand times as fast as the networks interconnecting courthouses, which is where all the montly telecom line charge expenses lie.
Consequently, if the electronic file were stored locally the local hose would be more like a bowling ball sized pipe.
CCMS Insider
May 12, 2011
Michael, I got it! Let’s put CCMS in the cloud. That will solve everything and as I understand, Accenture has some new product offerings in that area. I mean, how much could something like that cost???
Michael Paul
May 12, 2011
That won’t necessarily solve everything. Where is the file stored? Cloud computing does tend to solve single datacenter concerns like those posed by the California Court Technology Center.
Mrs. Kramer
May 12, 2011
Why couldn’t files be stored locally for everyday use by a court and sent by a cloud to CCTS for other courts to be able to access the info when needed? Why does it have to be stored in one place or the other? Couldn’t it be both with the understanding that CCTS is to be used to access other courts’ info, but the courts access their own info at home?
JusticeCalifornia
May 12, 2011
Is it legal to store CA court files in AZ? I would like to hear Mary Roberts answer that question. Not a go-between.
JusticeCalifornia
May 12, 2011
Our two newly appointed CJP members: Does anyone know anything about them? Here are what appear to be their business bios:
http://www.strozfriedberg.com/professionals/xprProfessionalDetails1.aspx?xpST=ProfessionalDetail&professional=188
http://www.cpmlegal.com/lawyerprofile.php?n=nishimura
JusticeCalifornia
May 14, 2011
L.A. Courts Eviscerate Bureaucrats on IT System That ‘Damages Trust’
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/36586.htm
Commercial IT
May 15, 2011
Everyone thinks CCMS in California has just got to be the most foolish waste of taxpayer money on an IT project that has ever come down the pike. But wait! Look at this competing Deloitte Consulting project. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18066774 Colorado is trying to catch up!
Judicial Council Watcher
May 16, 2011
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/36586.htm
Two trial courts warn bureaucrats of extreme risk and threat to branch.
Orange and San Diego counties are to be commended for seeing the light and expressing what it looks like without rose colored glasses. Based on the fine work of Maria Dinzeo we all now know that CCMS as it stands today is supported by Ventura and San Luis Obispo – and that’s all.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 18, 2011
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/18/36666.htm
About the “Jackpot” of information from Orange County: The AOC has singularly relied upon Orange County to demonstrate what a whiz-bang success CCMS is and has been. Unlike Sacramento, Orange County is using the system locally, which according to various experts is what Sacramento is not doing and why Sacramento has so many reliability and performance issues. I can’t help to feel however that the AOC has been sandbagged and it was all their own doing as their arrogance knows no bounds.
I think a pattern should have formed for most people …. When anyone starts asking the AOC tough questions, the AOC does everything in their power to avoid answering them. It matters not what the subject is or how legitimate the question is. I’m quite certain that the author of the Orange County BSA survey realizes that if they worked for the AOC…. well…. they wouldn’t be working for the AOC anymore. I wouldn’t doubt the AOC is conducting a witchhunt to identify the responsible party either who did nothing but tell the unvarnished truth – something hardly anyone tied to this project in any capacity is willing to do.
This behavior by the AOC should call into question their competencies in those areas where they avoid the questions. Their inability to answer should be a red flag that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Four areas where they consistently avoid the hard questions are 1) CCMS and 2) Facilities Maintenance 3) Courthouse Construction 4) Finance.
As to our special Orange County BSA survey person? From the rest of those who are looking down an AOC created gun barrel at their careers, thank you.
JusticeCalifornia
May 18, 2011
Things are completely out of hand when those within the branch who tell the truth are punished, and those within the branch who promulgate and disseminate disinformation (or flat out lie) are rewarded, by “the largest judiciary in the western world”.
I tell you folks, we couldn’t write a better script than the one developing right before our very eyes, on lots of different fronts.
I used to say this a lot. It really comes to mind now. The truth will out.
And the speed with which it is surfacing is increasing. The more everyone knows, the more the dots can be connected. It is impossible for the branch to keep track of and try to correct all those records that have been altered and tampered with, and all those books that have been cooked.
I have to say, the temptation is to WANT to believe that the branch only has the public’s best interests in mind. Being a natural born Pollyanna I would LOVE to think that. But all I have to do is look at the histories of those I personally know with dismal ethical records who have been protected, rewarded and put in charge of investigating and oversight; record keeping and record destruction; hiring and firing; and public relations and reporting, to conclude that top leadership and the AOC have been supporting and covering up All Out Corruption for very many years.
Perhaps this is why the same select circle of “players” has remained in place for two decades now, and those players are simply playing musical chairs, and trading one hat for another.
The net of corruption undoubtedly spreads far and wide, and when the net breaks, all hell is going to break loose as well.
It is only a matter of time. The truth will out.
Oppression will not be tolerated here.
JusticeCalifornia
May 18, 2011
And speaking of the bridge to nowhere (caged rats on a wheel?). . . .
This was an interesting read regarding Sheila Calabro, CCMS and Ventura:
http://html.documation.com/cds/SBC10/PDFs/121.pdf
I am not at all offended by Judge Herman’s act of voicing his opinion. I support that, as long as he was telling the truth. Everyone has the right to do that. The issue was his use of the CJA letterhead, and he deserved and got publicly whacked upside the head for doing that.
Instead of excoriating him any further though (which becomes counterproductive), perhaps it would be purposeful to investigate CCMS, top leadership, and Ventura a little more closely. That was Sheila Calabro’s court for a long, long time.
I wonder how much special attention (and money) it has taken to get Ventura CCMS to a working status, if indeed what we are told is true. How much money has been poured into CCMS there– all told? What kind of sweetheart deals does Ventura have within the branch as a result of its cooperation and close relationship with Sheila? Or conversely, how much dirt did Sheila generate on everyone, and/or cover up, that would allow her to manipulate that county? (Court CEOs see everything, and can cover up and manipulate almost anything if so inclined. Just ask Kim Turner. )
When you have so many red flags (CCMS, court construction/maintenance, etc.) generating cheerleaders primarily from only a few select regions, with roots so deep, you know it is worth looking into.
Just a thought.