February 25, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
In 2008, a bill was pending in the Senate–AB 730–which would have required increased disclosure and taxpayer protections whenever IT companies with a specified litigation history bid on public IT contracts. According to the press, the bill was “aimed squarely at Deloitte (Consulting)” due to allegations that it had developed a faulty IT system for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Deloitte lobbied against the bill, which died in the Senate.
Deloitte is back, joining the AOC’s taxpayer-funded lobbyist in trying to kill another piece of reform legislation currently in the Senate–AB 1208. Deloitte paid a lobbyist more than $124,000 last year, in large part to advocate for continued CCMS funding and, specifically, to lobby against AB 1208. We include for your consideration Friday’s excellent article on the matter by Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News Service.
Deloitte’s payments to lobbyists are detailed on the Secretary of State’s website. If you have the patience to follow the money, you will find that Deloitte has paid more than $358,000 over the last five years to California lobbyists. That total includes $52,000 to kill AB 730, $119,000 directly related to CCMS, and just under $150,000 to oppose AB 1208 and to promote “IT Projects” including CCMS.
Deloitte has struggled with the reporting requirements for lobbyists–they paid $8,000 to resolve charges with the Fair Political Practices Commission over a failure by one of their lobbyists to timely report efforts on behalf of the company to defeat AB 730 and to support CCMS in 2008-2009. We have included last year’s story from the Recorder newspaper as as recap of that matter.
Is there any wonder why Deloitte opposes AB 1208? The bill threatens to replace unaccountable bureaucrats at the AOC with trial court judges who are accountable to the taxpayer. AB 1208 would prevent the Judicial Council from spending hundreds of millions of trial court dollars on projects that lack the support of the judges and staff of the very courts those projects are supposed to serve. It is an important first step toward putting judges back in charge of the important decisions affecting their courts. To find those with the most to lose if it passes, just follow the money.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________
Main Private Beneficiary of Court IT Project Lobbied Against Reform Bill
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A bill that would limit the power of California’s court bureaucracy in spending hundreds of millions on an IT project has an enemy behind the lines in the form of Deloitte Consulting.
The principal private beneficiary of the big IT project spent $124,000 last year lobbying against the reform bill, AB 1208. Deloitte’s lobbying report includes a $2,827 bill for an event at Sacramento’s exclusive Sutter Club, for a select list of legislators and Assembly staff members.
AB 1208 passed California’s Assembly in January and is now pending in the state Senate. Deloitte’s interest in the bill correlates with its extensive invoicing of California as the developer of a $1.9 billion software system for the courts.
As passed last month by the Assembly, the bill requires that any technology projects receive written consent from 2/3 of the trial courts with voting power apportioned based on population. That provision puts a check on the ability of the Administrative Office of the Courts to embark on projects like the Court Case Management System, a nine-year-old project with Deloitte as the principal consultant.
In its report to California’s Secretary State, Deloitte lists the law firm of Ochoa & Moore in Sacramento as the lobbyist paid to oppose AB 1208. But the report was filed by attorney Steven Lucas of Nielsen Merksamer in San Rafael. Partner Steve Merksamer was chief of staff for Republican Governor George Deukmejian in the 1980s.
Neither Lucas nor Ochoa & Moore answered a request for comment.
Deloitte’s media contact dealing with state government issues said he was unsure how to address Deloitte’s lobbying activities in California, because he is based in Virginia. He then said he did not know the appropriate public relations person to talk to. Inquiries subsequently directed to Deloitte’s Sacramento office were not immediately answered.
No one in the Judicial Council’s Office of Governmental Affairs was immediately available for comment.
AB 1208 was born out of long-simmering anger at the administrative bureaucracy that sits atop California’s court system.
Trial judges are fed up with the IT project in particular, saying it has drained enormous amounts from funds intended to keep the state’s trial courts open and operating. California’s two-year budget crisis has only increased their opposition.
“To date, over $200 million dollars has been siphoned from local courts to fund this technological boondoggle,” said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard, one of the directors of the Alliance of California Judges, a group sponsoring AB 1208. “The Alliance of California Judges is not surprised to learn that Deloitte paid a lobbying firm over $120,000 to try and kill AB 1208.”
A May 2011 report to the Legislature shows that in addition to spending from other parts of the court budget, fully $200 million has been drawn from the Trial Court Trust Fund to keep the IT project going. Those draws were recommended by the bureaucracy and approved by the Judicial Council, a body of judges and court officials headed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
“Deloitte has a vested interest in keeping Trial Court Trust Fund dollars flowing to the troubled CCMS project,” Gilliard said. “Deloitte wants the Judicial Council and the AOC to maintain their unfettered access to these funds.”
The event at the Sutter Club took place on February 27th of last year, on the eve of a report from the state Auditor slamming the IT project. “In addition to planning inadequately for the state case management project, the AOC has consistently failed to develop accurate cost estimates,” said the Auditor.
The Sutter Club event was attended by Assembly members Joan Buchanan plus three staff members, Steven Bradford, Susan Bonilla plus one staff member, Paul Fong plus one staff member, Jerry Hill, Jeff Miller, Nancy Skinner, Jose Solorio, Das Williams, as well as Gillian Eppinette, the executive secretary for Assembly member Jim Beall and Victoria Stewart, the senior assistant for Assembly member Curt Hagman.
“The participation by Deloitte, in trying to defeat this modest budget reform,” Judge Gilliard concluded, “should concern every judge in the state.”
___________________________________
April 04, 2011
CCMS Developer Fined for Not Disclosing Lobbying Activities
The company that is developing the controversial Court Case Management System has agreed to pay the state $8,000 to settle charges that it failed to properly report two years of lobbying activities.
Deloitte Consulting paid lobbyist Frank Molina $122,500 between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2009. Deloitte’s contract with Molina called on the lobbyist to file quarterly reporting statements as required by law, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission. But Molina never did and Deloitte never confirmed that he had, the FPPC said.
“The lobbyist had assured Deloitte Consulting that the reports had been timely filed,” Deloitte spokesman Jonathan Gandal said in prepared statement. “Once Deloitte Consulting learned that the reports had not been filed, it filed the reports and terminated its contract with the lobbyist. We regret that this situation occurred and have instituted rigorous new steps to verify proper future reporting.”
The reports for those two years reflect Deloitte’s efforts to advance the CCMS project as public scrutiny intensified. Disclosures show Molina lobbied state lawmakers, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee on the benefits of CCMS. JLAC voted in February 2010 to audit the CCMS program; that audit, released in February, raised troubling questions about the project’s management.
In 2008, the company also worked to defeat Assembly Bill 730, legislation that would have barred IT firms found liable for breach of contract from bidding on new public contracts for five years. The bill was aimed squarely at Deloitte, which had developed an allegedly faulty payroll system for the Los Angeles Unified School District. AB 730 died in the state Senate.
The FPPC has proposed fines for three other Molina clients who did not ensure that the lobbyist filed the proper forms with the state. The full commission must still approve the penalties at its April 11 meeting.
___________________________________
A note from JCW: This is follow the money week. As Jacobs and the AOC go to trial in what we believe is simulated litigation, we’re working on our own follow the money article.
Related articles
- Fact Checking the AOC’s “fact check” (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chutzpah. Time to make that change. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Deloitte – “Delivering Ruin” to one customer at a time (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- ACJ – Chief calls out Lawmakers; Overholt steps down (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
February 27, 2012
JCW you are very skilled at following the money. Thanks!
anna
February 27, 2012
Died in the senate? At the hands of Steinberg?
Stuart Michael
February 27, 2012
is he an attorney?
if so – he’ll probably be on the bench before Jerry leaves office
Wendy Darling
February 27, 2012
Yes, Darrell Steinberg is an attorney. Steinberg is also termed out of the State Legislature in 2014, and it is no secret that he would like to land an appointment to the State appellate bench and that he hopes his personal connection to the current Chief Justice might get him there.
anna
February 27, 2012
what a whore.
unionman575
February 27, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17045.htm
Judicial Council to Hold Special Meeting On Branch Technology on March 27
Tuesday, March 27, 2012, on “Planning for CCMS and Branch Technology.”
The public meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram W. Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.
The meeting materials will be posted on the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm, in keeping with the past practice of the council, about a week before the meeting.
unionman575
February 27, 2012
Darrell Steinberg CA State Bar #114583
anna
February 28, 2012
Great! All we need is another idiot on the COA who’s never been a trial judge. Hell, why don’t we just put all sorts of lawyers on the COA who’s never seen the inside of a court room.
So much for procedure, due process and the actual practice of law and advocacy, when reviewed by such assholes.
Every lawyer should be scared out of their minds to see such blatant cronyism.
anna
February 28, 2012
Sorry for the grammatical errors. should read “who’ve never seen the inside of a courtroom”.
unionman575
February 28, 2012
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/27/4295488/california-labor-commissioner.html
It’s time for the DLSE Criminal Investigation Unit to look into kickbacks in the OCCM – AOC office of court construction management on numerous court construction projects…
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 28, 2012
The AOC just announced something in their Court News Update that demonstrates that all problems within the Judicial Branch administration have been solved!
“Transparency and Access Expansion Through Liaisons”
In an effort to improve communication and accountability within the branch, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye assigned members of the Judicial Council to serve as liaisons for each of the state’s trial courts and divisions within the AOC. Details of these assignments were provided by Justice Doug Miller, Chair of the council’s Executive and Planning Committee, and are outlined in this news release.”
Can anyone explain to me what “Transparency and Access Expansion Through Liaisons” (TAETL) means? Does it have anything to do with IBS? Does TAETL mean that they tattle on all the local courts with whom they are assigned to liaison?
Who thinks this crap up???
guest
February 28, 2012
Saw it too. Did you notice it is all the same people, especially the CEO’s? You’d think that Kim Turner and David Yamasaki were the only 2 CEO’s in the state? The other executives in the state must not kiss as much a.. I get it!!! Having those two suck ups act as liaisons means that they spy on the courts and report back to the CJ on who is speaking with her voice, and who speaking with their own.
Wendy Darling
February 28, 2012
“Who thinks this crap up?” Why, that would be the current self-annointed “leadership” of the judicial branch, and in particular the self-annointed leadership of the AOC. And anyone, in any position, in the trial courts who would “liason” with those so appointed will deserve what happens to them as a result.
anna
February 29, 2012
The AOC has been tattling on the trial courts for a decade. Now they have just made it official.
unionman575
February 28, 2012
Yeah Nathaniel it means open our mouths and swallow a bunch of b.s.
Lando
February 28, 2012
Hmm JC members as “liaisons” to the trial courts. That certainly will go along way to solving the numerous problems of the branch. I am sure that having these ” liaisons ” made up of the same JC “insiders” who got us into this mess will take us in the CJ’s words to ” transition to triumph”. Indeed I am quite sure my ” liaison ” will convince me it is ok to spend 245,000 a day for the next three years on CCMS which is “finished and working “. I am also sure my “liaison” will convince me that it really isn’t a problem to spend half a billion dollars on a courthouse in San Diego. I know my ” liaison ” will convince me it is no problem to gut our clerks office staff so that the AOC can continue to grow and expand. Now that everything is “transparent ” because the CJ, J Miller and my JC “liaison” says so, then like magic the woes of the last 14 years will certainly have been cured. “Transparency and Access Expansion Through Liaisons”. You really can’t make this stuff up.
JusticeCalifornia
February 28, 2012
As long as Cantil Sakauye, our barmaid/blackjack-dealer turned wannabe chief justice, is choosing to professionally bed and take advice from Kim Turner, I will NEVER have respect Cantil Sakauye. I repeat, NEVER.
Turner is very well documented (repeatedly, and even by extraordinarily substandard AOC standards) ethically damaged goods.
And Cantil Sakauye knows it. Very, very well. Ron George– who tapped Turner for her corrupt talents– and Cantil Sakauye — who continues to tap Turner for her corrupt talents– are aware that Turner excels at burying/destroying incriminating files and firing those who don’t tow the corrupt party line.
Birds of a feather. . . .go down together.
Guest
February 29, 2012
Don’t forget the up and comer Yamasaki. He’s a slicker version of Turner. Hard to tell who is the bigger suck up but for intelligence it is a tie. Listen to them speak and you know the branch is doomed. These are our “Leaders”? Doesn’t the chief know that her selections are a reflection of her?
JusticeCalifornia
February 29, 2012
“Doesn’t the chief know that her selections are a reflection of her?”
Either she does, and she doesn’t care, or her mama didn’t teach her this very basic fact of life.
What is one to think about Cantil-Sakauye’s extraordinary reliance on Kim Turner — who is a bought and paid for thug whose career highlights include a) knowingly covering for her former boss, who was ultimately charged with 10 felony countys of conflict of interest; b) firing or otherwise getting rid of almost all of the 50% of longtime court staff who opposed Turner when she took over her former boss’s job; c) handing out extraordinarily well-paid jobs like candy to her loyal buddies; and d) blocking the state auditor’s access to Marin Court files and personnel for almost a year, while directing the mass destruction of incriminating family court evidence?
Water seeks its level. It certainly is not a novel concept for gamblers and thugs to collaborate.
Honestly, how can anyone trust Cantil-Sakauye as long as the likes of Turner are her closest advisors? It is very clear that Cantil Sakauye wants INCREASED control over the branch, and she believes from Turner’s ugly track record that Turner can help her get it.
unionman575
February 28, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/28/44266.htm
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Last Update: 8:48 PM PT
Report to Legislature on Court IT Project Leaves Out Future Costs
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The council that governs California’s courts heard a new set of financial numbers Tuesday for the amount spent so far on an IT project that has generated intense criticism within both the judiciary and the state Legislature.
The IT project’s champion, Justice Terence Bruiniers, told the governing Judicial Council that the project costs total $521.5 million up through June of 2011. Those are the figures prepared by court administrators for Wednesday’s report to the Legislature on the IT project.
A different figure was included in a “fact sheet” distributed to reporters earlier this month by court administrators, saying the IT project, called the Court Case Management System, “took nine years to refine and develop at a cost of $315.5 million.”
In turn, figures reported to the Legislature last year put the total cost at $546 million up through June 2011. The difference between that total figure in last year’s report to the Legislature and this year’s total figure would suggest a few million had been saved. But a tendency of the administrators has to been to push the cost estimates into future years.
This year’s report to the Legislature goes a step further and altogether omits future costs.
Regardless of the precise figures, the bulk of the money is coming out of a fund dedicated to the trial courts, a particularly sore point in a time when the trial courts are being starved for funds. The spending on the IT project is also front and center in debate over a bill pending in the Legislature, AB 1208, that would reform the way money is handled by the court administrators.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, Judge David Rosenberg from Yolo County asked Bruiniers what this year’s $521.5 million total included.
Bruiniers replied, “These are total program and project costs through this current fiscal year. It includes nothing in terms of deployment activities going forward. This is what we have spent from the inception of this program.”
An independent accountant who reviewed the numbers said critical dollar figures have been left out.
”
This time around, it appears they didn’t provide the Legislature with any cost information for future years,” said Karen Covel, an independent accountant with Georgeatos Lauer & Covel in San Diego. “They did not tell you what lies ahead.”
She said a similar tendency was on display when last year’s report to the Legislature was compared to the previous year’s report. Costs for the IT project appeared to go down in the near term but then they ballooned enormously in future years. “They are just pushing the costs forward every year,” she said.
In a phone interview, Judge Daniel Goldstein from San Diego was surprised that the administrators would report to the Legislature with no estimate of future costs at all. “The number they’re not commenting on is what will it cost to deploy?” asked Goldstein incredulously.
“That’s where the auditor said it’s a $2 billion project,” he continued, referring to last year’s scathing critique by California’s Auditor of the project’s management. “And they’re not discussing that number. Not including the total cost of the system is dangerous, because costs can get away from you. They should set a ceiling.”
“That’s where organizations with fiscal prudence start,” he added. “What’s the total cost and how do we afford it, not this piece by piece, ever-changing cost estimate system. The numbers they give are not consistent and we’re asking the Legislature to fully fund our branch. When you don’t have consistent, thorough numbers it makes the Legislature skeptical of your funding request.”
At Tuesday’s meeting of the Judicial Council, Bruiniers said the discussion of future costs is being put off until next month when an accounting firm will present a cost-benefit study for putting the system into 10 more California courts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has provided a list of 20 of the county courts expected to participate in a survey for that cost benefit analysis, as a result of a public records request by Courthouse News. They include: Alameda, Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Mono, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou and Ventura.
The ten additional courts selected for the new IT system are expected to come from that list.
Court administrators explained their failure to provide future costs estimates by saying they were waiting on Grant-Thorton’s analysis of that possible 10-court deployment.
But San Diego accountant Covel was skeptical.
“They make this sound as though they are helpless until Grant Thornton comes up with a suitable deployment and cost alternative,” said Covel. “If I recall correctly, the previous Grant Thornton relied very heavily on projected costs and assumptions provided by the AOC.”
“Since the AOC is the source of many if not most of the underlying facts and assumptions in Grant Thornton’s report,” she continued, “it doesn’t make sense to me that they would be so clueless about costs and deployment until the report comes out.”
In jockeying over the project, the Judicial Council voted last summer to suspend the whole endeavor. Officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts came back at the next council meeting and said they were going ahead with the project. At the time, they gave cost estimates of an additional $265 million for the three-year period from June 2011 through July 2014.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, Rosenberg from Yolo County quizzed Bruiniers from the state Court of Appeals on the numbers. Their exchange included references to the different versions of the program, V-2, V-3 and V-4. The last version has yet to be adopted by any court in California.
Rosenberg: With regard to the numbers that you shared, you shared one number in the $300 million dollar range.
Bruiniers: $333.3 million dollars.
Rosenberg: Then you shared another number in the $500 million dollars range.
Bruiniers: $521.5 million dollars that includes all of the ongoing maintenance and operations for V2 and V3.
Rosenberg: So that number, the $521 million number does not include any portion of the 333, correct?
Bruiniers: The 521 includes the 333.
Rosenberg: Okay. That’s the first clarification. So it includes that and includes future expenditures.
Bruiniers: No. These are total program and project costs through this current fiscal year. It includes nothing in terms deployment activities going forward. This is what we have spent from the inception of this program.
Rosenberg: I was under the impression that the number was in the $300 million dollar range, but you’re saying the number is $521 million.
Bruiniers: $333 million is the development cost, the deployment costs, for V 2 and V 3. The development costs for V 4 and the development costs for the document management system. Those are all of the development and deployment costs so far.
Rosenberg: If I’m spending money for groceries or gas, it’s still money out of my pocket. What’s the number?
Bruiniers: $521 million dollars is everything spent on CCMS total including the ongoing maintenance and operation.
unionman575
February 28, 2012
Time for us all to attend the “special meeting”…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17045.htm
Judicial Council to Hold Special Meeting On Branch Technology on March 27
Tuesday, March 27, 2012, on “Planning for CCMS and Branch Technology.”
unionman575
February 28, 2012
CCMS is so hot they did not touch it today.
Why not hold a special meeting, say next month on 3-27-12? What the fuck?
Wendy Darling
February 28, 2012
And for yet another, different number on what CCMS has cost “so far” – published today, Tuesday, February 28, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Cantil-Sakauye Departs From Absolutism of Predecessor, Says CCMS Might Be Too Costly
By ROGER M. GRACE
Ronald George, as state chief justice, doggedly pushed for implementation of the Court Case Management System in all of California’s 58 counties—no matter how many courtrooms had to be closed and how many trial court employees had to be laid off in order to ensure there would be enough money to accomplish that. By contrast, our new chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, is now acknowledging that the goal might not be attainable.
What proponents seek is to electronically link all courthouses in the state. It’s a fine concept, all agree, but as the economy has withered and projected costs have burgeoned—set at $260 million in 2004 and now seen as $1.9 billion—critics have charged that it is currently financially infeasible.
Cantil-Sakauye, in her earliest days in office last year, flatly declared her commitment to the project. Since then, various pressures have been exerted. Speaking Thursday night before the San Fernando Valley Bar Assn., the chief justice candidly speculated:
“Maybe what we have is a Ferrari in a garage but we can’t afford the gas and the insurance. I don’t know.”
That statement doesn’t mean that Cantil-Sakauye is on the verge of calling for the Ferrari being put in storage until the economy improves and there’s money to run it. Right now, she is awaiting a report with “objectively verifiable numbers” as to costs of proceeding with CCMS and costs that would result if it were put on hold.
Clearly, she would hope to see substantiation that continuing the CCMS project is fiscally sensible. She spoke at the State Bar convention last Sept. 25 of the need for a “user-friendly case management system.”
However, her conciliatory words on Thursday—acknowledging that CCMS critics might have a valid position—were in sharp contrast to the intransigence of her predecessor. It’s one thing to have a vision; George had an obsession.
In addressing the bar meeting, Cantil-Sakauye declared:
“I inherited a finished product, a product that had been under development for seven to 10 years. I inherited a product that…works. But that’s not the question. The question is now: Can we afford it? That’s the question. And so, next month the Judicial Council will take up a whole day discussing that, publicly.”
Scrutiny of the project had been urged in a Feb. 8, 2011 report by state Auditor Elaine M. Howle who said that CCMS, from a financial standpoint, “lacked sufficient planning and analysis” and that an “overall strategy” for full implementation was needed that is “realistic.”
There are those who would differ with Cantil-Sakauye’s pronouncement that the computer system “works.” It has been tested in seven superior courts in the state and reviews have been mixed, with substantial concerns being expressed in Los Angeles and Sacramento.
Howle’s report says the Los Angeles Superior Court found that plans for CCMS were “overly ambitious” and “risky.”
At this point, alternatives include scrapping the project. That’s unpalatable given that $270.5 million has already been spent on it, and in light of the worthiness of the objective.
“Full speed ahead” would be folly in light of current finances.
The only wise course would be to maintain, and fine-tune, the system on a limited scale, excluding the Los Angeles Superior Court where there is a marked resistance to it. Implement it statewide, by all means, when it truly does work and there’s money for the Ferrari’s gas and insurance.
Foremost among heroes in the battle to keep our courtrooms in Los Angeles open—when it’s been a choice between that and making progress with computerization—has been Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles “Tim” McCoy who, as 2009-2010 presiding judge, went on a speaking tour throughout the county arguing against George’s idiocy.
To be hailed also is retired LASC Judge Charles Horan who, while on the bench, formed and led the Alliance of California Judges. It’s that group that’s credited with AB1208, carried by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier. It would return some say to the trial courts over expenditure of funds.
George wanted all court operations in the state centralized, and under his control. He was frequently referred to as “King George.”
It is fortunate that we now have a chief justice who does not show signs of megalomania…who is not known as “Queen Tani.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 28, 2012
It’s time to give our feedback in mass on 3-27-12. Let the people be heard.
versal-versal
February 29, 2012
Follow the money. Re CCMS the Chief Justice says ” I inherited a finished product…I inherited a project that works ” . J Bruiners the number one cheerleader for CCMS said in December 2011 that the JC/AOC had “successfully completed development of CCMS ” and that “We have a product that we can be confident will meet the needs of our trial courts now and for years to come.” I guess when i go to work tomorrow and turn on my computer CCMS will actually be up and running or will it ? If CCMS is “working and finished ” as the Chief claimed in her post 1208 passage diatribe , why is the AOC planning to spend 250,000 a day for the next three years on CCMS ? The public and the dedicated people working in the trial courts every day deserve much better than this. If the Chief and her allies like J Miller want to be open and transparent then let’s start by being honest about CCMS and put an end end to this branch wide disaster so we don’t end up spending 2 billion dollars on what historians will view as one of the greatest public policy failures ever conceived by any government anywhere.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
“The public and the dedicated people working in the trial courts every day deserve much better than this.”
Yes we do.
=)
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 29, 2012
Wendy,
Thank you so much for digging up this very important “nugget” regarding the Chief Justice’s view of the fantastic CCMS system (the description of CCMS was dripping with sarcasm).
The more they talk, the clearer their failed Master Plan becomes. Ronald George, with the assistance of his devoted minion, Bill Vickrey, used the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 to attempt to fundamentally change the structure of the California Judicial Branch and take powers that they were never granted by either the California Constitution or by the Legislature.
With all the attempts to “slip through” changes to Article VI of the Constitution and then try to blame things on others within the Executive Branch when they got caught, were all fully exposed at the time. When their Achilles Heel, CCMS, was fully exposed, Ronald George decided it was time to leave town…along with his faithful side-kick(s).
Hmm, what to do…Ronald George may be a lot of things, but he is no dummy. He looks for someone who “looks good” on paper and fits all of the diversity profiles that are so important to folks in Sacramento. Tani Cantil-Sakauye was fast-tracked from the Sacramento Superior Court, where she never went to Judges’ meetings, let alone handle any administrative assignments nor preside over difficult cases; and put on the Third District Court of Appeals. Suddenly, she is selected to sit on the Judicial Council, without the normal chair-sitting required of all the other members on the Council. Next, she is selected to succeed Ronald George as Chief Justice. Why you ask? Very simple, legacy building and maintenance. Ronald George was given a blank check by Arnold Schwarzenegger when it came to the Judicial Branch. Ronald George was given selection and/or veto power over all Appellate appointments by the former Governor who didn’t want to be bothered with “details”. Tani was a perfect fit for Arnold, meeting all the required criteria.
By her own repeated admissions, Cantil-Sakauye wasn’t “paying attention” when Trial Court Funding was enacted in 1997, nor did she seem interested in what was occurring at the Sacramento Superior Court or even the Court of Appeals. She is just now learning how all the parts work within the Judicial Branch. That is really reassuring!
Her recent comments to at a local Southern California Bar Association dinner which Wendy found says it all. With reference to CCMS, the Chief said: “Maybe what we have is a Ferrari in a garage but we can’t afford the gas and the insurance. I don’t know.”
You’re right, you don’t have a clue! Attempting to analogize CCMS to a Ferrari is like comparing a rock to a stealth fighter jet. How is it that other States can spend a small fraction of what Bruniers and company have spent to date on CCMS and those other states have fully operational and highly respected case management systems. Why is it that Deloitte Consulting was selected to oversee development of this turkey when they have never successfully developed any similar project? Why does Deloitte continue to spend over $120,000.00 to “lobby” members of the Assembly to vote against AB 1208? (many of these are rhetorical, but it helps me to vent)
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
You’re welcome, General Woodhull. One of the best things we can do to help each other is to share information about what is happening and being said regarding judicial branch administration.
“The average gas mileage for the 2009 models of Ferrari cars is 9-11 mpg for city and 15-16 mpg highway. Basically if you’re looking for an environmentally friendly car, you might want to look elsewhere.” http://greenanswers.com/q/11243/transportation/what-ferraris-average-mpg-their-vehicles#ixzz1nnREgC1P.
How many trial court judges have had litigants, or employees for that matter, in the last year, who drove to court, or to work, in a Ferrari? When, if ever, did the public parking lot of a trial court have a bunch of Ferraris parked in them?
The vast majority of the people who use – and need – the trial courts, i.e., the “environment” of the trial courts, can’t afford to insure or put gas into, let alone buy, lease, or even rent, a Ferrari. Knowing this, they instead buy, insure, and put gas into an economy car. Or they take public transportation.
And even if you’re going to dive off the cliff without making sure there is sufficient water to land in, and just go ahead and buy the Ferrari anyway, despite knowing that you can’t afford it and don’t have the financing for it, it would be a good idea to pop the hood first and make sure that the engine actually worked, instead of buying the Ferrari first, sight unseen, and then discovering that it didn’t have a working engine, so that the only thing you could do with it was leave it parked, and not in running condition, sitting in the garage, rendering it nothing more than an interesting, and expensive, conversation piece, but otherwise a complete waste of taxpayer money.
But that thought process probably involves too much common sense for the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and, without question, too much common sense for the AOC.
“Stupid is as stupid does.” Forrest Gump
crtwatchr
February 29, 2012
A more apt analogy would be to compareiCCMS to a fairly standard, mass-produced commuter car, i.e. a Honda Civic. Reliable, but not that different from a Toyota Corolla.
However, instead of going to the local Honda dealer and buying a Civic off the lot, the AOC hired and engineering firm that never built a an automobile.. The engineering firm then spent all of the AOC’s money on designing and building a car it could have bought for the fraction of the cost 5 years earlier. After putting iit together piece by piece,now there is not enough money to fill the tank and drive the car out of the garage. More importantly, the finished product compares to 2007 model year Civic, not a 2012.
There are at least 3 or 4 vendors who have browser based case management systems that can do everything CCMS is supposed to do. E-filing, automated work flows, data exchange capabilities, etc. are available on all of these systems. Ironically, the combined book value of these 3 or 4 companies is probably less than the $500 million the AOC has already spent on CCMS.
crtwatchr
February 29, 2012
I apologize for the typos.
Stuart Michael
February 29, 2012
Why?
For the same reasons they continue to build incredbily expensive court facilities and pay outrageous amounts for maintenance?
The criminal acts continue. Where’s RICO when we really need it?
Judicial Council Watcher
March 1, 2012
We might be finding out soon enough. Stories of recent interviews with people in nice suits and three letter monikers are beginning to pour into us at JCW. If they haven’t reached out to you, reach out to them.
anna
February 29, 2012
The paper got it wrong when they said she is not known as “Queen Tani”, she will go down as Empress Tani.
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, February 29, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Sacramento Drops Out of Big Study on Controversial Court IT System
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A list of California courts that are supposed to participate in a high-priced analysis of a statewide IT project has already sprung two leaks. Sacramento has sent a letter refusing to participate and Los Angeles is said to have also refused.
Adding sting to those turn downs, both courts are intimately familiar with the half-billion-dollar project.
Sacramento’s presiding judge specifically said her court is refusing to participate lest it would be seen as an endorsement of an IT system that has forced her court to struggle with the tech system’s “quality, design deficits and overall system performance.”
A study on the feasibility of inserting the sytem into ten more courts was announced with fanfare last month at a meeting of the courts’ governing council. But the list of courts that were supposed to participate in the study remained shrouded.
A public records request by Courthouse News has since yielded the names of the 20 courts that are listed as participants in the study, with 10 of those courts becoming likely recipients for installment of the software. But the list includes Sacramento and Los Angeles.
“Quite candidly, our experience with CCMS-V-3 has left us with a jaundiced view,” wrote Presiding Judge Laurie Earl in her letter rejecting participation in the study.
A recent version of the IT software is called V-3. The latest version, called V-4, has yet to be adopted by any court in California. Despite those setbacks, the administrative office is now paying Grant Thornton more than $237,000 for a report expected next month on the feasibility of putting the system into more courts.
That additional fee brings the amount paid to Grant-Thornton over the last year up to a total of $555,000, for work tied to the IT project. The amounts are being paid while trial courts plan to close courtrooms and lay off hundreds of workers for lack of money.
In a report for delivery to the Legislature today, administrators said $521.5 million has already been spent on the project. The report does not account for future costs, which are expected to top a billion dollars.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/29/44298.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
And from Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cynthia Foster:
AOC Tries the Buddy System
[Cynthia Foster]
It’s one buddy system that might not be so friendly.
The Judicial Council today announced it was assigning council members to serve as liaisons to local trial courts. The pairings are meant to “increase communication and transparency and promote accountability,” said Justice Douglas Miller, chair of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee.
San Francisco’s buddy is council member and Contra Costa Judge Mary O’Malley — a pairing that could prove acrimonious. O’Malley and S.F. court executives publicly butted heads in September, when O’Malley took the court to task for “mismanaging” its money. After S.F. court CEO Michael Yuen begged the Council to lobby for more funding for cash-strapped trial courts, she told him she wanted to know “what planet you’re on.”
Reached Tuesday, S.F. court spokeswoman Ann Donlan said this was the first she’d heard of the liaison program or O’Malley’s assignment and had no further comment.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/02/aoc-tries-the-buddy-system.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
The Los Angeles court is the midst of a related but much greater crisis.
The court’s executive committee is meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss layoffs and courtroom closures brought on by harsh legislative cuts to California’s court budget two years in a row.
The Los Angeles court, the biggest in the nation, is expected to announce the closure of more than 50 courtrooms and dismissal of more than 300 court employees
unionman575
February 29, 2012
LA will get along great with its buddy from San Diego. Get me a bucket…
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 29, 2012
For our members of the Legislature and their staff that read the JCW on a regular basis.
Many of the “bloggers” on the JCW are employees of the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, Justices, Judges and valued members of the 58 Trial Courts throughout the State of California.
At times, it is difficult to follow the jive that comes from the mouths of JC/AOC clones. As was pointed out by Wendy, unionman575 and other fine contributors to the JCW, things just don’t add up.
At various time, the Justice Bruiniers and the other druids at the JC/AOC assert that CCMS has “cost” as little as $315.5 million to $333..3 million. Those costs are for the various incantations of V-2 & V-3. By the AOC’s own website as of April 22, 2010, the JC/AOC says that by 2008-09 they spend $240 million and an additional $62 million was spend in 2009-10. The AOC’s own website states that the cost to deploy CCMS will be $1.3 billion (as of 2008). As was pointed out by unionMan575 and Wendy, the druids at the JC/AOC cannot get their figures straight. The most recent exchange between Mr. Bruiniers and Mr. Rosenberg demonstrate this. There are discussions of monies expended and monies spent for development that range from $315.5 million, to $333.3 million to $521.5 million to $546 million.
Someone within the JC/AOC designated Justice Bruiniers as a “subject matter expert”. Uh, what is he a subject matter expert of?
Members of the Legislature, please take the time to employ an independent “expert” to take a hard look at whatever Justice Bruiniers and Company try to palm off on you in their upcoming annual address to the Legislature. These numbers just don’t add up!!! Especially when you consider that Deloitte Consulting had over $120,000.00 to use on lobbying efforts to attempt to kill any legislation that might further delay or stop the development of CCMS.
Keep asking the question, how can other States develop and implement a fully integrated case management system for their courts at a fraction of the costs being spent by the JC/AOC?
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Look at this crap from an interview with the CJ today .
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/02/29/interview-calif-supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-judicial-diversity/
From the horses mouth:
“The Judicial Council has as our primary goals access, fairness, and diversity, in that order. We rely on public trust and confidence to maintain rule of law, and that can only happen if people feel included and are part of the process.”
anna
February 29, 2012
Gee, you don’t think it’s a coincidence that the link can no longer be found????
antonatrail
March 1, 2012
Get Unionman575 a bucket!
Been There
March 1, 2012
If your most important goal is access, how can you meet that goal by closing down courtrooms?
unionman575
February 29, 2012
As a trial court “slumdog”, I do NOT feel included in the “process” as set forth by the CJ today.
CJ do you understand?
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
Unfortunately unionman, she doesn’t understand and, more to the point, she doesn’t care.
Sound bites from the current Chief Justice, just as with her immediate predecessor, are only intended to sound good and look good in print. You don’t actually expect her to mean what she says, do you? Of course not.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
February 29, 2012
One thing that has become very apparent is that this CJ is very, very glib and voluble. Words roll off her tongue that sound somewhat substantive, but, upon reflection, are meaningless and trite. IMO, it is quite possible that this particular talent was even more important to the ascension of being the chair of the JC rather than actual qualifications for being the Chief Justice of the CA Supreme Court.
I can also tell you that, when CCMS came up on the agenda and discussion was being had, at the end, when she asked, before the vote, if there was further discussion, she was shaking her head “no” at the same time she was asking that question. Then, voilà, the motion was passed by the bobble-heads and it was time for the lunch break. Not in the least bit subtle. Perhaps members of the press were taking notes at the time and did not notice. I found it extremely noteworthy. But their excuse for quashing any further discussion is that there will be a public JC meeting on 3/27 that will be devoted to CCMS. I hope that meeting is better attended than this one was.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Follow the money…
Taj Majal AOC building standards for those who are curious how BILLIONS are being wasted.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ctcfs2011.pdf
CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURT FACILITIES STANDARDS 2011
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Wendy I know the CJ is full of shit.
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
Yes, unionman, you do, and rightly so. It was a rhetorical response. 🙂
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Delilah – we all need to go on 3-27-12 to that “special meeting”.
Wendy Darling
February 29, 2012
For those that work in/at the AOC, attending the “special meeting” on 3-27-12 will only result in one thing for them – being fired.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Anna, You are in luck here it is the link in its entirety. I kept it. The quote is at the end.
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/02/29/interview-calif-supreme-court-chief-justice-tani-cantil-sakauye-on-judicial-diversity/
Interview: California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Judicial Diversity
February 29, 2012, 4:58 pm • Posted by Jon Brooks
Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Scott Shafer/KQED)
A new report from the Judiciary Council of California finds that trial and appeals court judges in the state do not reflect its diverse population. In fact, roughly 70 percent are white males. But of Gov. Brown’s first 18 appointments to the bench, half are people of color. The state’s top judge, State Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, spoke with Scott Shafer about the trend.
Edited transcript:
Scott Shafer
As you look at the numbers that came out, what do you see?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I see a developing trend. I see movement, where our numbers are increasing in diversity on the bench in terms of seeing judges that are representative of the state of California and our diverse population.
As I’ve been to different law schools and graduation ceremonies and see the classes accepting their diplomas, it’s clear we’re moving toward the tremendous diversity that reflects what California’s fabric really is.
Scott Shafer
Looking at the demographics of California from the 2010 census, you see 40% white, 38% Latino, 13% Asian, 6% black. But the make-up of the judiciary isn’t anything like that. So some people ask: why’s it’s taking so long?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Pure speculation here, but you have to be a lawyer for 10 years before you become a judge. We know that law schools have had a past history of being primarily male, so we’re only now beginning to see more diversity from graduating classes.
Those diverse students are going into the bar, but they need 10 years minimum experience before they can apply to be a superior court judge. Just at UC Davis last year, for example, 4 out of 10 members of the graduating class are Latino, African American, or Asian.
So it’s incredible when you think of the change we’re seeing in how students look. That will translate into membership in the bar, and eventually into representation on the bench.
Scott Shafer
On the gender question, 70% of California judges are men. Why is that so skewed still?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
That’s a good question. Because we also know that in the past few years females are taking the state bar at a slightly higher rate than males. And females show a bar passage rate at a slightly higher rate than their male counterparts.
Scott Shafer
So why is there a lag in terms of females on the bench?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I think we’re seeing a change. Keep in mind, when you see 70% of the judges are male, it would be interesting to find out how long many of those judge have been on the bench. Because when you look at the appointments made by governors Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown, you’re seeing more female representation. You’re beginning o see more of a critical mass of women who are available for the bench.
Scott Shafer
Riverside County, for example, is half Latino. San Bernardino, similar demographics. Raquel Marquez, was recently appointed in Riverside County, and she is the first Latina to sit on the bench there. What do you make of that?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Like all firsts, it’s a foreshadowing of many more. I think this governor has shown incredible foresight in on a bench representative of California.
Scott Shafer
When I talked to Judge Marquez, she said that when someone is before you in court, their race, gender and sexual orientation don’t matter. In other words justice is blind. So why does it matter if the judiciary is diverse?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I think it matters because a healthy society requires qualified and impartial judges. And that requires a public trust and confidence in the them. A component of that in the law, in the judges that follow and establish the rule of law, is that they understand and look like you, and when you come to court, it’s someone who understands and has a similar lens, at least of the facts.
Now the rule of law is truly colorblind, but in terms of how you see and weigh the facts, it’s important for not only public trust and confidence, but for an interpretation of those facts.
Scott Shafer
Because where one comes from impacts to a certain extent how one sees a set of facts?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I think that’s true. But when I talk about diversity, I don’t mean it only in the sense of ethnicity race and gender. It also has to do with culture, experience and what kind of law you practiced before you came to the bench. Certainly we saw in Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments a variety of folks from all disciplines and aspects of the law.
Scott Shafer
Most governors tend to lean toward prosecutors when they pick judges. When I look at Governor Brown’s first batch of 17 appointees, though, 10 of them were public defenders or have some public defender experience. What do you think of that?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I think Governor Schwarzenegger also appointed a fair number of criminal defense lawyers, maybe not public defenders. I think it’s good for the balance of California.
Scott Shafer
Is coming from a defense or prosecuting background predictive of the kind of judge one is going to be?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I don’t’ think so. I know people think that might be the obvious answer. But when you come to the bench, you shed your partisanship. I’m not saying the first couple of years isn’t an adjustment, because you have to now sit as a neutral fact finder. But you put aside that advocacy when you come to the bench. Your lens is colored by your experience, but nevertheless you aren’t taking a position on a case, you don’t pre-judge it.
Scott Shafer
How high a priority do you think diversity should be when choosing a judge?
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
I think, when you look at these numbers, it should be a strong factor that rates highly among all the other factors. It should never be a factor that overrides substantive merit and demeanor and objectivity, but when all those things are equal, it’s important to look to diversity.
The Judicial Council has as our primary goals access, fairness, and diversity, in that order. We rely on public trust and confidence to maintain rule of law, and that can only happen if people feel included and are part of the process.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
And the CCMS bullshit never stops…Check it out.
AOC Response to BSA Audit 12 Month Status Report (February 8, 2012)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/BSA-12-Month-Letter.pdf
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Wendy it is well known that ALL who work at the Death Star (AOC) cannot attend.
Trial court slumdogs, like me, may choose to attend.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
Just ask MIchael Paul.
unionman575
February 29, 2012
I have to give this one my special middle finger salute. This takes the cake.
Cope with budget cuts?
How about this reengineering idea: Shutdown CCMS and kill it completely. Stop buillding Taj Majal court facilities. There you go CJ.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17120.htm
Council Introduces “Business Process Reengineering”
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Lynn Holton, Public Information Officer, 415-865-7726
Feb 29, 2012
Judicial Council Committees Assist Courts Coping with Budget Cuts
San Francisco—A proposed new “business process reengineering” services model that would help trial courts improve productivity, increase efficiencies, and reduce costs was discussed yesterday at a public business meeting of the Judicial Council.
Council members Alan Carlson and Kim Turner presented the proposed Trial Court Business Process Reengineering services model (BPR), which was developed by the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and the Court Executives Advisory Committee.
“BPR has been, and will continue to be, a key tool for courts to improve productivity and reduce costs,” stated Mr. Carlson, Court Executive Officer of the Superior Court of Orange County and current chair of the Court Executives Advisory Committee. “However, by itself, it cannot make up for severe budget reductions experienced by the trial courts in the last few years.”
“The strategies in the services model are designed to provide assistance to our trial courts in these difficult financial times,” said Ms. Turner, Court Executive Officer of the Superior Court of Marin County and 2011 chair of the Court Executives Advisory Committee. “Many courts have already done amazing work in this area, especially given the financial imperatives.”
Use of the services model is strictly voluntary, Ms. Turner noted.
Last year, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, chair of the council, suggested that the committees develop a framework for the services model as a way to assist state trial courts.
In other actions, the Judicial Council:
Status of California Court Case Management System (CCMS) and the Phoenix Program: Approved an annual report to the Legislature entitled Status of the California Court Case Management System and the Phoenix Program 2011. Government Code section 68511.8(a) requires the Judicial Council to report annually to the Legislature on the status of CCMS and the Court Accounting and Reporting System (now called the Phoenix Financial System). The report also complies with Government Code section 68511.8(b) by including independent project oversight reports and independent validation and verification reports issued for CCMS in 2011.
Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators: Referred to the council’s Rules and Projects Committee proposed amendments to ethics standards that apply to all persons serving as neutral arbitrators under arbitration agreements. The council deferred its decision asking the committee to determine the appropriate process for reviewing the recommendations.
Funds Supporting the Judicial Branch: Heard a presentation by the AOC Finance Division on the funds that support judicial branch operations. The discussion included current and projected balances of these funds and how they have been used to mitigate the impact of budget reductions in recent years. No council action was required.
Consent Agenda: Approved 14 proposals on the consent agenda concerning changes to rules and forms required by recently enacted legislation and otherwise recommended by council advisory committees. One report proposes additions and revisions to the Judicial Council’s Criminal Jury Instructions. The council also approved other items on the consent agenda, including several annual reports required by state law on local courthouse construction funds, electronic recording equipment, court reporter fees and equipment, special fund expenditures, and California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program. The council also accepted the final audit report of the Superior Court of Riverside County, the last step before the report is made public.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
Courtroom Closures: Since 2010, 24 courts have notified the public and the council of plans to close courtrooms or cut clerks’ office hours on days that are not judicial holidays, according to an informational report. The notice to the public and council are required by Government Code section 68106. Since the last council report in January 2012, two courts—San Mateo and Merced—have given such notice, which is posted on the California Courts website.
Firearms relinquishment in Domestic Violence Cases: The Domestic Violence Practice and Procedure Task Force reported on the impact of implementing rule 4.700 of the California Rules of Court regarding firearms relinquishment in criminal domestic violence cases. This report was requested by the council in 2010. No council action was required.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 1, 2012
Thanks unionman575!
I read the 12 page missive describing the Business Process Re-engineering and would make the following observations. The bureaucrats that drafted that document should be lined up and fired. It is classic jibber-jabber. Bottom line, it suggests that court employees should do their j-o-b. Uh, I think the few remaining employees staffing the courts in the 58 Counties throughout California understand that, just as they did before the AOC rose to become the evil empire.
The last line of the memorandum is as follows:
AOC BPR Assistance
The AOC Reengineering Unit housed in the Regional Office, Northern/Central Region is available to provide training on trial court BPR to courts interested in implementing a BPR project. Additionally, the Reengineering Unit can assist trial courts at their request with guidance, expertise, and oversight on BPR projects.
How many people are employed in the Re-engineering Unit? Why are any of them employed there? How is it that Kim Turner and Alan Carlson, given the grave economic times we are facing, seem to be able to spend the bulk of their time at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and/or working on JC/AOC projects?
The fact that the entire organization located at 455 GGA is so tone-deaf is astonishing!
Transformer
March 1, 2012
The report was simply Orwellian. Talk about bureaucrat-speak! I loved the part where the report states that “resistance is to be expected”. Ya’ think?!
Some research on wikipedia reveals that none of this is new. It’s some sort of partially discredited stuff from the early 90s that’s coming around again. Maybe lava lamps next week.
I swear I have NEVER seen a more tone deaf bunch of people in my life.
Wendy Darling
March 1, 2012
“The bureaucrats that drafted that document should be lined up and fired.” Yes, they should. Instead, in the upside-down, down the rabbit hole, world of the AOC, they will be given a handshake, slapped a few high-fives, promoted, and given a raise.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 1, 2012
Anytime Nathaniel.
JusticeCalifornia
March 1, 2012
“The Judicial Council has as our primary goals access, fairness, and diversity, in that order. We rely on public trust and confidence to maintain rule of law, and that can only happen if people feel included and are part of the process.”
Uh huh. Actions speak louder than words. Team George ain’t walking the talk. NOTHING about how “top leadership” is run evidences access, fairness or diversity. Team George is a closed, insular, powermongering little group with big plans for total control of “the largest judiciary of the Western World”. These plans were made long ago, by the very people who have been placed in key positions and are carrying these plans out, step by step. Their own list of priorities (money, money, CCMS/new courthouses, SEC damage control, and “employee morale” –this last undoubtedly linked to the ongoing new AOC hires and simultaneous layoff threats to existing employees) does not include plans for keeping courts open and staffed, or overall branch morale — which would involve mending fences with all members of the branch, and providing access, fairness and diversity within top leadership.
versal-versal
March 2, 2012
Well well well. It looks like another bad week for those that run the crumbling empire at 455 Golden Gate. The CJ’s tone deaf comparisons to CCMS as a Ferrari certainly show a lack of understanding of just how poorly CCMS runs if CCMS exists at all. Once again J Bruiners didn’t disappoint as he couldn’t articulate how much the JC/AOC has spent on CCMS give or take a hundred or two million hundred dollars here or there. I guess thats just a rounding error for the AOC. Honestly in this economic environment how embarrassing is that the chief cheerleader for CCMS can’t articulate how much has actually really been spent on this quagmire. The crystal palace empire took a further hit , when the media reported the JC/AOC choose to not report the future costs of deployment of CCMS since in reality it is those costs that are bankrupting and starving our trial courts. To make matters even worse the truth came out about Deloitte the creator of CCMS spending over 100,000 to kill AB1208. What a nice ally for the CJ, and J Bruiners to have to try and insure there will be no meaningful branch reform. I guess Deloite’s profits really do take priority over the hardworking employees of the trial courts that do the day to day work to serve the public. Of course we can’t overlook the latest JC fiasco apparently created by long time “insider “J. Miller, the “Transparency and Access Expansion Through Liaison Program”. It sounds exactly like what the British empire came up with toward the end of their anti democratic regime, sending “Governors ” to the states to try and control the colonies before the Revolutionary War. Sound familiar General Woodhull ? I assume my liaison will attempt to visit our court and then report back any and all dissenting views so the CJ and J Mc Connell can take it from there.I guess that is the “accountability” that J Miller seeks when he announced this latest flawed plan to insure centralized control over the trial courts.
anna
March 2, 2012
Don’t forget to include Herr Huffman, in the scenario. McConnell gets her “marching orders” from him.
Baxter, and Huffman, have got Tani’s back, and therefore George’s.
Let’s all remember, this is about keeping George, and Co. from going to jail.
unionman575
March 2, 2012
I can’t wait for our liaison to visit our court. He can kiss my ___.
Stuart Michael
March 2, 2012
You’re dead right Anna – if a real criminal investigation is ever conducted (not likely), lots of AOC folks will go to jail, but probably not the ex-CJ. He’d be sheltered behind a pile of indicted bodies – they’re all expendable and most will roll over on their comrades the first chance they get. Except for BV & RO – they’re the end of the line.
Only ex-Illinois governors go to jail. This is our California version of Watergate.
anna
March 2, 2012
If there was a “real” criminal investigation, he wouldn’t be able to escape. In a civil matter he would be “strictly liable for everything that’s happened,”.
This crap of “plausible deniability” was cooked up by some idiots.
These people read too many fictional books on intrigue.
anna
March 2, 2012
“These people” refers to the idiots at the AOC..ie- Top Management.
While it’s hard to prove “conspiracies” it’s not impossible.
All it takes is good investigative skills, and a lot of grunt work. And while they think they can talk themselves out of it, they have left a ton of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
Circumstantial evidence can be a tricky little thing, and a ton of it becomes impossible to explain.
Too bad no one will demand that they do it.
Don Shelton
March 2, 2012
The bill, AB1208, will die on senate pro-tems desk. This according to Ventura Superior
CEO, Mike Planet.
Mr. Planet made this statement to a group of the court’s IT employees. This was done in a staff meeting.
So much for the courts motto “We are here for the people we serve.”
Hire more IT and HR staff and get rid of those pesky court clerks.
Truly concerned about the public in Ventura!
Mind blower.
antonatrail
March 2, 2012
I assume whenever two or more judges meet and discuss anything, at least one AOC thug is present (to monitor and report back to the darkened halls). Is that still going on? Do the judges take note of this warped policy? Do they care? Have any judges had the temerity to refuse an AOC thug from attending any judges’ meetings?
SFMB
March 2, 2012
If the current theme of “realignment” shifts responsibilites back to the counties (along with funding), why not do the same with the branch? Oh yes! We have AB1208! Let’s get this passed out of committee and up on the Senate’s agenda already.
Wendy Darling
March 2, 2012
Published today, Friday, March 2, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Font Size:
Capital Accounts: CCMS Backers Walking Back Their Support
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Is CCMS DOA?
Article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202544299818&Capital_Accounts_CCMS_Backers_Walking_Back_Their_Support&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 2, 2012
You’ve got to love the people in charge at 455 GGA. In place of the “Fact Check” sheet is a new two-page missive titled: “Setting the Record Straight” (dated 1/24/12).
This document lets everyone know the “truth” about what judges think of AB1208; the “truth” about Courthouse Construction costs; the “truth” about AOC growth; and the “truth” about CCMS and its development costs. In addition, there is a bonus page telling everyone about the “benefits” to the Statewide administration of justice under the JC/AOC.
I was brought up before the “Board of Education”. That is, to believe that it was easy to tell the truth and hard to tell a lie. The problem with telling lies is sometimes you forget what you said in the past and it becomes hard to keep your story straight. That foundational principle is certainly demonstrated by the content of the newest publication “Setting the Record Straight”.
The information and “facts” contained within this most recent propaganda piece contradicts many of the statements made by the apologists in the Crystal Palace in their prior publications, reports to the Legislature and statements made at Judicial Council meetings. Without going through the entirety of the document, which would take reams of paper, I would point out but a few highlights relative to CCMS.
“THE SYSTEM COSTS $400 MILLION TO DEVELOP OVER A NINE-YEAR PERIOD”
In their report to the Legislature in May 2011, the AOC stated that the total CCMS Program Expenditures through fiscal year 2009-2010 was $454 Million and they anticipated having spent $671 Million by June 20, 2012. Their own report projects that CCMS costs would top $1.97 Billion by 2017 (a fact which they adamantly deny, however it is in their report which they submitted to the Legislature). The California State Auditor’s February 2011 report repeatedly pointed out that the AOC was unable to accurately report CCMS costs. The AOC claimed to the Auditor that $557 million had been spend on CCMS as of August 2010. Mr. Bruiniers told the Judicial Council that a total of $521.5 Million was spent on CCMS as of February 28, 2012.
I note that Deloitte Consulting was budgeted to receive over $16.7 Million in “consulting” fees and $54 Million in “staff” both “program office” and “technical”. The $121 Thousand spend in “lobbying” on behalf of the AOC is chump change given what is at stake for Deloitte. It is not clear whether these fees include all of the ongoing and countless “change orders” that appear to occur weekly in the program development of V-4.
All of these numbers are a moving target, but they demonstrate that Tani & Company have no idea about what they are doing. According to HRH, the State Auditor’s recommendations have all been implemented. Funny, the Auditor was highly critical of the terms of the contract between the AOC and Deloitte with respect to the “warranty” issues. When Mr. Bruiniers signed off last month “accepting” V-4, he noted his concerns that the “warranty” will expire before V-4 has been “deployed”. Yet another example of the gang that can’t shoot straight.
All of this goes to show that Grandpa was right: Figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure.
Enjoy the weekend everybody!
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2012
You rock.
Wendy Darling
March 2, 2012
There is a tried and true axiom in the law that if someone has lied about one thing, then everything else they say may also be deemed untruthful as well.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2012
btw, whomever it was who named the tattle program should get a gold star for being frank.
JusticeCalifornia
March 2, 2012
“Top leadership” et al used the “budget crisis” first to get rid of court reporters, and now the court clerks.
Buh-bye to those who have the ability to officially watch, hear, record and officially keep track of what goes down and where the bodies are buried.
What does a seasoned lawyer, or a pro per litigant want? A fair and impartial judge, a good court clerk, and an accurate record of the proceedings. Being able to e-file or get documents online (if “top leadership” could ever accomplish this, which after nine? ten? long and expensive years seems very, very doubtful, but which other states apparently accomplish quite well) is convenient (and reportedly pretty damn simple for many states and counties to offer) but pales in comparison to these basic necessities of practice and proceedings.
Without a record you are screwed. Anyone who says otherwise is, to put it politely, full of hot air, and is not and never was a litigator or a litigant— or a trial judge faced with two very different proposed findings and orders after hearing, statements of decisions, or judgments—-or an appellate judge faced with a meritorious appeal but NO OFFICIAL RECORD..
IMHO, that applies to Cantil-Sakauye; the attorneys and judges on the Judicial Council and all of “top leadership’s” various and sundry bull$#%$ committees; current and former legislator-attorneys including but not limited to Steinberg, Dunn, Evans, Feuer, Corbett; and all the other judges and lawyers and lawyer’s groups who are backing CCMS and new court construction before ensuring these trial court/litigant essentials.
versal-versal
March 2, 2012
Woodhull as usual you are on to something. I recently saw on the JC/AOC website all the things they claimed to have “created” over the years to improve access to justice . Honestly I guess the current JC/AOC spin machine assumed none of us would remember our history. Incredibly the JC/AOC is claiming credit for the creation of ADR programs, drug courts, website document access and much much more. A careful review of history will demonstrate that most of the ideas the JC/AOC are now claiming credit for came from the trial courts.The reality is that local trial courts developed programs and ideas that worked for their legal communities and the public they served. One example is that Drug courts were initiated in Alameda County with some very hardworking and creative Judges responding to a local concern. For the JC/AOC to now claim credit for things like drug court and assert essentially that programs like that wouldn’t exist without them is intellectually dishonest.
Wendy Darling
March 2, 2012
Not just intellectually dishonest, but also unethical.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
March 3, 2012
Hey, here’s some stuff they’ve created. While you’re over on the AOC website, take a look on the left, under “AOC Divisions,” and click on “Bidders/Solicitations.” Wander through some of the items. Besides CCMS, look at the big bucks at their disposal to spend on all manner of things that directly relate to access to justice and keeping courthouses open with adequate staff to serve the public. NOT. It’s no wonder they decided to put the spin machine in overdrive. “Shiny object! Look over here!”
Or maybe it’s just me being overly critical cuz I’m so disgusted. I’m curious what others may think.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 3, 2012
Excellent points Versal! If you carefully examine each of the points listed on the second page of “Setting The Record Straight” you will find that 100% of the program related “benefits” that have arisen due to Statewide Trial Court funding are absolute lies. As Wendy points out, things has clearly moved beyond simple efforts to “spin” the facts and has evolved into deep intellectual dishonesty; what most real people would call lying!
This fundamental point is deeply concerning since it is coming from those who are supposedly running the Third Branch of our State Government. The Judicial Branch was never meant to lower itself to the levels of politics that one might expect from the Legislative or Executive Branches. Shame, shame, shame on you Tani & Company.
Wendy Darling
March 3, 2012
Unfortunately General Woodhull, Tani & Company have no shame. In the anything goes, there-is-no-line-that-can’t-be-crossed, world at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, not only is there no shame, it’s not even in their vocabulary, or even on their radar.
But that’s probably to be expected when you’ve lowered yourselves to liars, cheats, and thugs.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
March 4, 2012
New blog ContemptOfCourtFor.Me
http://contemptofcourtfor.me/
sharonkramer
March 5, 2012
Interesting on the two thumbs down -even after being able to view the evidence of what courts have collectively done to participate in massive SLAPP fostering massive interstate insurer fraud & cost shifting to the taxpayer. They are now threatening incarceration to conceal their misdeeds -with several of those frequently demonized on this board being heavily involved.
It is not logical to think the JC et. al., are only compromised when setting policy while wearing administrative hats; yet are not compromised when setting policy while wearing black robes.
I whole heartedly support the need for AB1208. I think it is a good start to restore much needed balance of power. JCW is to be commended for bringing severe ethics problems to light. But AB1208 doesn’t solve all the ethics problems in the branch or rid all aspects of SWOV that is harmful.
It seems self absorbed and disingenuous (not you, JCW) to sound the alarm of the dangers of SWOV as it pertains to branch employees on one hand; yet give thumbs down when shown the public victims of SWOV – many of whom have had their lives devastated directly because of it.
Enough on the subject. Sorry I bothered you all to show you the lives devastated by the exact thing you profess to fight against.
JusticeCalifornia
March 5, 2012
Sharon, many of the people reading or writing here have experienced corruption and retaliation up close and personal.
And have concluded that reform must start at the top.
We got a legislative audit of the family court in Marin, and very little has changed. The family court mediators still don’t read the files, minor’s counsel still charge parents ten of thousands of dollars without meeting with their young clients, and parents are still ordered to go to expensive counseling and co-parenting sessions with “the usual suspects”. But why would it change when the chief architects and perpetrators of the Marin mess are now the Chief Justice’s best friends forever? Instead of being whacked upside the head for destroying evidence and running a sloppy ship, Marin’s worst offenders are serving in top positions on the Judicial Council and the SEC.
Similarly, there was a BSA investigation of CCMS. Courts hate it. We all read the reviews by the individual courts that were provided to the BSA. It has been a mismanaged, problem-plagued albatross, the cost of which has been lied about time and time again. Yet, money is still being thrown away hand over fist by “top leadership”, because “top leadership’s” methods, priorities and personnel have not changed.
The extraordinary, unrestrained, and undemocratic concentration of power in the Judicial Branch must be eliminated. . . .and the power of those challenging top leadership must not be underestimated.
Let’s never forget Ron George was at the top of his empire-building game in late 2006, and he had to turn tail and run 3.5 years later. . . . .
The current chief lacks the widespread support of the branch or the legislature. Her credibility started out low (after her defiant February 2011 response to the BSA audit and the suggestion that Vickrey be given the boot) and plummeted further after her recent emotional 20-minute AB 1208 rant. Primarily, she has the support of Team George because they depend upon her for their survival. Team George is being picked off, one by one. Team George is neither liked nor trusted (does Tani’s tattle team really believe they will be embraced by the trial courts they intend to infiltrate?) Unless Cantil-Sakauye does what EVERYONE except Team George has advised (clean house, reorganize priorities, and invite new blood and diverse views into top leadership) she will also have to get out, because she and other Team George leftovers will not be able to gain the respect of the branch or secure the budget the branch needs, and they will continue to run the already divided branch into the ground.
Getting back to your post, Sharon– Unless and until the head of the snake (as JCW puts it) is taken out, we are not going to see the change we want.
Sharon Kramer
March 5, 2012
Justice California,
Absolutely agree. JCW is most effective by remaining focused on cutting off the head of the snake. I just find it a bit bizarre that thumbs down would be given for letting it be known of a new blog which addresses the same elephant from a different side.
They actually wanted me sent to jail for a post in which I did not even use the allegedly libelous words, but did show support of AB1208, while showing some indescretions by decision makers of if it goes forward or not. I am not kidding. I happen to know the judges in the SD North Court had an interesting meeting last Friday where emotions ran high over AB1208.
But I will not be posting anything, anymore here. I don’t need thumbs down for telling the truth of collusion to defraud the public. If you all want to know what is going out outside the world of court employees and family courts impacted by SWOV gone awry, you know where to find me. Thank you for everything I have learned from you all. Especially you, JCW.
Best of success to all of you.
katy
March 5, 2012
Justice California,
Absolutely agree that JCW needs to stay focused on cutting off the head of the snake. I just find it bizarre that some would give thumbs down for announcing a new blog that addresses the same elephant from a different side.
“They” actually wanted me to spend time in jail for a post supporting AB1208 where the allegedly libelous words were not even mentioned, but indescretions by decision makers over the matter were noted. I happen to know there was a meeting of judges last week in the SD North County where emotions ran high over AB1208.
Will not be posting here anymore. I don’t need annonymous thumbs down for telling the truth of collusion to defraud the public by many of the same entities that this blog constantly notes are compromised. If you want to understand how SWOV impacts beyond court employess and family court, you all know where to find me.
JCW, thank you for the wealth of info. Best of success to all of you.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
Published today, Monday, March 5, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
SUPERIOR COURT TO LAY OFF 300, CLOSE COURTROOMS
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Superior Court will announce this week that it is laying off 300 employees, closing more than 50 courtrooms, and making major changes in how it handles juvenile traffic offenses, but will not close any courthouses, sources told the METNEWS Friday.
No Commissioner Layoffs Expected
The 300 layoffs were said to be effective June 30, the end of the fiscal year. A judicial officer, who was not authorized to speak for the court and asked for anonymity, said that no commissioners would lose their jobs, but that some referees would.
A call to Presiding Judge Lee Edmon was returned by a court spokesperson, who said officials—who met earlier last week—were not yet ready to announce details of their budget plan for the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year. But that announcement might come as early as today, the spokesperson said.
Gwendolyn Jones, presiding of American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 575, which represents the court’s clerks and paralegals, said she was aware of rumored layoffs and closings, and was expecting to hear from Executive Officer/Clerk John A. Clark or from Edmon, but that they had not contacted her as of late Friday afternoon.
A spokesperson for Service Employees International Union Local 732, which represents court services assistants, court reporters, court supervisors, and administrative assistants—did not return a phone call seeking comment. Edmon and Clark informed judicial officers and staff last August that 1,000 layoffs were anticipated between the end of the fiscal year and April 2014.
The Legislature cut Fiscal Year 2011-2012 funding for the judicial branch by $350 million, leading to a statewide cut of 6.7 percent for the trial courts.
Past Statements
While the local court, which laid off 329 employees in 2010, was able to avoid layoffs for the current fiscal year, Clark and Edmon said in their memo last summer that the court would “do business in the future with a dramatically reduced budget.”
Edmon and Clark said at the time they were “working at the state level to continue to ensure that trial court operations are the top funding priority for the judicial branch,” and pursuing efforts “toward reducing the cuts” already in place and to relieve the court of some of its statutory mandates.
“But in the end, it will fall upon us to make the difficult choices of which services we must compromise in order to deliver on our core obligations,” they said.
The budget crisis “may be our greatest challenge ever,” Edmon and Clarke concluded, but “[o]ne way or another, together we will continue to make justice available to those who need it.”
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
Capital Accounts: CCMS Backers Walking Back Their Support
Cheryl Miller
2012-03-02
SACRAMENTO — Is CCMS DOA?
Just last year, judiciary leaders were crowing about the emerging promise of a new Court Case Management System that, despite all the criticism, would finally link all 58 trial courts with “justice partners,” giving lawyers and the public round-the-clock e-access to the courthouse.
Now, on the eve of two key hearings later this month on the Court Case Management System’s future, judicial leaders seem to be walking back that vision of a statewide network.
At a meeting of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association last month, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggested that “Maybe what we have is a Ferrari in the garage, but we can’t afford the gas and insurance,” according to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
Council members appear poised to move forward with a far less ambitious model of CCMS than has been promoted for years. Dropping the promise of a cross-court network will require political deftness in dealing with legislative critics, who have questioned CCMS’ purpose and costs, and legal allies, who have championed the cause of an interconnected court system.
An Assembly budget committee is tentatively scheduled to meet March 14 to review progress on CCMS. The Judicial Council has also scheduled an all-day hearing on March 27 to consider the network’s murky future.
Judiciary officials insist that the latest version of CCMS, known as V4, works. But it’s not clear if anybody wants it. Two trial courts, Los Angeles and Sacramento, recently declined to work with a branch-hired consultant on a plan for deploying the new system.
“We don’t have confidence in CCMS, nor do we have confidence in the methodology” that consultant Grant Thornton will be using in its analysis, said Mary Hearn, spokeswoman for Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie Earl said she doesn’t want her court to take the lead with V4 development after experiencing problems with V3 use in its civil and probate departments. And, she said, she thinks the branch should be more focused on its budget problems.
“The larger issue for me really is, I’m opposed to any further money being put into development of V4 until the ship rights itself,” Earl said.
There are courts around the state, many of them smaller in size, that need new case management systems to replace failing ones. But no one seems to know where the money will come from to pay for the upgrade. At a Tuesday meeting of the Judicial Council, members were told that the total cost for development and deployment of all CCMS versions has risen to $521 million. The state auditor has pegged the price tag for installing CCMS statewide at $1.9 billion.
“We have come to the point in time where the further investment of money just doesn’t work given the current economic climate,” said Yolo County Superior Court Presiding Judge Dave Rosenberg.
Rosenberg chairs the Judicial Council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee. He made clear that his views on CCMS are his own and that he’s not representing any council members or other judges. But the influential jurist said he’s concluded that each court should be allowed to choose whether it wants CCMS, some other off-the-shelf case management product or something entirely different.
“I think it’s fair to say we’re in a completely different place than we were five or 10 years ago,” Rosenberg said. Cost estimates for CCMS have ballooned. State lawmakers have criticized the project, which doesn’t have “the most stellar reputation” in the public eye, the judge added. With new case management products on the market, “My personal feeling is we allow courts to make their own individual, independent choices,” Rosenberg said.
Rosenberg said he sent an informal survey to other presiding judges last month to gauge their thoughts on CCMS. The results, he said, were all over the map. While some presiding judges expressed strong opinions on the network’s future, many “did not respond at all,” Rosenberg said.
“No matter what decision is made, some people are going to say [council members] have created a lose-lose situation,” he said.
************************************************************************************************************
Prediction: In the not too distant future, the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC will “reluctantly” conclude to terminate further development of CCMS, and the quid pro quo from Senator Steinberg will be to kill AB 1208 in the State Senate, under the reasoning/guise that with CCMS out of the way, AB 1208 is no longer needed.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
Published late today, Monday, March 5, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Biggest Court in Nation Cuts Operations in `Crippling Blow’
By MARIA DINZEO
LOS ANGELES (CN) – The nation’s biggest court announced Monday extraordinary staff cuts and courtroom closures as a result of both California’s budget crisis and long term policy by the top administrative brass for California’s courts.
“These are extraordinary measures, never before seen in the Los Angeles Superior Court,” wrote Presiding Judge Lee Edmon in a memo sent to court staff Monday. “These changes will affect every judicial officer and staff member — as well as the millions of attorneys and litigants who depend upon our courts to deliver justice.”
The immediate effect of the cuts is the layoff of 300 court employees this June plus the closure of more than 50 courtrooms.
“It looks certain that more than 50 courtrooms will be closed countywide,” said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dan Oki who is on the court’s budget working group. “Our leadership in the past has done a great job reducing our operating budget without affecting courtroom operations,” he added. “But that ability to do that is gone now and we’re now moving strongly into the courtrooms.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/05/44425.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 5, 2012
Let’s get ready for some layoffs in the largest trial court in the country. It warms my heart to know it will be all cuts from the bottom up at LASC. Mr. Clarke does “need” his entire management contingent.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
To which the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, will say what Marie Antoinettte said when the people of France were starving and rioting in the streets: “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”, i.e., “Let them eat cake.”
In other words, they couldn’t care less.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
March 5, 2012
http://www.10news.com/video/30598186/index.html
http://www.10news.com/news/30597827/detail.html
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 5, 2012
I located another “nugget” today. It was the JC/AOC’s reiteration of the status of CCMS in a report to the Legislature from a prior year. It is a fascinating document! Much of its contents are completely apposite of their most recent statements and position pieces regarding CCMS. Especially when it comes to their description of the background and history of CCMS. Before launching on this, I am conducting some additional research.
Once again I am left in awe of one of my Grandpa’s who had an 8th grade education but was one of the smartest people I ever met. My new mantra is that that he told me when JFK was President, “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure.” That is my focus for 2012. Gotta love the Internet, no matter how hard they try to hide stuff, someone finds a way of locating it. Even for a subject matter expert like Mr. Bruiniers…:)
One Who Knows
March 6, 2012
Nathaniel –
Can you please share the title and date of this CCMS report to the Legislature. Given the upcoming hearing, I know some folks who could put it to good use. Thank you!
unionman575
March 5, 2012
Well Nathaniel with you on the case, Bruniers better grab his ankles….
Delilah
March 5, 2012
http://www.10news.com/video/30598186/index.html
http://www.10news.com/news/30597827/detail.html
(Sorry if this is a duplicate post)
unionman575
March 5, 2012
http://lasuperiorcourt.org/publicnotice/ui/
lando
March 5, 2012
Tonight is another in the long series of sad nights for the California trial courts and the people we serve. 300 people to be laid off in LA Superior court and 50 courtrooms closed. Every individual layoff has a tremendous adverse impact on the employee , their family, their co-workers and services a court like LA provides to millions. Each courtroom closure cuts back radically on the JC/AOC’s lead mantra “access to the courts “. The LA Superior Court has historically been very well managed and their last 4-5 Presiding Judges have warned of this day. So this time the JC/AOC spin makers can’t blame the local court management like they did unfairly to San Francisco. At least one prior very thoughtful LA PJ questioned the unchecked and unaccountable spending on CCMS years before the State Auditor did. His warnings were of course arrogantly ignored by HRH 1, J Huffman and Mr Vickrey. The result – the mess we have today not just in LA but all over the state. Given LA’s dire budget reality it is time for this CJ to bury the past, step up and tell her insular JC supporters including J Bruiners to end the CCMS debacle now. Will it happen? Does this CJ have the courage to break ranks and bring reform to the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate? My guess is that it all depends on what signals she receives from the State Senate in the next few days and they can hardly be happy with todays events in LA.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
A very sad day indeed, Lando.
And there is this other question: Will Senator Steinberg set aside his personal association with the current Chief Justice, and Steinberg’s aspiration that that association will bring him an appointment to the State Appellate bench, and instead adhere to his sworn public duty, do the right thing, and let AB 1208 be passed into law? Or, will he do as the most recently departed Governor did with Fabian Nunez, ignore his public duty, and instead “do a favor for a friend”?
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
March 5, 2012
General Woodhull I think I stumbled onto the same historical document you make reference to and it is in fact very revealing. The JC documents say that the move to development of a statewide CCMS system came after February of 2003. My recollection back then was that Ms Calebro the AOC Southern California Regional Manager and ultimate insider was only talking about a 5-6 court southern California case management system that Deloitte was going to develop. When then did all this morph into the state wide and 500 plus million dollar quagmire we find ourselves stuck in today? Who authorized it? No such authorization is to be found in any JC minutes. Equally troubling is who authorized Deloitte to go from a regional case management system to a state wide one . Indeed such a decision is curious as it appears that the consulting firm Deloitte has never designed a successful software system. The answers to our current problems lay in uncovering how and why CCMS evolved in the first place and who authorized these critical decisions. When the legislature meets in the next few weeks to conduct hearings on CCMS perhaps these questions should be addressed as they are at the root of the many problems our branch currently faces. I would make Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain this information but fear the retribution that will likely follow from the CJ and J Mc Connell . Accordingly I respectfully urge those in the legislature to follow up and check out the how CCMS started and evolved so we can better understand how one branch of government could potentially waste billions of dollars at the expense of the local trial courts and the citizens those courts serve on a daily basis.
Wendy Darling
March 5, 2012
A request, and questions, many of us have been asking the State legislature to take up for at least four years. Perhaps, now, they will finally do so.
Long live the ACJ.
lando
March 6, 2012
It sure would be sweet to watch a legislative committee ask J Bruiners the questions you mention Versal. Since this ultimate “insider” and “frontman” for the JC /AOC can’t even accurately set forth how much has been spent on CCMS, it would be fascinating to watch him try and explain how CCMS developed. After all he is the “subject matter expert “, whom this CJ has relied upon to move from “transition to triumph “
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
The only thing that would be sweeter Lando would be to watch a legislative committee ask Justice Huffman question, which Huffman wouldn’t be able to accurately answer either. Not very reassuring that the people of the State of California have sitting appellate court justices that can’t give a straight answer or tell the truth.
Long live the ACJ.
Chuck Horan
March 6, 2012
Woodhull, Lando, Versal-Versal and Others:
The ACJ did the research in December 2009, word-searching over ten years of Judicial Council minutes, and followed up with written questionnaires to every member of the Judicial Council who served during the years when the AOC claims the Council authorized CCMS startup. The ACJ report sets forth the AOC claims, and compares them to Council minutes. The document is on the ACJ website at http://www.allianceofcaliforniajudges.com under “Resources”. Just click on “ACJ CCMS Questionnaire and Responses”. The direct link is
http://allianceofcaliforniajudges.com/ACJ_CCMS_Questionnaire_and_Responses.pdf
Bottom line: AOC began CCMS without any council vote, and no member of the Council who responded to the questionnaire (8 responded, and their verbatim responses are contained in the report) recalled every voting to authorize the project, and recalled no discussions re: cost.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
Judge Horan, General Woodhull, Lando, Versal-Versal, and Others:
And when the AOC began CCMS without any council vote, and without the members of the Council voting to authorize the project or the funding, where did the AOC get the money to do so? Well, they took it out of the Trial Court Trust Fund, also without any council vote, or council authorization, and in violation of State law . . .
Because, as they say, and do, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, “We can do whatever we want, and no one can stop us.”
Long live the ACJ.
anna
March 6, 2012
Why the hell doesn’t someone haul HRH the 1st into our state legislature, and question him? He was the head of the whole damn thing? He’s allowed to be sued as “Chair” of the AOC. [Wolfe v. Strankman]
The crucial question is, is there a second check book, with only his name on it.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
And should that ever happen, Anna, the State Legislature should also question HRH 1, and several of the folks at the AOC, about the misappropriation of money from the Trial Court Workers Compensation Fund as well. OMG, what someone would find if there was an audit of that fund. especially since it’s controlled by the Director of the AOC’s notoriously corrupt HR Division.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, March 6, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Superior Court Confirms Plans to Lay Off Hundreds
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Superior Court plans to lay off hundreds of employees at the end of the fiscal year, a spokesperson confirmed yesterday.
Among those who will lose their posts are 50 judicial assistants, 20 courtroom assistants, at least 60 court reporters, and 100 non-courtroom employees. In addition, 60 court reporters will be downgraded from fulltime to part-time status.
At least 50 courtrooms will be closed around the county.
Presiding Judge Lee Edmon was not available yesterday for comment, but the court released a document showing that its cuts in staffing and services will close a projected deficit of $145.4 million for FY 2012-2013. Layoffs and reductions were widely expected after Edmon and Executive Officer/Clerk John Clarke said last August that the court would operate with a “drastically reduced budget” over the next three fiscal years and anticipated laying off about 1,000 employees over that time.
The court had no information about layoffs of subordinate judicial officers, but sources said several, if not all, of the court’s fulltime referees in juvenile traffic court and delinquency court were informed that they will no longer be employed as of June 30.
One of those, Claire Vermillion, who sits in Long Beach, is the president-elect of the statewide Court Commissioners Association. Vermillion did not return a MetNews phone call.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
Also published today, Tuesday, March 6, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner, and well worth the read:
Land of Silence
By BILL GIRDNER
In hard times, the bureaucracy at the top of California’s court system is planning to spend $240,000 every single day, holidays included, on an IT boondoggle.
That is the amount they have budgeted for the Court Case Management System up until July 2014 for a total of $265 million.
When Courthouse News published that story by Maria Dinzeo two weeks ago, a judge told us the story was “a nuclear bomb.”
I thought so too.
And yet the reaction was muted. We heard from a few judges. No newspapers picked up on the story, no legislators said anything. Nobody expressed outrage.
I figured it was because everybody is numb. They are so used to seeing this kind of excess that they are listless when they see it again.
Think back to this summer when the governing judges on the Judicial Council voted to put a hold on the IT project. Well, that decision had no effect whatsoever.
The very next council meeting, the administrative office came back and said there was no hold and then presented budget numbers that translate into $240,000 spent every day over the course of a three year period.
Nobody expressed outrage at that either, certainly not among council members whose vote one month earlier was ignored, was apparently meaningless and was tossed aside so easily that it seemed to confirm the opinion of those who say the council is in fact powerless.
Local courts had gone tin cup in hand to the administrative office, to beg for bail out funds. San Francisco had to fight to get $ 2.5 million.
Put that in context. It represents only ten days-worth of what the administrative office is spending on the IT system.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/06/44454.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 6, 2012
While convalescing on board ship in Wallabout Bay, I overheard the heads of the Judicial Council plotting their retreat from CCMS and AB1208. Be prepared my friends, for the likelihood is this will be the path followed by those mustering at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Next month, at the Judicial Council meeting, faces will be long as Mr. Bruiniers and HRH talk about having to shelve their plans for CCMS. CCMS will be heralded as an incredible work of engineering and one that would have served the Judicial Branch and citizens of California well for many decades to come. Unfortunately, a rogue band of uninformed extremists that were Hell bent on returning to their local fiefdoms, started spreading lies about CCMS. These heretics were able to convince a few members of the Assembly that their cause was just and that CCMS should be stopped, hence the advent of AB 1208.
Despite the fact that CCMS is a fantastic and fully functioning system, for the greater good we have decided to stand down from our plans for statewide deployment. These ignorant opponents of CCMS do not really understand the damage they have caused. Now each of the 58 counties will have to fend for themselves to develop new systems (so we can then say I told you so.) Given that the Legislature has radically cut our budget, citing division within the Judicial Branch, we have decided to take these steps. By waiting to deploy CCMS, we are falling behind the intellectual property curve (think of Moore’s Law, only we will call this Tani’s law). By falling behind this curve, it makes no fiscal sense to try and resurrect CCMS once it has sat for a number of years while we wait for the budget to recover.
To eliminate the need for the passage of AB 1208, we have decided to take this action. We aren’t happy about it, because CCMS would have been a wonderful advancement to all of those in the Golden State. But without the distractions caused by the misinformation being spread about CCMS, there will be no need for the Senate to pass the Bill because all the other complaints about the Judicial Council and AOC have been resolved by our implementation of corrections to any responses to the SEC report.
Expect this response to come from 455 Golden Gate Avenue in the weeks and months to come. All I can say is….”God save us all.”
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
Yes, General Woodhull, this is what has already been heard in the dark hallways at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. See above post from just yesterday, March 5: “Prediction: In the not too distant future, the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC will “reluctantly” conclude to terminate further development of CCMS, and the quid pro quo from Senator Steinberg will be to kill AB 1208 in the State Senate, under the reasoning/guise that with CCMS out of the way, AB 1208 is no longer needed.”
Which, of coarse, begs the question: If AB 1208 is killed in the State Legislature, what will there be from preventing this from happening again? Or prevent the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the unaccounable AOC, from resurrecting another flapdoodle, boondoggle, runaway train of some reiteration of CCMS but under a different name as soon as they think no one is looking? The obvious answer is: absolutely nothing.
And then there is the question of the contract(s) the Judicial Council and the AOC have stupidly locked themselves into with Deloitte, which contain no safety net provisions for non-payment in the event that CCMS is terminated.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 6, 2012
The information in the February 28, 2010 Independent Project Oversight (IPO and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) (how many AOC employees work full-time dreaming up acronyms???) submitted on behalf of the Judicial Council and AOC by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting; the Judicial Council’s report to the Legislature dated April 2010 on the status of CCMS and Phoenix; and the Office of the Chief Information Officer – Review of CCMS from 2009 are all must reads. Everyone should look at these in context of and with the Judicial Council’s 2011 report to the Legislature. The numbers given by the AOC and Judicial Council completely conflict with one another. All of the issues regarding acceptance of V-4 and the expiration of the warranty period were pointed out years ago by the State OCIO if no one else. Yet nothing was done by either Mr. Bruiniers or his predecessors to address these long identified problems..
The OCIO indicates that there was no agreement as to the scope of CCMS and what the historical case management technology efforts the project was to include. The OCIO asserts that former Governor Davis granted $21 million to develop the case management system. How did we get from that to $1.9 Billion ??????? The total cost estimates as of 2009 were estimated to be $1.3 Billion and $79 Million for annual maintenance and operation. The AOC estimated the costs to replace the existing case management systems (as of 2009) to be $622 Million to $1 Billion. (This is despite the fact that the project was no where near completion).
The Judicial Council claimed that there was a “comprehensive governance structure for CCMS established in 2002, along with Oversight and Steering Committees. In 2010, the Judicial Council reported to the Legislature that the final design of V-4 was accepted in May 2009 and that development of the final product would be completed by April 2011. This informaton is all in conflict with the State Auditor’s report, which was highly critical of the JC/AOC’s lack of oversight of the CCMS project; which caused the Chief to appoint a host of new committees.
Reading all of these materials in a historical context, it becomes evident that the only ones making a profit from CCMS were Deloitte (which may have profited by $18-20 million or more) and those employed within the AOC that were working on CCMS. Here we are at least a decade down the road with a “Ferrari” parked in the garage. It’s not the cost of gas and insurance that causes it not to run, the “Ferrari” is really a Yugo without an engine or other moving parts.
JusticeCalifornia
March 6, 2012
Would the Senate really shelve AB 1208 simply because the Steinberg’s cj-buddy says “sorry, this $600 million albatross isn’t feasible, let’s just all walk away”?
That would be a very irresponsible move on behalf of our elected Senate representatives.
The best argument against that irresponsible deal is this: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1).
Santayana’s quotation is more suitable than Edmund Burke’s (1729-1797) statement, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
The legislature received the BSA report and knows the history of CCMS.
And of the extraordinarily expensive courthouses.
And the outrageous courthouse maintenance costs, and unlicensed contractor debacles.
Top leadership has shown itself to be fiscally and managerially irresponsible and untrustworthy. If the Senate turns its back on AB 1208, it is giving the green light for top leadership to continue to waste taxpayer funds–which harms the public in many different ways. The taxpayer-funded judicial budget is robbed for unnecessary and ridiculously expensive IT and construction projects, a PR machine that no other branch of government has or needs, endless committees, meetings, etc; the public is robbed to provide even more money to waste via aggressive, over-the top traffic fines etc.; the public picks up the tab again, after all the layoffs; and meanwhile, the public suffers via cutbacks of basic court services and amenities.
AB 1208 is not a popularity contest. It is a means of reining in a decades-old, insular group of out-of- control ivory-tower power-mongers, for the benefit of the public and the branch.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 6, 2012
You are obviously correct in your assessment. The problem is that HRH, the Judiclal Council and the AOC cannot be blamed or held responsible for any of these problems. The problem lies with those within the ACJ and others who have dared to challenge those operating the Crystal Palace.
One Who Knows
March 6, 2012
Nathaniel –
Yesterday, your referenced an older AOC report on CCMS which contained some useful information. Can you please tell us the date of that report? Thank you!
One Who Knows
March 6, 2012
Nathaniel –
Thank you for the information.
Justice California – Former Speaker of the Assembly used to tell legislators “never fall in love with your bill.” What he meant was that in the end game, the solution one seeks may not ultimately be found in the bill originally introduced. We should all keep our eye on the end game and obtaining the solutions we all desire despite the legislative vehicle. Maybe it is 1208, maybe it is another bill that we have not yet seen this year or maybe it is a budget trailer bill. In any case, no issue is ever dead until legislative sine die.
One Who Knows
March 6, 2012
Oops! The former Speaker I was referencing was Willie L. Brown – the master of the legislative dance.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2012
Published late today, Tuesday, March 6, from Courthouse News Service, by Dave Tartre:
SF Court Goes Around Big CA IT Project
By DAVE TARTRE
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – San Francisco Superior Court has announced an auction for bidders to provide a system for lawyers to file court papers via the web. A different system pushed by the California’s central court bureaucracy is not under consideration.
According to terms announced last week, San Francisco’s trial court is looking for a “partnership” with a private contractor. It looks like the cost of that partnership will be paid by lawyers who e-file documents.
San Francisco’s “request for proposal,” in the jargon of public contracts, does not mention the Court Case Management System, an IT system built for California’s courts at extraordinary public expense. The latest version of that system is supposed to allow electronic filing.
“The court doesn’t have CCMS now and doesn’t have plans to use CCMS in the future,” said San Francisco’s court spokesperson Ann Donlan.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/06/44463.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 6, 2012
Living large at the AOC…How about a hotel stay everybody? WTF?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17148.htm
Institute for Court Management CourTools Course – Room Block Only ASU-DC-008-LM
The Administrative Office of the Courts (JBE/AOC) seeks the services of a Contractor (hotel) for a room block, April 23-26, 2012 in Burbank, California. The Institute for Court Management CourTools course will presented by the JBE/AOC’s Education Division/Center for Judicial Education and Research during these dates. The course is a training program for managers and supervisors who work for the courts. Participants will learn how to use CourTools and the Court Performance Standards to guide management and leadership decisions and assess court performance.
NOTE This solicitation is being handled by a new process for sourcing hotels and meeting locations. For this solicitation, a Pre-Proposal Conference Call has been arranged to answer any questions regarding the solicitation and the new process. It is recommended that you use this opportunity to acquaint yourself with the new process and for questions regarding the RFP.
The specifications for the Pre-Proposal Conference Call are as follows:
• Date is Friday, March 9, 2012 at 11:00 AM (PST)
• Local dial-in number is 415-355-5489
• Long distance dial-in number is 1-866-223-4039
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by Tuesday, March 13, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Proposals must be received by Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP: ASU DC-008-LM
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
unionman575
March 6, 2012
The lesson learned here is never give seed money for anything. It went from 21 mil to 2 bil.
versal-versal
March 6, 2012
Woodhull is right. CCMS is on the way out. The outstanding leadership of the Sacramento and Los Angeles courts came up huge when they refused to be used to test CCMS V4. Now San Francisco is taking a significant step by developing their own system and announcing they have no plans for CCMS. The legislative audit exposed CCMS for the fraud that it is and all of the CJ’s and J Bruiners statements and claims about it being finished and working aren’t fooling anyone. CCMS is the achilles heel for the JC and now to save and preserve their insular anti-democratic rule they will cut it loose. The State Senate needs to be wary of the JC’s actions in the next few weeks. Eliminating CCMS should never be a quid pro quo for stalling AB 1208. Everyone please remember if 1208 doesn’t pass the same group of JC insiders that caused a half a billion dollars to be wasted will still be in power . Btw does anyone expect these same insiders to accept responsibility for wasting such huge amounts of taxpayer dollars? My guess is that they will find someone to blame , the economy, the Alliance , and narrow thinking groups that want to restore their fiefdoms. Sound familiar?
lando
March 7, 2012
I agree with all the comments here that CCMS is effectively dead. What an incredible waste. Half a billion dollars? How can anyone explain that in this struggling economy? We need to study and explore how all that happened. Understanding CCMS is the key to understanding how complete and total arrogance met with incompetence to end up undermining an entire branch of government.We also need to take steps to avoid future failure. Governance change at the JC is the key. Following that, a 25-50% reduction in AOC staff is a great starting point. Questions need to be asked about the billions the AOC wants to waste on new courthouses. Isn’t that a huge problem when our major trial courts are laying off valued employees and shutting down courtrooms? Finally, it is time to examine the arbitrary and capricious rule of J Mc Connell and J Horn over at the CJP. For the branch to survive and develop we need to allow the free expression of First Amendment speech and ideas and dissenting views without reprisal so we can move forward from here. Hopefully with these changes some light will ultimately shine on the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate including the penthouse and meaningful and real change will occur. Thanks to all here who are trying to make that happen .
Wendy Darling
March 7, 2012
All so true, Lando. The other thing that must happen for the branch to survive and to restore credibility is to require a strong adherence to ethics in branch administration, starting with the executive office and management of the AOC, which currently adheres to no such thing, and shamefully does so with impunity and the protection and blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
March 7, 2012
That money didn’t disappear. It went somewhere. The legislature needs to demand restitution. Unless, they were in on it. Hello???Steinberg? Evans?
The term we’re all looking for is THEFT!!!
Wendy Darling
March 7, 2012
Just like the hefty embezzlement of public funds in the AOC’s HR Division that wasn’t reported to law enforcement or the DIstrict Attorney’s office, and wasn’t prosecuted, and instead was intentionally covered up by the AOC’s Executive Office and the Office of General Counsel.
Theft, indeed. And the thieves are the very people responsible for judicial branch administration.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 7, 2012
The AOC executive management needs a HUGE housecleaning immediately.
Every AOC Director and above must go out the door immediately as in UNEMPLOYED.
No AOC Director should be retained in any capacity and certainly not as a consultant.
That would be a start as we clean up this huge swamp of graft and corruption at the AOC.
Hundreds of trial court employees have paid for this bullshit with their lives and lost their employment. And, hundreds more will go before this is over. Sad but true.
Guest
March 7, 2012
Whatever happened to the recruitment for a new Director anyway? Did the cj give it to her pal Jody by default?
JusticeCalifornia
March 7, 2012
The AOC has not even finalized the brochure for the job, yet, they expect to have a vote on a new person in June.
Justice Hull at the 2/28/12 JC meeting (from pages 8-9 of the 40-page transcript):
“If I may take a minute, I will, as you mentioned earlier, give the council and those who are joining us otherwise a bit of an update on a search for a permanent administrative director. As all of you know, we are indebted and will be indebted to Jody Patel for taking this on, on an interim basis. Perhaps as a demonstration of her wisdom she had already said she would not consider it on a permanent basis. So our search will continue. What had happened — the committee originally had hoped to be in a position to make recommendations to the council for a permanent administrative director by this April’s council meeting. We hired the search firm I referred to in the past Robert Anderson and associates headed by Mr. Robert Byrd for the search and the first step in that process was and is the preparation of a brochure, an application brochure, if you will, that sets forth the qualifications and the job description of the person that we’re looking for. Mr. Burg provided us with the first draft of that brochure in a timely fashion as he said he would. The committee met and in reviewing it decided that there needed to be a change in emphasis in certain places and some editing, which we undertook primarily with the help with Ms. Beth Jay. What happened — we’d been delayed a bit in that effort because as many people know, many of us who serve on the search committee serve on other committees and have other duties with the council and with the events of the early part of 2012, which have been — have had to take some precedence, there was some delay in getting the edits to Robert Anderson. However, those edits were provided to Mr. Burg last Friday morning, I believe it was. I understand that those edits have been made. There are some other changes to the appearance to the brochure that we thought was appropriate and they should be completed by the end of the week and we expect the brochures will be available in the search by the end of the week. I should note Mr. Burg have already begun some of his efforts in identifying potential candidates for this position notwithstanding he has not had the permanent — or the final brochure in hand. As matters stand right now, it does not appear it will be possible to present to you a name or names for your consideration by the April meeting but we have every reason tomorrow morning we had do so by the June meeting at which point we will have your vote on hiring a private director for the administrative executive director’s office.”
unionman575
March 8, 2012
The nationwide search goes on for a new captain of the Titanic.
JusticeCalifornia
March 7, 2012
By the way, we should be very afraid of who Cantil-Sakauye’s choice of director will be.
Her personnel and priority choices thus far have not taken the branch anywhere but down. How can anyone take “top leadership” seriously?
At the February 28, 2012 meeting, Kim Turner and Alan Carlson presented an informational report for the Judicial Council on the Court Executives Advisory Committee‟s (CEAC) proposed “Trial Court Business Process Reengineering (TCBPR)” services model.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120228-itemK.pdf
Turner’s AOC “BPR” plan is supposed to help trial courts save money and adopt best practices.
Hah hah. The AOC and Turner are fine ones to be giving advice. Garbage in, garbage out.
As the branch continues to implode, and top leadership claims to wonder why it has zero credibility, top leadership cannot say it wasn’t warned.
For example, scroll to pages 101-109 of the 180-page comments submitted for the July 22, 2011 meeting.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/20110722-writtencomments.pdf
Delilah
March 7, 2012
Yes, I agree, JC. Be very afraid. Judging by the JC/AOC’s history, I believe this “nationwide search” is just another sham. If the JC is forced, for appearance’s sake, to hire an “outsider” for the AOC Director position rather than another insider who knows where the bodies are buried, I would bet that it will be someone who has some kind of connection or relationship — however tangential they may try to couch it — to the usual suspects.
guest
March 7, 2012
Perfect! Another committee by the cj with the simple task of reviewing a recruitment brochure aaaaaannnndddd they can’t even get that right. I now have so much confidence on this other committee’s advice for showing me how to “re-engineer”. No wonder the legislature wants to gut the branch.
Wendy Darling
March 7, 2012
At this point the Chief Justice should just form The Committee of Creating Committees, write down the names of all the usual sychophants on pieces of paper, put the pieces in a fish bowl, and have the chair of The Committee of Creating Committees just start pulling out names out of the fishbowl with a hand covering one eye whenever a new commitee needs to be formed.
If George Orwell was alive, he could use the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the current “governance model” of the judicial branch to write the sequels to 1984 and Animal Farm.
Unfortunately for all us, it’s not a work of fiction.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 8, 2012
As I shakle my head in disgust, LASC is offering a “2 for 1 deal” this week…
1. 300 plus line workers go out the door in June.
2. LASC Management gets a raise.
unionman575
March 8, 2012
California judges fight online posting of their financial statements
Published: Thursday, Mar. 8, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/08/4320543/california-judges-fight-online.html#storylink=cpy
Guest
March 8, 2012
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/03/chief-justice-lobbies-california-lawmakers-on-spending-bill.html
Chief justice lobbies California lawmakers on court spending bill
March 8, 2012 | 12:57 pm
The chief justice of the California Supreme Court was at the Capitol on Thursday lobbying against a bill that would take away some of her power over court spending, and the leader of the Senate later announced his opposition to the legislation.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye met with Senate Republicans regarding AB 1208, which would shift key budget decisions away from the state Judicial Council she heads and give them to local trial courts.
“It threatens the impartiality of the judicial branch because it removes and eliminates oversight and authority of the Judicial Council on statewide policy,” she said in an interview about her message to lawmakers.
Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar said after the meeting that it went well but he doesn’t have a position yet on the bill. “We were just listening,” Huff said. “That was one of the things we were talking about.”
But later, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) voiced opposition to the legislation and said he has “no present plans” to refer it to a policy committee for a hearing.
“I don’t think 1208 is the vehicle to have constructive discussion about the future of courts,” Steinberg told reporters in his office. “I believe in a statewide administration of justice. I think 1208 goes too far in dismantling that.”
Cantil-Sakauye said she appreciated Steinberg for recognizing there are “bigger issues” to deal with, including the state’s budget problems.
The measure by Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) recently was approved by the state Assembly and is supported by a group called the Alliance of California Judges, which has complained that money is being misspent by the statewide court bureaucracy.
Calderon apparently realizes his bill is in trouble. He has sent a letter to Cantil-Sakauye and Steinberg asking for a meeting to discuss the matter.
anna
March 8, 2012
Since “f”ing when does the Judicial Council have power of “statewide policy”?? What the hell is the legislature for????
Steinberg needs to be outed for his quid pro quo deal, and abdication of his authority. We don’t have a Statewide court system.
He should either have the balls to change the constitution, or uphold it.
unionman575
March 8, 2012
Here it is…2 more Taj Majals coming soon, brought to you by the AOC…as we all continue to get croaked in layoffs statewide…
Groundbreaking: New Courthouse for Calaveras County
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17136.htm
Construction Manager at Risk Selected for New Los Banos Courthouse
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17130.htm
unionman575
March 8, 2012
Damn! It must be time for another AOC conference at a HOTEL. WTF??? Last I checked the AOC has plenty of spacious digs available in the SF AOC offices.
I hope those AOC folks are comfortable and well fed while my unemployed co-workers starve. I am aware that nice expensive food can be a morale lifter. That’s for you BOSS (inside joke to a certain Trial Court CEO down south).
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17202.htm
16th Annual AB1058 Child Support Training Conference (Full Conference Services) ASU AU-006-LM
The Administrative Office of the Courts (JBE/AOC) seeks the full conference services of a Contractor (hotel) for the 16th Annual AB1058 Child Support Training Conference in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.
NOTE: This solicitation is being handled by a new process for sourcing hotels and meeting locations. For this solicitation, a Pre-Proposal Conference Call has been arranged to answer any questions regarding the solicitation and the new process. It is recommended that you use this opportunity to acquaint yourself with the new process and for questions regarding the RFP.
The specifications for the Pre-Proposal Conference Call are as follows:
• Date is Monday, March 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM (PST)
• Local dial-in number is 415-355-5489
• Long distance dial-in number is 1-866-223-4039
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by Thursday, March 15, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Proposals must be received by Thursday, March 22, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP: ASU DC-006-LM
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further details regarding the solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP and related documents provided, below:
RFP: ASU AU-006-LM
unionman575
March 10, 2012
2 more Taj Majals announced on 3-9-12 by the AOC:
New Stockton Courthouse Site Acquisition Approved
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17209.htm
New Hanford Courthouse Design Approved
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17215.htm
unionman575
March 27, 2012
Look at this bullshit. Follow the money…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17387.htm
AOC Named as a “2012 Honor Laureate”
Mar 26, 2012
AOC Named as a “2012 Honor Laureate” for its Protective Order Registry
SAN FRANCISCO—IDG’s Computerworld Honors Program has named the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), for its California Courts Protective Order Registry (CCPOR), as a 2012 Honors Laureate for applying technology to meet a specific social need in the “safety and security” category. The AOC developed the registry by applying the technology used in the development of the California Case Management System (CCMS).
“I am very pleased that CCPOR was selected to become one of 200 laureates from 25 countries, said Judge James E. Herman, a member of the Judicial Council and chair of the council’s Internal CCMS Committee. “This recognition proves that feedback and collaboration from our justice system partners helped to build CCPOR by applying CCMS technology to meet a public safety need that benefits our citizens.”
The Protective Order Registry is a statewide repository of protective orders containing both data and scanned images of orders that can be accessed by judges, court staff and law enforcement officials. Launched in June 2010 and currently used by superior courts in 22 counties the registry allows judges to view orders issued by other courts and across county lines. Armed with this more complete information, judges can make better informed decisions and avoid entering multiple orders with conflicting terms and conditions.
Law enforcement officers benefit by being able to view complete images of orders, including notes, special conditions, and warnings that are often handwritten by judges on the orders.
CCPOR contains all types of restraining and protective orders, including domestic violence restraining orders, criminal protective orders, civil harassment restraining orders, elder abuse restraining orders, school violence prevention orders, and workplace violence restraining orders.
The Computerworld honors awards will be presented at a June 4 ceremony in Washington, D.C.
Computerworld is a leading source of technology news and information and is published by IDG Enterprise, a subsidiary of International Data Group (IDG).
###