It’s becoming obvious that the Judicial Council and the AOC need to take a better look at the man in the mirror instead of trying to place the blame at the feet of others.
.
.
If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that change…
.
A letter from the Alliance of California Judges
Dear Members and Others:
On September 25, 2011, Ventura Superior Court Judge Glen Reiser, a member of the CCMS “Operational Advisory Committee” sent to all judges of that court an email outlining his understanding of the status of the CCMS project, including the status of its warranty, which is in jeopardy. Judge Reiser opined that “project opponents” were possibly responsible for delays in the project.
Two days later, the article below, titled “Computer Contractor Agrees to $16 Million Refund”, appeared in the Recorder newspaper.
Ventura Superior Court Judge James Cloninger sent his colleagues a response to Judge Reiser’s email, which we believe accurately assesses the situation. We have included both Judge Reiser’s email to the Ventura bench, and Judge Cloninger’s response. We have also learned from a member of the Operational Advisory Committee that there is a further delay in CCMS acceptance testing. We await Justice Bruiniers’ announcement. Of course, this simply underscores the need to extend the warranty to protect the taxpayers.
Alliance Director Judge Susan Lopez Giss has made an information request relative to the matter of the refund/credit. Her letter to the AOC’s interim Director Mr. Overholt and to the head of the CCMS Governance Committee, Justice Terence Bruiniers, is also included herein.
Finally, we include a story from the Courthouse News Service. We make no comment on the story since obviously it deals with pending litigation.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_________________________________________________________________
Computer Contractor Agrees to $16 Million Refund
SACRAMENTO — Deloitte Consulting, the architect of the judiciary’s Court Case Management System, has agreed to credit the Administrative Office of the Courts $16 million for delays in the long-awaited project.
_________________________________________
9/25/11
Software contracts typically contain a contractual warranty period, agreed upon in advance, commencing from product delivery acceptance. CCMS final product acceptance is still pending completion of the financial reporting piece; and completion of judicial officer testing , both of which are expected to be concluded by the end of October 2011.
______________________________________________
From: James Cloninger
10/4/11
On Sunday, September 25, 2011 you sent an email to all judges regarding your understanding of the “CCMS warranty” issue. I gathered further information on this issue from various sources including public information from the California Judicial Council website. I believe your statement on this issue overlooks several important elements.
In an unedited transcript of proceedings of Judicial Council of California meeting of July 22, 2011, at page 44, Justice Bruiniers responds to a question on the CCMS warranty issue as follows:
“To answer your second question first, the answer is yes. And in terms of the warranty period, frankly, two things, one, we’ve been focused on closing out our development contract, and we are almost there. The — have we had any actual discussions about extending the warranty period? No. And again, I think part of the answer there is at this point we don’t know what would be necessary in terms of that extension if — I would assume it would have some cost associated with it. I would still like to find a way within our budget constraints, and I know the trial court’s certainly would, to find a way to get this into a trial court, at least some module have it, into a trial court early enough that we take full advantage of the warranty period. Now, is that when specifically? That’s a question we’re going to try and answer for the council here when we come back to you in October. The — I do know that, you know, a significant number of trial courts are clearly interested in trying to share their resources and to work with branch resources and their resources to get CCMS deployed into their courts,this is going to have to be a cooperative and collaborative process going forward among the course who want to do it. There are courts at this point who are neither prepared to, nor do they need to, nor are they particularly interested in doing it. We’re not forcing CCMS on anybody, we’re talking about getting a coalition of the willing.”
In this proceeding Justice Bruiniers admits that he hasn’t really considered the warranty issue, and had not asked for an extension of the warranty as of July 22, 2011. Perhaps that position has changed, but I don’t see how that could have happened yet, since the next meeting of the council on this issue, according to Justice Bruiniers, is not scheduled until October 2011.
I understand judges have asked for a complete copy of the Deloitte contract and its amendments, including warranties. Unfortunately, the AOC and Council have taken the position that CCMS courts are not entitled to a complete copy of the Deloitte contract and its amendments. I am further informed that when courts have requested a copy, only portions have been released after substantial redactions have been made by the AOC. Think about that: a contract is made between a public agency and a private contractor, with millions upon millions of dollars of public money changing hands, and the government agency refuses to disclose its terms in full. That’s remarkable. The AOC is buying a database management system, not secret weapons. Redaction of documents is very questionable.
Your email also said, “certain project opponents, directly or indirectly through legislative financial impediment, may have caused a delay in deployment in any court, which could jeopardize our collective ability to timely identify and ameliorate warranty issues relating to software”. Interestingly, I have learned the warranty period also ran out on V3 before being deployed. That warranty ended in November 2006, well before the birth of any organized CCMS opposition and well before the February 2011, State Auditor report which said, “the full cost of the project is likely to reach nearly $1.9 billion” and “this amount does not include costs that courts will incur to implement CCMS.” In a corporate setting if the procurers of a new computer system let the warranty expire before it was ever put into service, causing the company to have to bear the expense of fixing bugs on its own, or if they allowed these kind of cost overruns, they would be fired. In the AOC, they are rewarded.
Bear in mind that the shortfall in our local budget is resulting in furloughs of between 13 and 18 days for staff and outright closure of our courts for several days of the year. Out of the approximately $8.7 million dollars we in Ventura have spent on CCMS, much of which went to Deloitte, one must wonder if we were paying for fixes which should have been covered by the warranty which was allowed to lapse, spending money we could now be using to mitigate the damage to our budget. I don’t know, but I’d like to.
The context of all of this is that the AOC originally reported that CCMS would cost $260 million dollars and that deployment to the Superior Courts would be complete in 2008-09. The most recent report by the AOC to the legislature shows that $546 million has been spent and, as we know, CCMS V4 has not been deployed to any court. And in fact the February report of the State Auditor predicts on page one that “the full cost of the project is likely to reach nearly $1.9 billion” and “this amount does not include costs that courts will incur to implement CCMS.”
I recall that it was our branch leaders, including the Chairman of the new CCMS Executive Committee, who went to Sacramento and lobbied the legislature to stop the state audit. To now blame “project opponents” for delaying what has been a cost overrun and mismanaged program is unfair and devoid of any factual basis. I refer you to the words of the State Auditor on page 3 of her report: “…the statewide case management project is at risk of not being able to obtain the funding needed for statewide deployment.” I was pleased the other day to be able to circulate to the judges of our court the news that the AOC was getting some money back from Deloitte. You correctly identified it as a credit, not a refund. I hope that it’s the result of more competent management of the project by the AOC, but it looks more like Deloitte is getting concerned that the golden goose may not survive this budgetary crisis so that it can lay more golden eggs. Time will tell.
The truth is the Judicial Branch has had its budget cut for three years in a row and the Judicial Council has continued to spend money on CCMS. In those three years courts have laid off staff and furloughed employees. The fact of the matter is that we do not actually need CCMS to get the public’s business done. If the project were suspended indefinitely or cancelled outright, no one other than those who have tied their fortunes to it would even notice, except for the improvement in the branch’s budget situation. Courthouses have been closed to the public and hours have been reduced for conducting business. Those of us who really believe that keeping our courthouses open to the public should be the first priority are justified in seeking a “pause” in the project.
James Cloninger
_________________________________________
From: Judge Susan Lopez Giss
public comments as to Deloitte crediting the Administrative Office of the Courts for
delays in the “long-awaited” CCMS project.
detected during testing that caused a delay in CCMS.
to the 10 month delay.
delay caused by these quality issues?
costs resulting from the delay at the time each person made such determination.
contributed, in whole or in part, to the 10 month delay.
services and equipment that weren’t used during the delay,” please provide the following:
included in this reference;
internal issues Deloitte had with staffing and internal management,” please provide the
following:
the 10 month delay was in large part due to internal issues on the part of Deloitte.
references.
references.
things back on track and they did that,” please provide the following:
Judicial Council?
delegated to someone or some entity?
approval to accept this amount was given?
of $16,000,000?
rather than by check/cash?
it to consider this matter.
a credit, rather than by check/cash why not?
million for delays?
to be applied? If so, please provide a copy of this invoice (s).
credit is being applied.
deployment.” Does this mean that receipt of the “credit” is conditional on CCMS being
deployed?
taxpayers for the delay that Justice Bruiniers stated was caused by Deloitte?
the warranty?
by the quality issues did not include discussions regarding extending the warranty, please
state the reasons why the subject of extending the warranty did not occur.
response by October 24, 2011. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Judge Susan Lopez Giss
_______________________________________________
Courthouse News Sues Ventura Court Clerk Over Press Access
By BILL GIRDNER
LOS ANGLES (CN) – Ventura’s court clerk was sued Thursday by Courthouse News Service over delays in press access to newly filed cases, a frequent source of news. The delays in Ventura stand in stark contrast to the same-day access to new lawsuits provided by federal courts and big state courts throughout the nation. “By denying Courthouse News timely access to newly-filed civil unlimited jurisdiction complaints, these records are as good as sealed for an appreciable time after filing, in violation of the rights secured to Courthouse News by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, federal common law, and the California Rules of Court,” said the complaint. The complaint said the news service has tried to work with the clerk, Michael Planet, to no avail.
.
Courthouse News is represented by Rachel Matteo-Boehm, David Greene and Leila Knox out of the San Francisco office of Holme Roberts & Owen. The complaint noted that the press has access to only 6% of the new cases on the day they are filed in Ventura, only 14% can be seen the next day and review of fully 80% of the new cases is delayed between three days and a month. The superior court in Ventura is one of only four in the state to fully adopt a problem-plagued case management system sponsored by the bureaucracy that oversees California’s courts. As part of that system, Ventura’s clerk requires that a host of “processing” tasks be completed before a journalist can see the new cases. “Defendant simply does not have the authority to declare that newly filed complaints are off limits until he determines, exercising his unbridled discretion, that the press and public may see them,” said the memorandum of points and authorities that accompanied the news service’s complaint. “And even if he somehow had that authority, he would be required to exercise it consistent with the First Amendment right of access. But he has not even come close.” In contrast to Ventura, federal courts in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego, and state courts such as those in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Contra Costa and Riverside give journalists access to review a large majority of cases on the same-day they are filed.
.
The complaint against Ventura makes the point that the news is perishable and readers are less and less interested in events the more they recede into the past. So that by the time Ventura allows news reporters to look the cases over, they are old and stale news. Los Angeles Superior Court, which dwarfs every court in the nation in terms of the sheer volume of cases handled, gives journalists the chance to review nearly all the new cases that have come in that day by the end of the day, and a wide range of journalists use that excellent access to cover a potent source of news. The website for the plaintiff, Courthouse News, surpassed one million independent readers per month in September, and stories tied to newly filed actions have generated hundreds of thousands of readers. News sources as varied as CNN and the Los Angeles rock station KROQ cite the news service’s articles.
.
“In recognition of the crucial role played by the media to inform interested persons about new court cases, it has been a longstanding tradition for courts to provide reporters who visit the court every day with access to that day’s new civil complaints at the end of the day on which they are filed,” said the complaint. “This same-day access ensures that interested members of the public learn about new cases while they are still newsworthy.”
.
Court clerk Planet refused a request for prompt press access by referring to budget cutbacks, suggesting that access costs money. However, press access at its core involves little more than opening a door to let journalists see new filings. For example, after years of failed negotiations between the press and court officials in Riverside Superior Court, a new clerk was able to provide same-day access without spending extra money, primarily by adjusting work schedules. “At bottom, access is largely a matter of will,” said the plaintiff’s points and authorities. “As shown by the variety and effectiveness of the procedures for providing same-day access that have been implemented in so many courts, any individual clerk’s office can provide prompt access to newly filed complaints if it has the will to do so.”
Matteo-Boehm, representing the news service, argued that the open form of government that is fundamental to our nation would be undercut if court clerks could decide on their own when they thought a new filing should be public.
“The public’s right of access to court proceedings and records is a keystone of our democratic system,” she said.
“Under the First Amendment, clerks cannot bar public access to new complaints, even for limited times, unless sufficiently compelling interests justify withholding those complaints,” she said. “Prompt access to new complaints is of obvious concern to the news media, whose role it is to inform other interested members of the public of the new action and the factual and legal allegations while it is still newsworthy,” said Matteo-Boehm. “Prompt access is essential to the public’s ability to oversee the activities of an important branch of government while those activities are still current.” The news service is asking a federal judge to find Planet’s policy invalid and order him to provide prompt press access to the court’s new matters.
..
_____________________________________________________________________________
Just wondering
October 5, 2011
The inability of a large group of judges (the many who continue to defend the mismanagement of CCMS), who are by occupation involved in critical analysis everyday, to grasp the obvious is amazing. The fact that so many others do not see their position as elected officials as demanding they step forward and join in the criticism and demand reform of the agency involved is also inexplicable. That both groups do not see a connection over this mismanagement and the blind spending by the AOC for their own projects and the problems now facing the trial courts borders on the insane.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 5, 2011
Unlike other poor souls, they’re not going to lose their jobs over it because they are immune to the same layoffs that are rapidly depleting their staff. Playing ball earns some political brownie points, favorable positions on committees and serves to bring them into the inner sanctum where all the power is.
Not playing ball has consequences that some 400 silent members of the ACJ would prefer to avoid. The level of ignorance with intent is astounding.
Wendy Darling
October 5, 2011
Long live the First Amendment.
And long live the ACJ. Hopefully, forever.
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
The legislature needs to take some positive and fruitful steps toward resolving this mess while the branch governance/spending debate rages on.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but a top to bottom BSA financial audit of the branch appears to be a basic, logical, responsible starting point.
Wendy Darling
October 5, 2011
Published late today, Wednesday, October 5, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cynthia Foster:
Laid-Off Reporters Organize, Get Backing of Judges and Bar
Cynthia Foster
SAN FRANCISCO — On her first day out of work after being let go by San Francisco Superior, court reporter Angie Diner was back at the civil courthouse. This time, she stood outside courtrooms and offered her services to arriving lawyers who didn’t know there would be no reporters inside.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202518011912&LaidOff_Reporters_Organize_Get_Backing_of_Judges_and_Bar&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
Wow. . . . .that AOC presentation is so. . . .ummmmmm. . . . . .woo-woo.
Been There
October 5, 2011
Umm, gee, Justice California, you are a much better person than I. I had to pause at slide #7 “Preparing the Mind” — my mind actually balked at the prospect of being “prepared” for what was to follow.
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
slide # 7 is so interesting. lol. I mean seriously, what is “the magical search for AHA!” ???
Guffaw, LOL, LOL
Our gambling barmaid and her followers (including dunn, steinberg, feuer, evans et al –prove me wrong!) apparently are consulting the branch’s chief astrologers, soothsayers, psychics and tarot card readers. . . . .
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
I am just wondering when our past and current chief justices, and our past and current governors, and our past and current state legislative representatives, and our past and current CA attorney generals, and our past and current state/US representatives, and our past and current state bar leaders, and our past and current judges , bench officers and third branch employees—- all of whom were or are (during their tenure) beholden to the public trust and/or the public that paid/pays them–are going to call for and/or support official/criminal/financial /ethical investigations of reported/suspected/documented/known third branch corruption.
Enough is enough. If you are not part of the solution, you are a major part of the problem.
The truth will out, and therefore (before an involuntary outing), the truth may set you free.
MrsKramer
October 5, 2011
IFTF is a think-tank. Look it up on Center for Democracy in the Media.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 5, 2011
Looking up IFTF here at JCW:
$224,476 to the “Institute for the Future” (according to the Institute’s website: ‘We work with organizations of all kinds to help them make better, more informed decisions about the future. We provide the foresight to create insights that lead to action’) to “Develop strategic vision for the California Judicial Branch.”
That slide show was worth a quarter million dollars.
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/an-acj-message-pertaining-to-the-latest-budget-cut/
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
no JCW, that slide show is priceless, in that it exposes the excrement of bulls that top leadership and top leadership’s minions (including, apparently, Dunn, Steinberg, Feuer and Evans, et al) are espousing.
I do expect Dunn, Steinberg, Feuer and Evans are reviewing their options and positions, as their options and positions affect their credibility, right about now.
CJ/JC/AOC/CJP/CSB/Governor/DOJ/Legisative/Kelso, Warren, NCSC (giggle), take heed. Third branch buffoon/racketeering warnings have been reported and posted ad nauseum– and you all know it.
Michael Paul
October 5, 2011
If the point of that exercise was to point towards cloud computing and thinking about how technology can enhance judicial branch operations, they didn’t need to spend 224K to do it.
This behavior is quite normal for the AOC. Have someone else produce the opinion you want for a price. In the mind of AOC management, the vendor is outside of the AOC and as such they have more credibility than the AOC coming to this conclusion all on their own.
I wonder how many millions of dollars are wasted on these types of studies every year.
Been There
October 5, 2011
I do not know the context or motivation that led Judge Reiser to take to his keyboard and write what he did to his fellow Ventura County Judges, but this is incredibly sad. Why is one judicial officer trying to criticize other judicial officers about things that they “directly or indirectly . . . may have unintentionally . . . which could jeopardize” (or not!) when CCMS Is the problem.
The last paragraph of Judge James Cloninger’s response is powerful in its truth and reason.
JusticeCalifornia
October 5, 2011
I think the CJ/JC/AOC should send out a public sign-up sheet for those supporting their woo woo slide show vision for/version of the CA third branch future.
Let’s see who publicly signs up. LOL. Nuff said.
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 6, 2011
The last time I went to the CTC was around 1997. I decided at that point that it was a huge mistake to look to the NCSC and/or vendors at the CTC for guidance or insight in developing software systems for local courts.
The fact that the AOC is refusing to provide copies of contracts to anyone, let alone a court that is a direct party to the contract is sadly not surprising, but certainly illegal. Maybe it is time to shake things up and start beating the bushes for counsel with sufficient national stature to become involved in taking on the JC and AOC. Attorneys making a living in California are not going to risk alienating HRH-2 (Minnie-Me) by filing a lawsuit or making too much noise. But maybe we should start looking for someone outside the state to take on her honor and the minions at 455 GGA?
Been There
October 6, 2011
I can see three paths to a lawsuit:
A – a dream team ala Olsen and Boies;
B – even the largest international law firms have offices in California although most of their work is in the federal courts. That said, it would be a tough sell to convince the partnership that the public good to be achieved would outweigh any blowback. And who will pay for this? The defense is likely to have objections to the production of and/or be unable to produce documents (ahem), main players at the AOC will in deposition be unable to remember anything, and every current AOC employee will be too afraid to come forward — in other words a very expensive case to litigate; or
C- semi-retired senior litigators who are not too concerned about any potential blowback.
On another tangent, where does the Governor stand? CJ George IMHO read the tea leaves (or the polls) and calculated that Meg Whitman would not be elected governor and timed his retirement so that Jerry Brown would not appoint his successor. Has the Governor’s office signaled any interest?
Judicial Council Watcher
October 6, 2011
Mr. Calderon was correct in his assertion that the JC/AOC should not get another dime. Mr. Paul’s former attorneys (hersh and hersh) looked like white knights there for awhile looking to take this on and get to the bottom of it. Sadly, they were in it for the false claims payoff – no white knights there – especially when they blew their statute of limitations by not attempting to relate the cases for something like 5 months. White knights would have stuck to the taxpayer lawsuit and followed it through.
Been There
October 7, 2011
Sadly, JCW, white knights are in very short supply these days. In looking at litigation, I do not believe it is the best option for many strategic reasons. First, litigation means you will be playing in the JC/AOC’s turf, something I am sure they have calculated on. Second, we know litigation will, with these defendants, be incredibly expensive. Plaintiff will be facing an opponent with unlimited (albeit public) financial resources. Third is the problem of the shortage of white knights discussed above.
The answer to me is to follow Mr. Calderon’s advice and go after the money. Everyone has friends in Sacramento and now is the time to make even more friends. The AOC’s fiscal irresponsibility is documented. This irresponsibility is denying the citizens of this state access to the courts. Indeed, when given a choice in how to spend the $$$ they have, they will inevitably starve the trial courts and overfeed their own bureaucracy.
Even more troubling, is the problem of malfeasance: a payroll bloated with, inter alia, unnamed “consultants” who never leave, an executive office that has at least one “no show” job on the books (Dennis Jones), and an army of hourly temps; unlicensed contractors; etc etc. etc.
Anon
October 7, 2011
Re: Dennis Jones…you have no idea what you’re talking about here. This has all been discussed and the bench is well aware of and approved of the arrangement with the AOC.
Been There
October 7, 2011
I disagree, Anon. First, if everything was indeed discussed with the bench and they all are “well aware of and approved the arrangement” with the AOC, it just proves my point. If the court executive officer of the Sacramento Courts held an FTE position. at the AOC, discussions, awareness and approval by the bench would not be needed.
But the “arrangement” did require some level of discussion and approval; the question is “Why?”
Because the arrangement gave the Court executive officer of the Sacramento courts a “no show” job in San Francisco so he could obtain pension benefits not available to him as an employee of Sacramento, but available if he were an employee of the AOC (we’re talking about CalPERS). Is this the most egregious example of AOC playing with and enhancing pensions? Probably not. But it is a giant red flag that could lead one to wonder what else they are doing with the state pension system.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 7, 2011
….and let’s not forget that J. Clark Kelso is involved in a similar arrangement. Given the approximate numbers being disclosed by SCO, there are about thirty individuals that have their share of pension payments paid by the AOC. Does this extend to Kelso and Jones? Who knows..there is no disclosure.
Been There
October 7, 2011
JCW, if this pension inflation business is what it appears to be, every CalPERS member should demand disclosure. There are politicos up and down the state saying CalPERS benefits must be ratcheted down, etc. etc., because it will lack resources to pay benefits under its current system. The AOC should be prohibited from using CalPERS as part of its golden parachute benefit program for favored consultants and ex-employees. This largesse by the AOC in spending CalPERS resources to reward some is but one more example of fiscal irresponsibility IMHO.
antonatrail
October 7, 2011
Road trip! The bus driver who spoke so eloquently at the judicial council meeting will be there.
The writer of the news article refers to the “AOC’s judicial council.” I guess if you say it enough times, it becomes “truth” or a variation of it? I know I’m misquoting our beloved cutesy-poo minnie-meanee CJ. Here’s the url for those who are interested in a road trip!
http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20111007/NEWS/111009822/1001/RSS
Judicial Council Watcher
October 7, 2011
At least the reporter got it right….. the AOC’s Judicial Council.
Stuart Miichael
October 8, 2011
Suing the courts in state or federal court is futile. They always join ranks to protect the bench.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 8, 2011
This is where the other two branches come into play to reduce the JC/AOC’s field of jurisdiction away from software boondoggles, court construction & maintenance and studies on the technologies and trends that everyone else is using today (and anyone could gather by picking up a technology magazine) and get them back to the business of the court’s business.
Direct, individual appropriations to the courts and the AOC and moving court facilities to DGS while diverting that money to keep trial courts fully operational is the only answer. It has the potential of permanently curing underfunded courts and introducing transparency and accountability into existing processes.
Been There
October 8, 2011
Amen!
anna
October 8, 2011
Olsen and Boise couldn’t find there way out of a paper bag. Read Vincent Bugliosi’s None Dare call it treason. You guy’s are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Hersh and Hersh were idiot’s and should be sued for legal malpractice.
anna
October 8, 2011
This corruption needs to be given to Jarrod Huffman, he’s a congressman out of marin. He’s on the judicial committee. He used to be a good trial lawyer and represented plaintiffs in employment and title nine civil rights matters.
Otherwise litigation is the only way to go. However, one must get past a demurrer. That needs to be plead very well, and one must be willing to take an appeal if necessary. This mess will not go away soon.