Generally speaking, we’ve always envied the AOC’s ability to manipulate media outlets to get the story they want to get out at the cost of the truth. Usually, it isn’t even one of Tani’s versions of the truth. Such is the case with the AOC’s recent fact check web pages.
Submitted for Consideration – Fact Check on the Judicial Branch budget
If you look at the fact check page established by the AOC, you’re left with the impression that the Judical Branch gets funded with only 2.8% of the general fund in one fancy pie chart and in the fancy pie chart below it, you’re left with the impression that trial courts are just greedy bastards because they get 83.4% of the judicial branch budget and they want more. The lower pie chart makes references on how the AOC divvys the money up between it’s various operating entities.
What is never mentioned of course is clawbacks.
Clawbacks are when you give an entity money or benefits and then you take them back in the form of some special circumstance or service. The costs of CCMS are such a special circumstance or service. SAIC and CCTC costs are such a special circumstance or service. Parts of the Lan/Wan program are such a special circumstance or service. Facilities maintenance and modifications are often such a special circumstance or service.
Crunching the numbers, we estimate that somewhere between 11 and 15% of the entire trial court budget is clawed back from the trial courts by the AOC utilizing any possible method they can rely upon to do so.
Technology program money, for example is clawed back. Facilities maintenance and modifications money is often clawed back. The costs for the people who manage your courts account with the AOC is clawed back. Any product or service they can provide to you and charge you for is clawed back by the AOC and it represents a substantial amount that the trial courts are forced to pay back the AOC every year. These clawbacks aren’t cheap either. We were presented one example that was a clawback for a modification. We’re not going to identify the modification as the individual providing this case example to us indicated that identifying this clawback would lead the AOC to their doorstep, so we’re going to discuss numbers that are close to real.
A facility modification by one of the AOC’s sole-source maintenance contractors cost $50,000.00. The individual providing us the example had obtained their own bids for the work prior to contacting the AOC. Those estimates came in around $25,000.00 for this work to be done. The AOC and not the local court is responsible for this kind of activity so the $50,000.00 was the plan the AOC chose to go with. Out of this $50,000.00, when all was said and done, $50,000.00 was clawed back from the local trial court, yet they had estimates that they could do this work for $25,000.00 less than they were being charged by the AOC.
This is just but one case example of a clawback provided to judicial council watcher but it goes to show that these clawbacks are not insignificant sums. It calls into question exactly what kind of services are provided by the AOC. It spells out that the products and services could be had for less money if all courts had the flexibility to do things on their own.
Clawbacks help fund the juggernaut. Just as SB1407 and SB1732 fuel the juggernaut with hundreds of jobs in the AOC that have no relation to construction, clawbacks also help fuel the juggernaut. Meanwhile you’re left to lay off employees with yet another scheme by the AOC to get you to part with your trial court funds.
_______________________________________________________
Program note: We’ve changed our navigation pane on the left to add some new features, including more rapid access to our older posts as well as our twitter feed.
Much information is twittered that is not posted on JCW. We believe these are stories of interest to judicial branch employees even if they may be off topic for judicial council watcher, which is why we tweet them. Our judicial council watcher facebook page contains some stories of interest that are not posted here as well, so be sure to friend us on facebook. If we get 50 facebook friends, we actually get to be a ‘named cause’. (Don’t ask us what that means to us because we haven’t figured that part out yet.)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Michael Paul
July 29, 2011
You forgot to mention that the 50K usually goes to cover unrelated activity as illustrated by our latest whistleblower. An example would be changing light bulbs in a different building and charging the work against the trial court paid for job.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 29, 2011
We also did not mention: You could substitute President Bush for the Chief Justice in this roast and no one would know the difference.
SF Whistle
July 29, 2011
JCW ….Michael…
It’s interesting to note a less than subtle new emphasis on your part to turn this into some type of partisan rant….?
I’m not a George Bush lover—didn’t vote for him and…quite the contrary… once managed a successful campaign for a Dem member of the Assembly and served as his AA..
But I’m not getting your recent partisan insertions—Michael’s mention of Republican’s wasting money on Republican leaning Counties and CCMS—Dems asking what their priorities are—blah-blah–
ARE YOU SOMEHOW SUGGESTING that the arrogance–inept ridiculous management skiils, corruption manifest by the AOC / JC / CJ have something to do with Party Politics–
Help me out—I aint gettin’ this —
Judicial Council Watcher
July 29, 2011
What is being seen in Sacramento is that while the areas identified as republican leaning inland strongholds get new court houses (places where civil litigation does not happen so much) that the coastal areas (Los Angeles, the Bay Area, areas with large democrat majorities and large metropolitan area centers of commerce where a majority of civil litigation is filed) are being disproportionately affected by the (mostly republican) Judicial Council choices.
The fact that this was the choice that was made is difficult to argue.
This is being viewed in Sacramento as being a partisan effort to:
1) Implement back door tort reform (if you can’t file/hear a civil case, there is your tort reform)
2) Punish large metropolitan democratic strongholds (like shutting down San Francisco Courts and inhibiting access to the civil court system all over California – disproportionately impacting large metropolitan areas) over legislative choices.
There is scuttle of sweeping 100% of the Construction funds to the general fund to send a message back to San Francisco, resulting in the termination of the inland projects in favor of preserving access to justice in the large, metropolitan areas that would be most affected by last Friday’s judicial council meeting.
Most democrats in Sacramento and quite a few judges have now come to the conclusion that our esteemed chief justice has been given the chance she asked and begged for (in resistance to AB1208) and she squandered it.
The Judicial Council could not have made a better case for AB1208 than last Friday’s vote.
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
I recall hearing that the Sacramento courts were paying something like $57,000 per month to get access to their own case data which is being held hostage somewhere in Arizona. Of course you would think they would know better than to get sucked into some arrangement like that but my IT expert friends tell me the folks in the Sacramento courts are not very knowledgeable about computers. They also tell me knowledgeable computer people should know how to access their own data at almost no cost at all. Oh well. A sucker is born every day I guess.
In the long run, all these ministry of misinformation schemes break down. They go just too far and there is a revolt. Unfortunately, we are probably a fair amount of time away from the breakdown point. The San Francisco courts collapse will inevitably cause some disasters and politicians – such as Ammiano and Leno – will step forward as the saviors of society when they sense the moment is right so they can claim the credit for rescuing society from the clutches of the evil empire. But first we need the disasters.
Michael Paul
July 29, 2011
That kind of money, if it was paid directly from Sacramento to a local, managed colo facility would pay for several racks of equipment. I doubt that Sacramento’s CCMS equipment occupies even a half rack. Yeah, they were getting burned badly in Sacramento. Now I understand that the AOC hosts Sacramento for free as the band-aid solution to what ills them.
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
So educate me and the rest of us, Michael. You’re an IT guy. Why would anyone running a business hand their information over to someone else, then pay to get access to it? Why not just keep it right there in the business? My sources tell me all the data for one county’s courts could probably be housed on a desktop computer and maybe even a laptop because hard drives are so large now. This Arizona arrangement only makes sense if you are conning people into paying what sounds like a ransom to get back kidnapped data. Shouldn’t IT people know better? My sources certainly do. And what is colo?
Michael Paul
July 29, 2011
A colo is a computer co-location facility. They tend to be large data centers, usually resistant to earthquakes and other natural or man made disasters, with ample emergency generators to keep all equipment in the building operational. They typically also have multiple power feeds from multiple electrical substations so that if one feed goes bad because of a problem at the electricity substation, they have a power feed that automatically switches over to the working substation.
They also benefit from having large, expensive high bandwidth connections to the telecom grid. A solid, reliable colo facility may cost $1,200.00 -$2,000.00 per square foot or more to build. The high bandwidth connections may cost a hundred grand or more, per connection and there might be as many as six such connections from different telecom carriers into a colo facility to ensure uptime or keeping web sites up and on the internet no matter what happens outside the building.
The challenge presented by the current generation of case management systems is that most of them rely on an image of a document being stored somewhere. Taking a picture of a document takes up more space than the document itself does. This makes case management systems reliant on document management systems, which are huge disk arrays, tape libraries or a combination thereof to store large document images. This imaging of documents makes utilizing simple computers with large hard disks not large enough because when you are talking document management, you are talking in terms of hundreds, even thousands of terabytes of storage capacity that is spanned over hundreds or thousands of hard disks or tape libraries to store all of those document images.
SAIC subcontracts with a colo in Tempe, Arizona to provide AOC negotiated services to the trial courts. SAIC is just the middleman between Sacramento and the Tempe based colo.
For the 57,000.00 per month that Sacramento is paying for AOC/SAIC colo services, if they wanted greater reliability and uptime, Sacramento or any other trial court could have their instance of CCMS hosted in a commercial colo close to their court. Not only that, but they would be able to pay for a whole row of racks for that kind of price tag. This does not cure the latency issues associated with storing or retrieving large documents. That can only be achieved by running the systems locally.
The achilles heel about running these systems locally is that local courthouses usually aren’t as beefy in terms of telecommunications redundancy or power & power generation redundancy as a commercial co-location facility would be so it is a trade-off. If the courthouse does not have electricity, if there are no lights on in the courtrooms, if the electrical outlets don’t work to power desktop computers then this telecom and power redundancy does not amount to a hill of beans anyways, so is it really necessary?
Paying $57,000.00 per month could easily buy any court a data center with equal power redundancy and smaller courts in the surrounding areas could connect to it as if the court with the fancy data center were a co-location facility. With the AOC’s single carrier connections to Tempe, it is arguable that running the systems locally will result in greater reliability and less downtime.
I hope this explanation isn’t too technical and if it is, drop me an email and I will try to explain any part you don’t understand. Michael_Paul@michaelpaul.net
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
Okay. Thanks, Michael. My information is that each court could and should run its own data. Sounds like what you are saying. And I am told that Deloitte Consulting is a strange choice in vendors because they are not software developers. They are consultants. Sort of like a buying coach. And they also do something called “systems integration” but that isn’t involved here because the AOC elected to create something new instead of trying to get all the different systems to talk to each other.
My nerd friends point to software development tools from Sybase, Microsoft, SAP, Oracle. I know Sybase is in Dublin and Emeryville. They point out that a good software developer could use such tools to create templates for queries and processing and could construct a system quickly to poke through all the data which could be stored in a database from one of those companies.
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
Michael. I ran your answer by an expert. Says it sounds like you know what you’re doing. But asks an interesting question. Why are the documents imaged? Says that will impede searches as well as causing the problems you mentioned. And also asks why would you need a data center outside the courthouse. Says there are better ways to do it that cost far less money but vendors may not want to tell you that if they are trying to sell you some fancy system.
Michael Paul
July 29, 2011
A data center outside the courthouse would be a colo facility. See my answer above as to why a colo facility is beneficial. Courts cannot usually afford (nor do they need) $100,000.00 + per month telecom connections to the telecom grid, nor do they need to pay this several times to several carriers for redundancy, nor do they have 2 connections to 2 electrical substations, nor do they have beefy generators to keep the whole building operational.
Document scanning = person walks in with a pile of paper documents to a clerk. You need to take a picture of those documents to store those documents and yes, your friend is correct, it makes it hard to search for data in an image of a document. This is why document management systems work as a large file system to store the document, usually by a document number tied to a case number and/or litigant name, attorney name, etc.
Legacy case management did not store the actual document. You would look in the case file for the actual document. While it would be possible to e-file electronically every document in a standardized, searchable format, this does not help the person walking up to a clerks counter in a courthouse.
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
Michael. I will get back to you on this later, after work, when more expert advisors are available. Standy.
Nathaniel Woodhull
July 29, 2011
This entire CCMS issue raises specters that go back to the rise of HRH King George around 1996. Check out sites like Muckety and the like to see the interrelationships of high flyers at Deloitte, Shapiro and HRH George and friends. If you attempt to analyze this from the concept of a business person or rationale public servant you will go nuts, because it does not fit any business model.
There are those in the CCMS administrative hierarchy that profess that they will recoup a lot of their costs by way of forcing their “justice partners” to pay for access. Assuming that they could ever get the problems recounted on this site since its inception (which they cannot do as physic will not allow it,) cash-strapped counties and public safety entities are not going to fork over the kind of costs that CCMS management expects to access this “data”. There are questions about whether or not the accessible data is anything that these agencies even want to start with.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that anyone in a power position capable of intervening in this debacle is willing to do so. I am afraid we can just stand on the side-lines and watch the inevitable train wreck.
Everyone should remember, Mr. Bruin-ears said that the final version of CCMS would be “deployed” in the month of August 2011… Wonder what the Vegas line is on that one…
blowthewhistle
July 29, 2011
Interesting, Woodhull. My nerd friends told me that providing one-way access to the data, so that police officers could look at it for example, is simple and would cost very little and take very little time to accomplish. As for whether or not they would even want to look at the data, that raises interesting questions. Has anyone ever surveyed police, sheriffs, etc. to see if they want to see the data? And how important is it to them? How do you “force” such agencies to pay? If the price quoted to them is exorbitant, can’t they just tell the AOC to go fish?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 29, 2011
1. Nobody is going to subsidize AOC’s CCMS. Nobody. So the problem illustrated by Justice Chin (justice partners not entering in data) will get worse with CCMS and not better.
2. Justice Bruniers has let the timeline slip 30 days. In April, they indicated that the external deliverables would be ready at the end of July. Now, Justice Bruniers says at the end of August.
3. This timeline too will slip, guaranteed.
JusticeCalifornia
July 29, 2011
Where’s the independent audit of CCMS we were promised? Today is the last business day in July and we were promised an independent audit report in July.
Promises, promises.
Wendy Darling
July 29, 2011
“If you attempt to analyze this from the concept of a business person or rationale public servant you will go nuts, because it does not fit any business model.”
But it certainly fits more than a few models for fraud and corruption. Enron and the city of Bell most immediately come to mind.
Published today, Friday, July 29, from Courthouse News Service, by Julia Filip:
Class Rips Back-Door Money For Calif. Courts
By IULIA FILIP
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/38560.htm
Long live the ACJ.
SF Whistle
July 29, 2011
Thanks Wendy—reading this article all the self-dealing, greed, corruption and inept management of the AOC / JC / CJ shines through–sinking so low as to rely upon traffic tickets to fund the bloated-ridiculous court construction budget.
I am struck with the notion that perhaps our cocktail waitress / blackjack dealer CJ might consider replacing bailiffs with “bouncers”—putting a velvet rope outside courtrooms and imposing a cover-charge…? (cocktails anyone?)
Jessee Welch is a real DUDE—his lawsuit makes an awful lot of sense and clearly articulates the corner that our depraved branch has painted themselves into—
I wish Mr. Welch good luck with his lawsuit—it will be interesting to see how far our system has sunk as they scramble to get rid of him—retaliate against him–
Wendy Darling
July 29, 2011
Published today, Friday, July 29, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Judicial Watchdog Sniffing Around One Court’s Generous Perks
Cheryl Miller
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202509103044&Judicial_Watchdog_Sniffing_Around_One_Courts_Generous_Perks&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 29, 2011
I can’t access this article, but I think I get the gist.
“Judicial Watchdog” More like Judicial Council Guarddog or Lapdog. Isn’t it a conflict of interest for Judge Jessica What’s Her Name to sit on the “judicial watchdog” “independant state agency”, while also being a voting member of the JC? She voted with the AOC/JC that they keep the $82M. How can she be an impartial watchdog of anything when she, personally, has a pony in the race of wanting a new courthouse; and she, personally, voted to advance that position?
Jon Wintermeyer
July 29, 2011
I agree with Michael, that an offsite COLO facility is the best investment. As an Engineer, I have worked on the design of these types of buildings as they have gone in the past 15 years from a rating of 50 watts per square foot and N+1 backup to currently 125 to 150 watts per sqaure foot and N+2 or 3 for backup.
The increased power requirements and cooling required with both liquid cooled and air cooled machines are not the type of facility that the Courts would be comfortable putting in the hands of their FMU staff or a third party maintenance vendor .
The industry standard COLO building has a 24/7 service staff with all the Technical expertise and the replacement componenets on site to keep the required power and cooling within the specified requirement range . The lease costs per square foot are high, but the provider is totally responsible for the services, and liability. They are very diligent in their maintenance , because it is their livelyhood.
Michael Paul
July 29, 2011
Computer guys want first class maintenance guys well versed on the systems for computer rooms as Jon indirectly points out. This is not an area for greenhorns or people that don’t pay attention to detail and do routine preventive maintenance.
To clarify my position since even Jon is confused, running this application locally in the local courthouse is essential to achieve somewhat satisfactory results. It doesn’t stop all the extra data entry required by CCMS. It does solve the latency and reliability issues by running it locally.
Comparing local commercial colo facilities to the CCTC in terms of costs, reliability and access to the data was what was asked. (ie why pay someone to house your data?)
If you have solid computer rooms that are well designed, then you can host these things locally with good enough to conduct court business reliability. Certainly better reliability than trying to operate out of a datacenter 800 miles away from you.
courtflea
July 29, 2011
ok guys, the CEOs from the begining of this CCMS debacle tried to get the AOC staff to go with the local “hub and spoke” approach that Michael speaks of. A big court supporting surrounding smaller courts. It just makes sense and they were taking the advice of their IT experts. All of this seems so new. But in reality, the court Execs were trying to circumvent this for years. Sigh. I know I know I am always talking about CEOs (the good ones that is) but I just wanted to reiderate that the fight has always been there. Just so frustrating. I just keep waiting for karma to kick in for the AOC leadership. So I am very thrilled that this blog and others and the ACJ are keeping up the good fight.
As far as political realities impacting courthouse construction…dudes, if that was the case don’t you think LA, OC and SD would be getting all of the bucks??? Do the math, a few judges leaning to the right do not make up for the numbers of members of both houses and their votes. If that was the case, you would not have democratic speakers.
I wish I could read some of the articles that Wendy posted.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 29, 2011
The judicial council – and not the legislature – has been able to determine and prioritize where new courthouses go. None of them going up now is going into democratic strongholds, yet to pay for them it is the high population democratic strongholds that will experience the most pain of these budget cuts.
We’re not saying it IS political but it certainly looks that way to many.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
Questions;
1. Percentage wise, when these court closures take effect what will be new (or unchanged) composition of our judicial branch as far as the number of functioning judiciaries who lean to the left or right on the:
a. judicial council
b. supreme court
c. appellate courts
d. trial courts
2. Percentage wise, what is the varience between these leanings of the judicial branch and Ca voters?
The reason I ask these questions is because it looks like it could come down to the Ca courts drawing the district boundaries that shape who is elected to the state and federal legislatures as representatives of the voters of CA.
July 29, 2011
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/7675928.html
“..Democrats will now have a shot at controlling two-thirds of the state Senate and gaining a couple more seats in Congress, but the maps offered the majority party no advantage in the Assembly….California’s political geography has been shifting along with the state’s changing demographics. Republicans have been losing registration and now comprise less than a third of all voters, while one of every five voters is registered as an independent….Democrats have gained nearly 500,000 registered voters since 2001 while Republicans have lost more than 100,000 registered voters over the past decade. Those who decline to state a party affiliation have gone up more than 1.2 million in that period.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redistricting-20110730,0,7547032.story
“The new maps, which are intended to govern elections for most of the next decade, would force several entrenched partisan legislators — those who have been deep blue or deep red — to face more moderate political districts…..One drawback: Newly competitive districts could leave lawmakers more reliant on special interest campaign dollars to stay in office…
“It’s not over yet,” said U.S. Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Diamond Bar), whose home was placed in the same district as fellow Republican Ed Royce of Fullerton. “Judges will make the decision…. What they’ve done to so many districts out there makes no sense.”…Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) — dean of California House Republicans, whose home was thrown into the same district as a Democratic incumbent — said: “I believe this will not be the final chapter in the 2011 redistricting saga.”…California Republican Party officials say they have not decided what, if any, action to take. A challenge to the district lines could result in the courts redrawing the boundaries…”
SF Whistle
July 30, 2011
WOW—I am really sorry to observe this conversation get lost-in-the-weeds in introduction of some very foolish partisan conspiracy rant–
Let’s do the very simple history—We have arrived where we are today as a consequence of the acts of a very smart, supremely Machiavellian, cocky little shit —Ron George—
Yes—George was identified as a “Republican”…but in truth he is simply a cunning little meglomaniac that recognized an opportunity to consolidate power–and did so—
Is anyone going to make the case (with a straight face) that the California judicial system has “right leanings”—–good gawd–what a hoot…!!
Corruption, avarice, inept management does not seem to have a partisan identity in this State…This exercise was all about one thing—amassing power—assembling a branch that is now above the law—
Now—at a time we find our entire State in a shambles financially—If this board is going to insist upon placing a partisan spin on what has transpired at the branch…please help me out and instruct me on the areas of State government that are a triumph of party politics—what has the Democratic party done extraordinarily well—other than create unsustainable, unfunded pension obligations for tens of thousands….and really cool inexplicable legislation like last week’s amazing “dream act for California”…..? I’m really curious how anyone can state that we are in better hands as an oligarchy–? No one can accurately inform us that the Republicans in the legislature are able to do anything given the magnitude of the majority—so it’s pretty damn hard (and silly) to now hatch some conspiracy theory that holds Republicans responsible for the terminal disease that afflicts the branch–
The facts are that court houses were built in rural locations that don’t make sense until you evaluate the fact that Ron George developed a network of sycophants that had a broad base—sure he built these court houses but there was / is a clear expectation that he could rely upon them as loyalists—
Please spare me the “let’s feel sorry for San Francisco” (Don’t cry for me Argentina)—SF burned through their reserves and were consumate Ron George loyalists until Feinstein was forced to do her aboutface last week—She came out from underneath the ether a little late–
Meglomania is not exclusive of any party—get over this foolishness—
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
SF Whistleblower,
I just asked some questions about the political bent of our judicial branch. So it is your opinion that one man brought the largest judicial system in the US to this situation? Who said anything about “partisan”? George actually made several left leaning decisions. So did Schwarzenegger. Its good to stay focused on the main problem. But if you try to solve a problem by myopically looking at it, you are not prepared to address possible factors that are aiding to fuel the problem. Do you know what agnotology is? Its a sister of Group-think.
You all have done some great work at exposing what the ramification of the problem IS, but I see little discussion of why the problem IS and why it continues – other than alot of rants about people being ignorant and evil. So its your opinion that the AOC is the evil empire and the other two branches of government do nothing to stop it because why? What is the root cause that aids this to continue?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 30, 2011
Sharon, Judicial retention elections are a straight up or down vote and are non-partisan. The composition of the courts won’t change. The second question – you are on your own in that numbers crunching. These days most voters decline to state any party affiliation because both parties have made a mess of things in their own way.
SF Whistle, San Francisco burned through their reserves because those were the AOC’s instructions. Use your reserves to avoid layoffs is what they told the trial courts. George, Vickrey and Nash even went so far as saying that they would never preside over the dismantling of the court system and criticized L.A.’s layoffs unnecessary – citing that Los Angeles could (and should have) burned through their own reserves as opposed to layoffs.Those that took AOC’s management advice to heart have no reserves. Those that didn’t listen to the AOC are in the black.
Of course, the AOC’s silence regarding telling San Francisco to burn through their reserves before layoffs is typical of AOC’s silence when they are caught doing anything improper. They wish to avoid accountability for anything and everything. The AOC’s response is the typical debtor psychology of avoidance. Why would they call the San Francisco courts only to be reminded of the bad advice they gave San Francisco and be asked by San Francisco “What are you going to do about it/how are you going to help us?”
Any time the Judicial Council or AOC is confronted with facts that are not in their favor, the well established pattern is to ignore the facts.
concerned
July 30, 2011
Thank you for setting the record straight about what roll the AOC played in the SF mess.
unionman575
July 30, 2011
Clawbacks have been killing us in the trial courts for years. And, every year it gets worse and worse.
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Okay Michael. It’s Saturday morning and I had a chance to run all this by my nerd friends. Leaving out all the “you’ve got to be $@’++ing me” comments and the lawyer jokes (although some were pretty funny), and the comments about lawyers and court administrators must be dumber than a box of rocks, it summarizes down to a number of questions that perhaps you or others here can answer.
1) Wouldn’t it be the case that 99+% of the documents coming into the courts would come from people with computers? – relates to questions posed about imaging paper documents.
2) Have any of these people ever heard of a word processor? – relates again to the imaging
3) Have any of these people ever heard of auto-indexing? – relates to imaging and searching documents
4) Don’t these people know how to create templates, forms, spreadsheets, etc.? Isn’t there someone in the court system who knows how to do this stuff? – relates to comments that it should be easy to do just about everything electronically instead of using paper, imaging, etc.
5) Have these people ever heard of Office Depot, Costco, Sam’s, Comp USA, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase?
6) Do these people know about something called mirroring? I.e., some off-site duplication and backup process.
7) Do any of these people have a brain?
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
The questions 1-7 are all yes with caveats. DV packages are usually handed to the person seeking the DV orders and are not always prepared by attorneys. They’re often hand prepared by victims. Question 7 strikes at the heart of using that brain with intent. What was their intentions? I think the action campaign page (www.avxm.com) does a great job of explaining what their intentions were and why 1-6 are being tossed out the window.
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
If the answers are yes, then why aren’t the courts doing this stuff? If domestic violence victims generally have computers, why can’t they fill in electronic forms and file them electronically? Shouldn’t the use of paper and imaging be an extremely rare occurrence? I must confess that I don’t get it either.
Jim
July 30, 2011
I’m not so sure that the courthouse projects which have been approved in rural jurisdictions can be tied to any allegiance of judges and CEOs to Ron George, the Judicial Council or the AOC. Certainly there are loyalists in some of those courts, but rural courts often have courthouses that date back to the Gold Rush era because local governments did not have the funds to erect new buildings or simply didn’t consider new courthouses a priority. Additionally, these structures were viewed by members of local government as centerpieces of a community/county seat, and they were loathe to tear them down. Buildings of this type are not readily expanded or modernized, and they are frequently riddled with mold, asbestos, etc. These jurisdictions have experienced population explosions that make the historic courthouses less than a good fit for a (somewhat) modern legal system. I don’t disagree that political alliances might have played a role in the ranking and priority of courthouse construction, but I don’t think that’s the entire picture – how would you explain little Alpine County’s place on that list? The scope, size and cost of that project is ridiculous to be sure, but I don’t think that any of Alpine County’s judges have been actively involved in Judicial Council or AOC roles. Not trying to pick on Alpine, I think that you can look at other rural court projects (Amador) and make the same argument.
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
I worked on most of the courthouse projects. As I recall, Amador was a county run project to turn over a courthouse to the AOC as the historic courthouse was unsuitable for turnover. It wasn’t an AOC project. We were just court construction consultants. While I tried to search for Amador County court’s county budget for court construction on the net, I can’t easily find it. A number swirling in my head (I have no idea if it is accurate as it was 6 years ago) was 3.5-5.5 million? Bottom line: It was cheap. It isn’t an architectural wonder as it is a remodeled county building. Same thing with the Dorris courthouse way up in Siskyou. It was dirt cheap. So cheap that it is not on AOC’s project list on their web page.
Alpine’s courthouse no doubt requires replacement. As I recall, it is shared with the county and when lan/wan upgrades came their way, they rejected them indicating they didn’t have the electrical capacity to plug in a desk fan. They need their own building. They don’t need 26 million worth of their own building. Half of that amount of money would do the job and still make it the most expensive building in the whole county. Several buildings don’t fit the political claim and it can be argued that many others do. Not necessarily on the basis of republican/democratic leanings but on the basis of those regular, consistent supporters of Judicial Council / AOC policy being high on the priority lists.
JusticeCalifornia
July 30, 2011
I heard that not only are some of these planned or new courthouses over-designed, many are stupidly designed. Like having flat rooftops in snow country. Or having fancy ceilings rather than accessible dropped ceilings. The fancy ceilings reportedly make necessary foreseeable wiring upgrades/changes/repairs far more expensive.
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
Not being a structural engineer I can only say flat roofs in snow country are uncommon, They are a part of the AOC’s design of a few courthouses. The hard cap ceilings is an issue. When I was working design, I found it necessary pre-calculate future systems growth utilizing low voltage copper cabling systems, knowing that fiber optic cable would often do the trick in place of copper. Since I understand no experienced engineer from the AOC has been doing this level of design work in the past year, I hope that the design contractors are factoring in all other possibilities because I am no longer attempting to look after the courts best interests in electronic design and construction. I’m informed my old supervisor is. He is not an engineer.
HOWEVER I am available and wrote the standards that AOC manager Michael Derr was given credit for – to consult with any court that wants their interests looked after and my design review services would be inexpensive insurance.
SF Whistle
July 30, 2011
Michael–thank you–my point exactly—the cool rural court houses have provided a wonderful vehicle for the AOC to build the “consistent supporter” pool you write of…
It was only natural that those on the receiving end of the AOC “buffet” would be expected to respond in kind as loyalists—
This is how all proper fiefdoms are created…
Delilah
July 30, 2011
RonO said clearly that every courthouse project underway will be completed through whatever phase it is in currently, be it “complex land-acquisition” and real estate deals, architectural design, construction, etc. Granted that in some counties there is a legitimate need for some appropriately-sized courthouses that are in dangerous states of disrepair, or whatever. But does anyone think that these pricey new courthouses in different phases of land-acquisition, design and construction are being revamped or scaled down commensurate with the smaller staffing numbers? Are the new courthouses being designed on the “old” (currently existing) models which have large bullpen areas which assume you have the necessary numbers of clerks who work at windows for the public, paperwork management, processing and filing, answering phone calls from the public, etc., at a time when court clerks’ offices are being reduced to skeleton crews? Are they still being designed with offices for managers, court reporters, financial hearing officers, LPAs, etc., when hundreds of these people have been and will continue to be laid off?
No. I am sure the AOC is forging ahead with all their typical grandiosity, just like the CCMS debacle, and the public will be left with fancy and overbuilt courthouses that will be devoid of staff and have lots of empty space where workers used to be. (And I am sure the size and scope of the judges’ chambers will be very impressive indeed.)
And I don’t believe RonO for one second that any of these projects will be stopped after completion of the current phase, or that the AOC will lay off anyone — and I mean any one
— person. Please wake me when there is verification of actual layoffs at the AOC. In the meantime, within the next couple of months, many of us will be watching with tears in our eyes as a multitude of our fellow court workers walk out the door for their last time.
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Delilah, I’m guessing you work at a court. If so, is a lot of the space taken up with paper files? What if my friends are correct when they say that all of this paper could be eliminated? How much space would that free up?
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Mr. Wintermeyer, your comments were interesting but my nerd friends tell me it is highly unlikely that an off-site location for most of the data that is being worked on would be necessary. They point first to what Michael Paul said about taking pictures of documents and tell me that is totally unnecessary in light of what current computers can do. It also makes the files much larger and makes them difficult to search. I.e., the lawyers, judges, and court administrators are creating their own problems. I am told that large corporations that have offices in different states and even different countries use standardized forms and methods dictated by central IT personnel. This eliminates virtually all of the paper. And they point out how large distributions of files, like from Microsoft, are done by multiple distribution centers, not just one. Like the spokes of a wheel. And how it works both directions.
I guess the bottom line is that they don’t see what the problem is, again leaving out the most sarcastic comments about how all these people must be dumber than a box of rocks.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
I’m still trying to understand where and how things went so wrong. George had a vision of a Ca judicial system that was efficiently run in uniformity across the state. Not an unreasonable goal. At what point did this turn into the JC was the policy making body and the AOC’s function was to oversee the courts rather than service the courts? Was there a watershed point when it became apparent there was a problem? Seems like something must have occurred back before they chose Deloitte for the computer project and had no qualms about using unlicensed contractors. Who was the biggest proponent decision maker of using Deloitte? Where is that person today?
SF Whistle
July 30, 2011
Mrs Kramer–
If I may I would like to respectfully submit to you that the JC is not a policy making body—The JC exists for the singular purpose of rubber-stamping whatever the CJ put in front of it–
Check out the history—The JC has never opposed the CJ—
Check out the composition of the JC—do you notice that it is pretty obvious that those “appointed” are actually hand-selected by the CJ for a purpose with the clear expectation of loyalty….not much point of the handfull of those not appointed by the CJ to make waves—serves no purpose as was clear a week ago with two dissenters….
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
Right. But George is gone and yet it continues. I’m a salesman by profession. In order to sell something, you have to understand what a decision maker is thinking – what motivates them – what are their goals. So you have to ask alot of questions before you form a conclucion. I’m trying to understand. It makes no sense to me that we would close many courts to throw money into a computer system that doesn’t work and build new courthouses. So why does it make sense to them? What factors are they considering when forming this conclusion? It doesn’t seem logical that they are just a bunch of inept bafoons and no one will shut them down.
Is it possible that a philosophy has been ingrained in diciples that it is their mission to computerize/standardize the Ca legal system? Should we be calling it the Church of George instead of the House of George? Something just is not adding up here of why it keeps being decided to throw good money after bad – and no legislators bat an eye. What is the concept that causes this?
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Michael Paul & Jon Wintermeyer, your posts here are now being looked at by some computer experts. They also pose some more questions.
Have any of these people been to any recent tech conferences? Are they familiar with a common process of using a cluster of computers on a table set for standing height and displaying electronic forms that registrants, exhibitors, etc. fill in on screen, then click on a “Finished” button or tell someone they are finished? That would take care of the remaining few people who don’t have computers and walk into courthouses with paper or with just information scribbled down in notes. I understand you just fill in information, press the Tab key, fill in more, press the Tab key, etc.
Again I am hearing the comments about must have been living in a cave, or in the wilderness, etc.
And if no one in the entire court system knows how to do this stuff, which I am told is relatively simple, then hire someone to do it cheaply or for fun. Kids in school could do it, or at least most of it, as a class project, or so I am told.
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
If I were god, as costly as it is, I would turn over V4 to the trial courts that want it and then abandon the effort altogether for many of the reasons you have stated. People can go to a public library and use a computer these days. Kiosks exist in most courts in one form or another and making kiosks for people to e-file cases would be effortless. In my opinion, It should have been a web-centric, nearly paperless effort or at least that should have been the goal from the onset. It certainly would have permitted them to use their CCTC idea with greater success than they will have with the current model.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
Based on what I am able to ascertain at this point, this is what I think the underlying problem may be and why no one is moving to shut down all this deceit and waste. Please tell me if I am wrong. I think there is a philosophy causing alot of misplaced, self justification going on for the perceived great good of the courts. I heard someone mention the term “our legacy” at the JC meeting when deciding to build new courts and keep money in CCMS.
Check out these words of Kim Turner:
Click to access 30.pdf
Court Executive Officer Kim Turner noted, “The brick and mortar mentality of the court is changing with the times. We want our information to be readily accessible to all who are entitled to view it… Our philosophy is to encourage the public to be on-line, not in line.”
Is it possible that they see themselves as pioneers building new courthouses that are IT compatible for the future good of the courts? And all of the current fallout is just frivilous whining by those who refuse to change? Think this is absolutely wrong, but could this be the conceptual mindset that is causing/allowing this to continue?
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
Until I came along and integrated all technology in a courthouse on one high speed redundant network, the AOC was just building conventional courthouses and technology was an afterthought so your speculation that they are building IT compatable courts doesn’t add up.
Many of the dinosaurs managing OCCM were resistant to the use of this technology. For years there was turf battles about, for example, who would troubleshoot and replace an internet protocol based security camera. The Facilities Management Unit (ie the unlicensed contractors) demanded administrative access to networks to do that work.
My response was to take it up with the local court IT director and I’ll tell you now, they will tell you to go pound sand. I bet that turf war is ongoing. To try to enlist support for their position, the Facilities Management Unit tried to convince the Design & Construction unit to break the technology up into different networks. Some of Design & Construction’s technophobe dinosaurs bought into that argument. However they were universally pushed back by commercial architects and the integrated technology designers assigned to the projects which is why there is a new facility design standard today replacing the one written in 2006. Turf wars such as this are one of the reasons why the two largest commercial real estate firms have made their facilities maintenance departments a subsidiary of the information technology department.
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Mr. Paul,
I’m going to go back to watching golf on TV and perhaps having a cold one and chips, so please pardon me if I don’t respond quickly, (Oooooh! Just missed a putt) but my friends told me earlier that all this fancy stuff isn’t necessary anymore. They mentioned using a lan?? or a wan?? and desktop and laptop computers. You don’t even need wires anymore for the people like lawyers who bring their computers in. I understand all you need is this simple stuff and wall plugs. So why are people fighting over stuff that doesn’t even matter?
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
K. If it wasn’t part of George’s vision that a centralized computer system was needed to standardize/uniform the courts, then what was his original concept of how to do that?
(BTW, Centralized beauracracy is not a Republican stance. That’s a Democrat stance.)
Michael, are you saying that all new courthouse construction design has a heavy IT component? IF so, does anyone confirm it is compatible with the CCMS “plan”?
When selling this stuff to legislators, do you all think they are selling Ca needs courts that are IT functioning to limit the number of courts needed?
I think you guys are right about this driving one nuts trying to find the logic in the matter. But there has to be some sort or reasoning being promoted that fuels this to continue, doesn’t there?
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
Sharon, this is not the same question that you asked before.Your question before was related to building IT compatable courthouses. Most any building can be made IT compatable. CCMS is just another computer program that can ride on any network. Hopefully, locally.
All new courthouses use a highly integrated IP technology infrastructure with the capability or deployment of a couple of different wireless systems overlaying it. It is nothing more than a modern office building with lots of security cameras and detention/access control/radio systems added into the mix. This can be done in nearly any structure for the right amount of money.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
K. I may not be phrasing this question correctly. Not terribly IT savvy. But where did the whole concept of Arizona, etc, in conjunction with CCMS come from? Are what they putting as wiring in the new courthouses compatible with achieving this? What was George’s original vision of how to standardize the courts?
I am still trying to figure out how in the Hell they are selling this stuff and getting away with it. An example: Allowing deregulation and derivative trading was sold to the Republicans because it encouraged business. It was sold to the Democrats because it loosened things up to where anyone could buy a house.
So what are they selling to the Democrats and Republicans that would cause them to be able to put money in a BSA blasted computer system and build more courthouses when they have been caught using unlicensed contractors?
crtwatchr
July 30, 2011
CJ George’s stated goal was to improve access to jusitce by using technology that would improve effeciency, create some statewide uniformity and standardize processes. As noted, by MP, there is nothing wrong with such a goal. However, I firmly believe the unspoken objective was to create the infrastructure needed to establish a centralized system of trial court administration. This was and remains the AOC/JC agenda as created by CJ George and Bill Vickery.
There can be no other explanation for the AOC/JC’s decision to go forward with CCMS at any cost and in light of the clear problems with the design and development of the project. (Do you really believe the AOC was not aware of the problems hightlighted by the BSA report? If the primary goal of the project was to meet the IT needs of the Courts in the 21st Century, Shelia Calabro would not have been in charge of it. Anyone who knew anythng about IT project management would have seen the problems and looked at alternatives. This is not what the AOC wanted.)
The AOC’s strategy was to put a together a statewide financial accounting system (done), bring all the facilities under AOC control (done), implement a statewide case management system operated through a central tech center (CCMS), and then put together a statewide personnel system (Phoenix/HR).
Once completed, the AOC/JC planned to go to the legislature and governor to tell them the statewide systems were all in place and the AOC could adminsiter the trial courts from San Francisco. The AOC would argue local administration was no longer needed and would seek legislation consistent with the amendments to GC 77001 they tried to push through with JC approval on a trailer bill. Those proposed amendments, if ever adopted, basically gave the JC the authority to run the trial courts.
Justice Huffman participated in pushing this agenda forward through the Rules of Court the JC approved by the dark of the night for approval without any public comment or notice. Those rules, along with the CJ’s authority to appoint the majority of the voting members, assured AOC control of the JC agenda and the members would simply approve whatever AOC staff recommended.
There are other alternatives to CCMS, which are readily available at a fraction of the cost. CCMS is far from the answer. MP’s suggestion to give V4 to the courts that want to use it is a good one. Those courts can pay for the maintenance and support from their own budgets just like the courts that use non-CCMS must do. Let the Courts colloaborate and find solutions to their own CMS issues. Finally take the TCTF money ($74 million ??) budgeted for CCMS support this year and allocate it to all courts. That would reduce the $135 million in reductions by more than one-half.
The reason the AOC refuses to consider any alternative to CCMS is its primary goal is not to improve effeciency, create uniformity, etc. The primary goal of the AOC/JC is to shift the administriation of trial courts from the local level to 455 Golden Gate Ave. How else can you explain its recent decision regardng the budget allocations in the face of opposition for both the CJA and ACJ and the impassioned pleas of the judges who spoke at the meeting.
Delilah
July 30, 2011
>>The reason the AOC refuses to consider any alternative to CCMS is its primary goal is not to improve efficiency, create uniformity, etc. The primary goal of the AOC/JC is to shift the administration of trial courts from the local level to 455 Golden Gate Ave.<<
BINGO, crtwtchr! That was indeed King George's game plan all along. And but for the recent scrutiny facilitated in part by the crashing economy, they might have succeeded in wrapping it all up in a bow. Perhaps through the efforts of the ACJ, JCW, and all other concerned and engaged parties, we can thwart the AOC's/mini-mimi's continuing efforts to make it a fait accompli? I am afraid they could be within arm's-reach of their goal, though, if the Legislature doesn't give us a big assist. Too bad it's not looking too good on that front anymore.
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
There can be no better rational explanation than what you’ve presented.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
That’s an excellent, sequential, explaination. No other explaination could hold weight as being logical to the best of my knowledge. So if I can understand it and the threat it poses to the Constitutuion when Ca trial courts are no longer autonomous (or even open); why can’t the legislators understand this? The legislators knew of the BSA audit. They knew of the unlicensed contractors. They knew the AOC was taking trial court money, forcing courts to close a couple of days p/mo. And now they know courts are closing at a dramatic rate. Surely, they are seeing that she is not bringing in anyone different from George’s/Vickery’s people.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when AOC/JC supporters were lobbying Sacramento against AB1208. In the face of all of the above, what did they sell that caused the legislature to miss the opportunity to instill balance in the courts? It has to be more than just give the little lady a chance. And what are they selling now?
I have not heard a word of where Brown is on this. Has anyone else?
JusticeCalifornia
July 31, 2011
crtwatchr said:
“The reason the AOC refuses to consider any alternative to CCMS is its primary goal is not to improve effeciency, create uniformity, etc. The primary goal of the AOC/JC is to shift the administriation of trial courts from the local level to 455 Golden Gate Ave. How else can you explain its recent decision regardng the budget allocations in the face of opposition for both the CJA and ACJ and the impassioned pleas of the judges who spoke at the meeting.”
I disagree. The primary goal is ABSOLUTE CONTROL over the entire branch. Financial, administrative, policy, human resources — everything. In California, what is more powerful than absolute control over the biggest judiciary in the Western world? A little tiny group of unqualified, overpaid, power-obsessed AOC hoodlums currently owns and rules our patently unqualified gambling barmaid-cj, the historically ridiculously submissive bought and paid for or hoodwinked JC, and apparently, the majority of our quivering elected judges who are too afraid to defend themselves, the law and the public that elected them.
Leaving it to the victims of all of the above to fix this mess. Really? Is this what branch members are paid for? I think not. I am getting real tired of branch members — and other governmental officials — conveniently running off to the rest room to powder their noses (or whatever) when they should be picking up the bill.
Delilah
July 31, 2011
JC, I think the point is that the “ABSOLUTE CONTROL” you mention is the same thing crtwatchr already stated: “…shift the administration of trial courts from the local level to 455 Golden Gate Ave.” Administration of the trial courts includes “financial, administrative, policy, human resources — everything.” We are on the same page.
And we are all tired of waiting for somebody (other than the victims) to clean up this mess. Sadly, the powerful sources that could do something about this have heard the victims pounding on their door for a long time now, but at this point they are turning off the lights and pretending nobody is home.
crtwatchr
July 30, 2011
Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors in previous post. Probably shouldn’t try to post and keep an eye on my kids in the pool at the same time.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
“CJ George’s stated goal was to improve access to jusitce by using technology that would improve effeciency, create some statewide uniformity and standardize processes”
Do you all know where one finds documentation of this stated goal?
JusticeCalifornia
July 30, 2011
Blowthewhistle
Do you and your friends have actual hands-on experience with any state or county court IT system?
blowthewhistle
July 30, 2011
Not that specifically, but they are all in the computer industry. They have actual experience across the board. They have commented that Mr. Paul appears to have experience with installations, infrastructure, networks, and equipment in general but not with software development and systems design.
And another item from the political arena is that a figure of $50M has come up several times around the Capitol. That is the figure that experts are telling legislative staffers is the most that a case management system could possibly cost. And they apparently have examples from a number of other states. So …..
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
When I worked for the AOC, they used my MCSE and my infrastructure experience. All previous employers utilized my application development and systems design experience. Those consulting gigs included development and administration for the City & County of San Francisco and U.S. GSA, as government agencies. I haven’t even touched on private sector consulting. Several court case management systems run on lotus domino nationwide and while they aren’t COURT case management systems, numerous case management systems also run on Lotus domino here in California. I’ve made it a point to not bring up Lotus Domino / websphere as a possibility and flavor the discussion because I’m not charged with finding the solution. But I can tell you what will and will not work with all of that experience and certification.
concerned
July 30, 2011
I’ve asked this before but didn’t receive an answer: does any other court system have an agency as the AOC calling the shots as to where and how many earmarked for court funding is instead diverted to pet projects? What’s going on here is highway robbery and fraud.
This is bigger then what happened in Bell, CA. Someone blow the whistle on those crooks and once they did, and the media learned of it they, those in Sacramento, moved and boy they moved fast. The theives and fraudters in Bell were arrested and actions and bills, ect where taken to correct those wrongs.
Why no FULL SCALE blow up about the AOC? This crap has been going on for years. There is someone who can do this, but who?
Trust me, if the people of this state, those who VOTE and PAY TAXES knew what’s really and truly going on at the AOC, there would be public outcries and outrage.
Just spell out plain and simple how much of THEIR/OUR tax money is being thrown to the wind, spell out plain and simple the salary and benefits of ‘managers’ and the ratio of ‘managers’ to line staff the actually ‘manage’ , spell out plain and simple that various people, some of whom visit this site, have contacted public, ELECTED officials and were ignored, watch and see if things don’t change. Why? Because the folks in Sacramento like, no love their jobs, and if they have people that elected them asking why they did nothing to rein in the fraud and theivery, the know they may not be re-elected to the jobs they so love.
I’m not sure, but couldn’t the union do something? Couldn’t someone who really knows intimate details of this fraud, notify someone of higher authority, couldn’t the media do extensive investigations of the AOC, such as in the Bell scandal?
If this were to happen, and the theives at the AOC are exposed, everyone who did nothing would be falling over themselves to look good to the voters. They would point fingers play the name game but we would get positive results.
Is anyone out there, who is really in the know, willing to blow the whistle, loud, hard and clear?
Saying all of that, can someone answer my initial question?
Michael Paul
July 30, 2011
I’ve been asking myself these same questions going on two years. Paula Negley has been asking these same questions for four or more years. Nobody was willing to recognize there was a problem until it hit their doorstep for the most part.
concerned
July 30, 2011
So in other words people that could do something just tucked their tails and ran? Like I’ve said before, I’m new to this site. Can you tell me, why if you told people in Sacramento about all the fraud, waste and deceit, why no one has taken you serious and started an investigation? If they had, the courts wouldn’t be in the dire mess they are in now.
Could it be that someone wants it to collapse and fail, then ride in on a big white horse to save the day(courts)?
I’ve been with the courts for over twenty years and never ever thought I would see the day that the courts are in the dire shape they are in.
It is hurtful to see what’s going on. I do believe that one day and that day is coming soon, that someone will put a stop to the fleecing of the courts. Someone in Sacramento surely has to be watching what is unfolding, just giving them enough rope…………..
crtwatchr
July 30, 2011
The AOC/JC counted on the separation of powers doctrince protecting them from too much oversight. Furthermore, the Constitution gives the CJ the authority to appoint the majority of the voting members of the JC. The ability of legislators to control the administration of the court system is limted.
When the JC was created its administrative authority was limited to the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. The JC had the authority to establish rules of practice and procedure for the trial court, e.g., the maximum number of pages a reply brief could contain. Trial courts were funded at the local level. When the JC was created, the legislature and the voters never anticipated the JC would someday have the authority to control $3.0 billion in trial court funding. However, this is exactly what happened when CJ Geroge/Bill Vickery pushed through the Trial Court Funding Act in 1997(?). All of the sudden CJ George, through his ability to appoint the voting majority, was solely in control of an entire branch of state government.
I am sure the JC appointees will all say that the Chief never told them how to vote on an issue. He didn’t have to. The only information the JC members ever received was spoon fed to them by AOC staff, after being cleared through Justice Huffman’s E&P Committee. Dissenting views were never heard because AOC leadership would not allow it. The last thing AOC management wanted was for the JC members to even know there may have been another view on an issue. Remember the mantra, “We need to all speak with one voice.” The only way to insure this happened was to only appoint judges and CEOs to the JC who the Chief knew would toe the party line and were “just happy to be here”.
The clearest evidence of CJ George’s complete control of the JC and the development of JC policy is that during his tenure the JC never voted contrary to the recommendations of AOC staff. Never. Only in the last several years have there even been any members with the fortitude to cast a vote against a proposal brought before the council. (Thank you Judges Wesley, Edmons and Pines)
Go back and look through the minutes of past JC meetings. There is a surprising lack of discussion regarding CCMS at the meetings. The JC never voted as a body to authorize the expenditure of almost $500 million on CCMS. The AOC will point to a vote in 2002 or 2003 when the JC voted in favor of a statewide CMS as its authority to go forward with the CCMS project. However, as documeted by the LAO in 2004 and the BSA in 2011, the AOC never provided the JC with a cost-benefit analysis, a risk-mitigation plan, detailed budget or any of the other information a governing body should receive before authorizing a project of the scale of CCMS.
As you go back and look through the JC minutes see if you can find an instance of an AOC manager or director ever telling the Council there was even the slightest problem with the CCMS project. I find it very difficult to reconcile the fact the AOC only had positive things to report about CCMS with the findings of the BSA report which had very little that was positive to say about it.
I think when the new CJ allowed Justice Bruiners to respond to the BSA report like he did the legislature decided nothing was really going to change. Rather than get into a fight over legislation that might seem implicate the separation of powers doctrine, the legislature did what it knew it could do; cut the funding to the branch. I expect the legislature took the position that if the JC, when faced with a budet crisis, decided to use its available money to fund CCMS the legislature was not going to jump in and say they couldn’t. However, the legislature also decided the JC will have to deal with the fallout when courts close, employees are laid off and lines out the door and down the sidewalk in front of courthouses become common occurences.
Club Fed Recruiting
July 31, 2011
What is going on in California’s judicial branch is more nuanced that what occurred in Bell, California. To get to this place in history required a careful pick of people and personalities both in the Judicial Council and AOC leadership over the years. Directly below the leadership positions were placed those who were identified as being compliant personality types that were no more than marginally qualified for the positions and roles they were designated to fill. Some of those people are of questionable character.
They were given leadership positions and paid two to three times more than they were worth. They were paid more than they could earn in either the private sector or in any other branch of government due to their material lack of qualifications, yet not enough to raise any Robert Rizzo red flags. They are being paid more money than they ever earned in their lives. The personal knowledge that they are no more than marginally qualified or wholly unqualified, yet placed in leadership positions serves to enlist their unquestioned cooperation with higher-ups. Most every person at the AOC ranked senior manager or above fits this description well. They are qualified only because California’s judicial branch leadership has deemed them qualified. If they were compelled to take a civil service exam for their positions they would not pass. If they were required to produce educational credentials to support their appointments, they don’t exist or are unrelated.
As pointed out elsewhere, none of these people have a work product of any value that they can offer to the branch other than their unswerving cooperation with branch leadership. Below these people put into managerial positions lie those who have a work product, those who have the education and those who could pass a test for the positions supporting their appointments.
To have any ability on turning this wayward ship around would require deep cuts targeted specifically at all AOC operations and employment, shifting this funding paying for all of what is happening out to the trial courts. When these people realize that they are about to lose their jobs anyways, they might start coming forward. It is not against the law to hire or overpay unqualified people. It is against the law to put them in positions where their sole purpose is to provide cover for judicial branch leadership wrongdoing. Passing AB1208, sweeping all construction funding and transferring all court houses to DGS would help expose what’s really going on and give my recruiting associates more to act upon as these things would cut AOC employment by greater than 50%.
Jon Wintermeyer
July 30, 2011
Those still working at the AOC are bought and paid for, they signed up for the Kool-aid drink-a-thon. The others have left Dodge ( 455 California), resigned so they could sleep at night and did not want to blow the whistle or retired if they had the time required and wanted to escape from CA, before people started to ask them questions they did not want their names associated to the answers.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2011
Here is another abusive aspect of the computer system that is disturbing: There are actually two records of each case besides the actual case file, the Case Summary and the Register of Action (ROA). The Case Summary are the numbered items in the computer. These are what are printed when a litigant asks for the ROA. The print out says ROA on it, but the records department stamps each page with “This is not the Register of Action”.
The true ROA is what the judges see when they are looking at what prior judges have done. It includes non-numbered items, some descriptive of the judges’ perception.(I know this because I have had aspects read to me). Litigants are not permitted to see this or have print outs. I asked. The Admin, on the advise of legal councel, said no. So there is a computer file shared among judges and impacting cases, that the impacted litigants are not permitted to see. Here is one example:
sharonkramer
July 31, 2011
Concerned,
You asked a great question: “does any other court system have an agency as the AOC calling the shots as to where and how many (money) earmarked for court funding is instead diverted to pet projects?”
I remember that about a month ago, Judge Horan posted that the ACJ had been contacted by judges in other states. It would be a good thing to know if this take over of judicial branches is occurring in other places besides CA. And if so, what are other states doing about it.
CRTWatcher,
You have excellent writing skills. Just a thought as a possible route to help change things. If you could cite references for what you know, your writing would be good to get published in a journal somewhere. Peer reviewed journal publishings can be an effective way to help shed light on matters. Academics, who impact policies, read them. They are writings that carry weight because they are referenced and (in most cases) properly peer reviewed.
crtwatchr
July 31, 2011
Art. VI of the state Constitution was adopted long before the Trial Court Funding Act (Lokyer-Eisenberg). I also think Art. VI gives the CJ the authority to appoint JC members.
I think Judge Horan reviewed the JC minutes and agendas going back to 1999 and prepared a summary of the votes. It may have been posted on the old AOC Watcher. These minutes and agendas are on the JC’s website. I conducted a review but did not document it.
I don’t think this is a City of Bell situation. I think CJ George/Bill Vickery had a vision for a centralized system of trial court administration. Take a look of how the courts in Utah are managed. Bill V. implemented the Utah system when he was there. Regional trial court administration over a number of county courts, etc.
CJ George and Bill V knew they did not have support for legislation based on the Utah model back in the late 1990’s. The opposition from local courts would be too strong. Paticularly from LA. So they took a different approach. Develop statewide systems, require the courts to use them and once they were in place, go to the legislature and argue local administration was ineffecient and an unnecessary cost.
Instead of engaging in an open and honest debate about the merits of centralized vs. decentralized management for the trial courts, the AOC/JC decided to achieve its goals through policy manipulation. The CJ was able to conrol policy by only appointing loyalist to the Council. Bill V. did his part by a top-down management style. Those who agreed with management advanced within the organization. Anyone who suggested the naked emperor wasn’t fully clothed was shown the door.
There are no smoking gun documents to support this conclusion. (At least not to my knowledge.) However ,a number of questionable JC decisions such as “CCMS at any cost”, assuming responsibiity for maintenance and construction of facilities, failing to take any action against the AOC leaders after receipt of the BSA report, etc., suggest there is an agenda that is not posted on the JC website one week before the meetings. There is no other reasonable explanation for the JC to continue to support CCMS and other statewide initiatives while the trial courts lay off employees and close courtrooms.
nikkislim
July 31, 2011
Crtwatchr,
In other words you don’t think that the citizens of this state would care that their tax dollars are being wasted on the bs that is going on at the aoc? Someone posted earlier that the so called managers are being paid two to three times what they are worth. Many of these ‘managers’ have nothing they are bring to the table, other than they are ‘friends’, ‘flunkies’ and ‘yes’ people of the former CJ.
In my humble opinion, if the folks in Sacramento sits on their duffs and does nothing, come election time next year or whenever the people go to the polls again, they should all be voted out of office. Get some new blood in there, someone who is willing to really stand up for the people of this state. What is happening to our trial court is a total disgrace. And not one person in the legislature is doing a damn thing about it. What is JB doing, just sitting back, watching, waiting?
Why not get together members of SEIU and start a campaign to call out elected officials and question them as to why they aren’t doing anything to save CA courts. Flood the phone lines? Get. In their faces? Did they forget SEIU ENDORSED many of them last election???
Excuse the typos, I’m riled up. On my way to Starbucks!
blowthewhistle
July 31, 2011
For those of you interested, I just heard on Channel 5 after the political discussions that CBS’ Scott Pelley is going to report on the San Francisco court situation this week. Evening News. 5:30 p.m.
blowthewhistle
July 31, 2011
My nerd friends have gone over a number of postings here about the computer project problems and have some interesting comments. They say some things don’t quite add up. For one thing, although they say Mr. Paul and Mr. Wintermeyer may have high level knowledge in some areas, they are sure they don’t have high level knowledge in others. I got an earful about Lotus Domino. It was described as a way to collaborate between distant locations. Apparently, if court people in San Diego and court people in Eureka want to have a chat over coffee and doughnuts and exchange documents, notes, etc. this Domino program is a great way to do it. It’s a coffee and doughnuts program. They said it’s really old, basically, but has been updated. And they can include court people in Fresno (or even New York) too if they want. But they all say it’s not a case management program. It’s not for managing data. And anyone who thinks it is does not have systems design knowledge.
Two of them (one of those is someone outside their regular group) point out there is a huge difference between types of computer knowledge. Mr. Paul, they all said that if you have an MCSE certificate you must be smart and must know a lot about Microsoft Windows networks. But they said several of your statements indicate you don’t know much about systems design or that if you did, it is many years out of date. They ask some simple questions which I got to wondering about too. If you were working at the AOC, and you knew how to do all of what is required, then why didn’t you just do it? Why didn’t you stop them from using Deloitte? Why didn’t you speak up and explain that Deloitte isn’t a software company?
What I’m wondering about from a political/budgetary standpoint is, if you really have the equipment (I can’t remember all the other words they used) knowledge, why don’t/didn’t you get together with someone who has that systems design knowledge and just create a solution? None of this adds up. And I trust my friends’ knowledge.
Michael Paul
July 31, 2011
I’m going to guess that you and your friend are both computer geek. I didn’t wish to flavor the discussion but since seem to think I don’t know what I am talking about….
Domino is a groupware / web platform that you develop applications on. Applications like court case management systems. Let me give you just two case examples of some domino based court case management systems that don’t work and are unsuitable.
http://sfcourts.org/
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do
Both systems connect to RDBMS systems on the back-end, making the wildly suitable (and FUNCTIONAL TODAY?) for court case management.
The latter is a statewide system interlinking every court in Missouri from the supreme court on down. You’ve not yet figured out that AOC’s leadership’s mind has already been made up so somehow, I am responsible for not firing my managers and developing solutions when that is not what they hired me for. Maybe I should have taken you advice and got myself fired 8 years ago. pfffft.
Michael Paul
July 31, 2011
I left out that I’m a lotus professional with some webspere experience. Again, I did not wish to flavor the discussion. The only person I know that frequents these forums and claims that court people don’t know anything about modern software development or systems design is comptergeek.
blowthewhistle
July 31, 2011
Very close. He’s one of the people who said you obviously don’t know how to write software.
Michael Paul
July 31, 2011
Mr. Powers is a broken record.
Obviously sfcourts.org works fine (in full disclosure, it includes more than domino on the front end including active server page extensions and magic94) Missouri CaseNet has been operational and mostly statewide for about 9 years. It is the only statewide case management system used by the courts in Missouri. These are just two examples. I can find quite a few more but it is OFF TOPIC.
RDBMS guys (oracle, sybase, sql) don’t know domino and think of it as an email and chat platform, yet domino powers most of the largest corporations including Intel and JPMorganChase. (Just a few other of my consulting customers of the past that also don’t know anything about computers….) When they need relational databases they connect to them but for the most part, the front end is either the notes client or domino server to make it easy on their users. Same look and feel from application to application, same platform.
JusticeCalifornia
July 31, 2011
Unclear on the concept: someone who is playing golf, sipping margaritas, watching the kids by the pool –while unabashedly admitting to having no experience whatsoever with court systems — suggest that a single AOC employee could have single-handedly headed off the whole CCMS mess at the pass. Wow.
I’m sorry, but talk about bullshit unrealistic armchair quarterbacking.
blowthewhistle
July 31, 2011
Are you saying that people who suggest using Oracle, Sybase, and Microsoft are wrong and they should be using Domino? I know someone who lives in SF, works at Sybase, and says Domino is unsuitable. Is he wrong?
Michael Paul
July 31, 2011
Justice California’s reply is suitable enough for me to adopt and end the off topic discussion.
sharonkramer
July 31, 2011
JCW,
Want to address an early post of your’s on this thread: “This is being viewed in Sacramento as being a partisan effort to: 1) Implement back door tort reform (if you can’t file/hear a civil case, there is your tort reform) 2) Punish large metropolitan democratic strongholds (like shutting down San Francisco Courts and inhibiting access to the civil court system all over California – disproportionately impacting large metropolitan areas) over legislative choices.”
As one who knows the recent history of Workers Comp Reform in CA and how this “reform” has now increased costs while leaving more on SS disability dole, etc; I think the above is only partially correct regarding Tort Reform. If this was strictly a partisan matter, AB 1208 would have breezed thru the Assembly. SB 899 that brought us the WC “reform” was actually heavily Democrat supported, even though the true beneficiary was the insurance industry. I have friends in the Peace & Freedom, Democrat, Republican and even Tea Parties. As a whole, not one of these parties want to see the Constitution lost.
They just don’t seem to grasp how little actions they do as legislative representatives are causing the loss of this and backdooring Tort Deform. I could write a dissertation on this. But there is no need.
The AOC has and is using tax dollars to over pay unlicensed contractors and directly telling employees to bundle costs to hide deceit. That’s criminal by any stretch of the imagination. I think as a citizen of CA, I deserve a full blown investigation into this; and so does everyone else, no matter what their party affiliation.
That would stop those who are causing the current Tort Deform. HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN?