March 12, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
We have attached hereto our detailed Executive Summary in response to the annual CCMS report recently submitted to the Legislature by the Judicial Council/AOC. We will forward this summary to the Legislature in advance of its March 14, 2012 CCMS hearing. Representatives of the ACJ will be in attendance at that hearing. We hope you find our report informative.
We also include an article in today’s Courthouse News Service dealing with CCMS warranty problems titled “Court IT Project In Bind”.
Lastly, we inform you that the Chief Justice has turned down the invitation of the Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon to meet with him, representatives of the Alliance of California Judges, and others for a discussion of the terms of AB 1208. We have also included an article by Cheryl Miller from the Recorder’s “Legal Pad” Blog dealing with the matter. The Chief’s letter to the Majority Leader turning down his invitation can be accessed through a link in the article.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
Related Links
- Executive Summary for Legislature (.pdf attachment)
- California Court IT Project in a bind (Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News)
- Chief Justice won’t meet with Calderon (LegalPad)
_________________________________________________________________
A few notes from JCW:
While others seem to contend that there is a fully functional CCMS V4 product we would strongly disagree as without duplicating or enhancing current justice partner interfaces you don’t have a fully functional CCMS product. Additionally, when a product takes more man hours to operate than it saves, you don’t have a functional CCMS product.
CCMS Hearing Date, Time & Location:
Joint Hearing Budget Subcommittee No. 4 On State Administration And Budget
Subcommittee No. 5 Public Safety
BUCHANAN, CEDILLO, Chairs
1:30 p.m. – State Capitol, Room 437 ( Listen to this hearing )
Committees:
Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration
1:30 p.m. – State Capitol, Room 437
SUBJECT: Court Computer System
Item No. Description
0250 Judicial Branch
0502 California Technology Agency
8855 Bureau of State Audits
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2012
“The CCMS project is a failure.”
Not just any failure, but an epic failure. And AOC management an epic failure as well. The Enron of judicial branch administration.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 13, 2012
“The Enron of judicial branch administration.” Wow! Agreed!
JusticeCalifornia
March 13, 2012
Once again the ACJ has gracefully stayed above the fray, sticking to the sobering facts rather than resorting to artful, often inflammatory fiction (as top leadership routinely does).
The thoughtful ACJ Summary Report puts into perspective the haughty refusal of Empress Sakauye and Prince Steinberg to attend an AB 1208 meeting as suggested by Assemblymember Calderon. Top leadership’s irresponsible spending and “let them eat cake” attitude toward the trial courts and the public has now resulted in an official Commission on Judicial Performance statement that the failure to ensure court basics — such as official records of court proceedings — is interfering with the administration of justice in the State of California.
How much more do the three branches of CA government need before they take decisive checks-and-balances action to protect the public from the rampant corruption, mismanagement and waste taking place at the highest levels of the judicial branch?
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2012
“How much more do the three branches of CA government need before they take decisive checks-and-balances action to protect the public from the rampant corruption, mismanagement and waste taking place at the highest levels of the judicial branch?”
Considering the actions of Senator Steinberg to block legislative corrective action and protect his good buddy Tani, and the failures so far of the State Legislature, the Governor’s office, the Department of Justice, the Office of the Attorney General, the State and Federal courts, the State Contractors Licensing Board, the District Attorney, the San Francisco Police Department, the San Francisco Sheriffs Department, the California Highway Patrol, and the FBI, to to take decisive action, to name just a few, it’s probably going to take some indictments and some people at 455 Golden Gate Avenue being arrested. But of coarse, that means someone in one or more of those entities would actually have to do something to make that happen. And despite all the evidence they have all been given, not one of them has demonstrated a willingness to do any such thing.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 13, 2012
The warnings from the State’s watchdog entities are coming, loud and clear– from the BSA, and now from the CJP.
There comes a point where the failure of state officials to act to protect the public from known corruption, waste and mismanagement (and Cantil Sakauye and Steinberg fall squarely into that category) becomes complicity. Or, in the case of Cantil Sakauye and Steinberg– it becomes active facilitation/collaboration.
Mark my words. The chickens are going to come home to roost. Sometime down the road, those who are knowingly utilizing corrupt thugs like Kim Turner (“coverups and record destruction are my specialty!”) to “lead” the judicial branch (my gosh, how many top committees has Tani placed her on, anyhow?) will have some explaining to do.
anna
March 13, 2012
hope you’re right Justice California!!!
unionman575
March 13, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/13/44650.htm
Tuesday, March 13, 2012Last Update: 6:39 PM PT
White Elephant
By BILL GIRDNER
A while back, I thought I heard the death knell sounding for a big and enormously expensive IT system pushed by the central bureaucracy of California’s courts. But it lived on.
This summer, when the governing council for the courts voted to suspend work on the Court Case Management System, I thought, that’s the end.
A month later, the bureaucrats atop the court system came back and said they had not suspended or stopped anything on the project. Oh, and they were in fact budgeting another $265 million for it, after having already spent $521 million on the thing.
“It doesn’t look like they intend to let go of the monster they’ve created,” said accountant Karen Covel who had analyzed earlier budget statements by the bureaucrats for our news service.
But once more, I hear death’s hand knocking on the monster’s door.
This time it’s because of a collective shrug from the state’s big trial courts, turning away from the latest version of the IT system, the one that allows for electronic filing.
One after another has refused to adopt that final V-4 version, and now San Francisco is going its own way on electronic filing.
San Francisco’s position is unequivocal. It has not and will not adopt the technology pushed by the central bureaucracy.
A judge told me recently that “the wheels are coming off” at the Administrative Office of the Courts.
One of the tells is a shift taking place within the blocks of power in California’s court system.
A rump group of trial courts appears to be forming in Southern California, made up of the courts in San Diego, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino, which are Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, in terms of population size in California.
Los Angeles is No. 1, with the biggest population in the state and the biggest trial court in the nation.
The Los Angeles network of courts has consistently shunned the Court Case Management System, using the technology in one courtroom in order to keep an eye on it. And the court recently declined to participate in a study aimed at pushing the final V-4 version into California’s trial courts.
In terms of population, L.A. is home to 10.4 million people.
But that number, hefty as it may be, is edged by the combined population of the rump group. San Diego, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino account for 10.46 million people.
The gang of four is rolling together, a vendor told me, hiring a San Diego consultant who is an old hand at court technology while also working with a Riverside company experienced in developing court software.
Not one of those top 5 courts in California is adopting the final version of the CCMS software.
I
f you look at the rejection by L.A. and then add the rejection by the gang of four, that means courts representing well over half of California’s population have turned away.
You add Sacramento, which has explicitly rejected V-4, and San Francisco, which has done the same. And then you figure that given those decisions, it is highly unlikely that bigger Northern California courts such as Alameda, Santa Clara and Contra Costa will adopt that final version.
Pretty quickly, the only courts in the market for the technology are the smaller, rural courts that consider themselves dependent on the central bureaucracy.
Then, it seems to me, you have to wonder how long it will take for the legislators who defend the IT project, and for those many judges who still do, how long will it take them to realize that the green monster, gorged on public dollars, is transforming before their very eyes into a white elephant.
Michael Paul
March 13, 2012
The AOC has willingly played sucker for years both with CCMS and with grossly overpaying unqualified and unlicensed contractors. These people at the AOC and on the council are intelligent, so it’s not stupidity and ignorance that drive them to make these poor business decisions. It is someone or some ones that are lining their pockets that are causing these decisions to be made. It’s a regular M&M enterprises led by the prophets for profit.
courtflea
March 13, 2012
let me assure you, not many small rural courts are dependent on the AOC or want their help or their CCMS. Don’t forget, while they do not have the political clout, many of them are the courts that have the reserves to do things that other larger courts apparently cannot do and get through major budget cuts without the AOC’s help.
Wendy Darling
March 13, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, March 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Talk of Compromise Vanishing on AB 1208
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A bill that would cut back on the purse string power of the court bureaucracy in California faces an increasingly uncertain future, with the Senate president pro tem showing no sign of interest in the measure and the chief justice turning down an offer to meet with the bill’s backers.
Charles Calderon, majority leader in the state Assembly, sent his offer to sit down and talk about a potential compromise last week. The signals coming from the Senate president pro tem, however, were anything but auspicious for any meeting of the minds.
After the letter was sent out, a spokesperson for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg told Courthouse News that Steinberg would not be able to attend, as he was expecting to be out of town on the scheduled meeting date of March 15. The spokesman added that no one in Steinberg’s office had even heard of the proposed meeting.
Shortly afterwards, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye turned down the offer to meet, also citing her schedule.
“I appreciate the offer to meet, however it is not possible to arrange schedules by this date,” wrote the chief justice in her reply. “You did not indicate that there were any time constraints that affected the timing of your meeting. I have a number of intervening engagements in and out of state and also am immersed in branch budget issues.”
Calderon sent his invitation to the chief justice, the Senate president pro tem, the Assembly speaker, union representatives and trial judges who backed the bill. But what was shaping up to be a bargaining session has ground to a halt without the participation of Steinberg and Cantil-Sakauye.
“There hasn’t been any meaningful communication,” he said at the time. “It’s all been posturing and tactics. I want to see if there’s a way that we can address the issues that are dividing the courts.”
His bill, AB 1208, was introduced in response to growing discontent among trial judges over money taken out of funds that are intended for the operation of the trial courts. Large sums were sent instead to support the central bureaucracy and a half-billion-dollar technology project.
The bill would require that 100 percent of money allocated by the Legislature for trial court operations actually go to the trial courts. The bill would thereby starve the central bureaucracy which has expanded dramatically since court funding and policy were consolidated 15 years ago.
Though it enjoyed strong support in the California Assembly, where it passed 41-25, Steinberg’s statements and the reaction from his staff suggests a hard road for AB 1208 in the Senate.
In addition to the red lights from Steinberg, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the bill would land in the upper chamber, has said in no uncertain terms that she opposes the bill.
Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), chair of the judiciary committee, told a meeting of the governing council for the courts, “Once it gets out of the Assembly, it comes into the Senate and lands in my committee, and I don’t support the goals of this bill.”
Also published today from Courthouse News Service, by Dave Tartre:
Deloitte Loses Discovery Battle in Litigation With Levi Strauss Over Business Software
By DAVE TARTRE
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Deloitte Consulting’s attempt to limit discovery in a dispute with Levi Strauss over a software project has been blocked, as a superior court judge came down squarely on the side of the jeans maker in a pretrial skirmish.
The judge told Deloitte’s attorney to remove redactions made to employee performance reviews providing during discovery.
“Deloitte hasn’t shown that the redactions are really appropriate, so there’s no substantial justification,” said Judge Richard Kramer at last week’s hearing.
After having warned in an earlier hearing that the loser of discovery motions would pay the other side’s costs, the judge also awarded $15,000 to plaintiff Levi Strauss, an amount the judge described as “cost-shifting.”
In the underlying action filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the famous maker of American jeans says Deloitte’s installation of business software served as a road to ruin.
Levi Strauss says Deloitte promised to assign top-f light consultants to the project, but instead used the contract to train its own inexperienced employees in how to implement the software.
The jeans maker is demanding $100 million for the extensive business damage allegedly resulting from the installation.
Deloitte has fought back fought back with a separate suit to collect about $8 million in fees under the same deal.
Last fall, the judge ordered Deloitte to produce the employee performance reviews so they could be shown to executives at both Levis Strauss and Deloitte during depositions.
“I have a right to show the performance evaluations in which Deloitte rips its own employees for poor performance on prior projects,” said the lawyer for Levi Strauss, Mark Ressler with Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman in New York.
Deloitte has fought against having to hand over unabridged reviews at every chance, but lost a ruling in the court of appeals.
Robert Lewis, of Bingham McCutchen in San Francisco, tried again Wednesday to persuade the court to allow redactions, arguing employee privacy is at stake. But the judge refused, saying that any material that could lead to admissible evidence is subject to discovery.
Several times, Lewis said he was worried the court didn’t grasp the consequences of his rulings.
The court has a “fundamental misunderstanding” about the case, Lewis said, arguing that the dispute is about a breach of contract and not fraud, and that the competence of the Deloitte consultants assigned to the project is irrelevant.
Judge Kramer countered by saying that even if fraud did not enter the equation, “Isn’t it part of the agreement that Deloitte would put in the A Team?”
“I think the experience and competence of the employees is at the heart of both of these cases,” Kramer added, referring to the consolidated actions before him. “It’s Deloitte saying either that they were completely competent and we need to get paid for our contract or Levis saying they put the wrong people on the job, in the face of promises to do something else.”
Lewis insisted Deloitte would be more forthcoming if it knew exactly who needed to see the employee reviews. He wanted the judge to narrow the order compelling discovery, an order that he said contains “large, unbounded language that allows mischief.”
Ressler answered that he should not be forced to name each individual who may end up needing to see the performance reviews because he can’t know in advance who every one of those people might be. Preparing a case for trial is an “organic process,” Ressler said, in which a litigator cannot predict exactly where depostions will take the case.
The order compelling discovery will stand, Kramer said in his ruling, and he expected both sides to act professionally. “The idea that somehow Levi Strauss’ counsel will commit ‘mischief’ is a little bit hard for me to accept.”
Lewis tried to fight off sanctions for redacting the records by saying the September order was silent on the issue of sanctions and that discovery rules and prior rulings in the case both allow redaction.
Ressler replied that Lewis had “played a game of chicken” by not asking the court for permission to redact. He also argued that the information taken out was not sensitive or personal, but in fact related to revenue from Deloitte’s business software contracts with other companies and would help show how much money Deloitte expected to make on the project for Levi Strauss.
Deloitte Consulting also developed a Court Case Management System for the Administrative Office of the Courts in California, a system that is the subject of a legislative hearing coming up on Wednesday. And Deloitte was named by Marin County in a suit over the same SAP business software that is the subject of the Levis Strauss litigation.
In the Marin matter, claims against Deloitte have been sent to an arbitrator based on a contract clause. But the litigation continues against the American affiliate of German software maker SAP.
Both sides in the Levis Strauss case had asked for sanctions for the legal work preparing the recent motions and their responses. Ressler asked for $29,000, but the judge reduced the amount to $15,000.
Lewis protested that sanctions are unfair, but Kramer described the sum as “cost-shifting,” rather than a penalty for violating discovery rules. He said Deloitte will have to hand over unredacted documents or file an appeal by April 4.
The judge said a written order is forthcoming.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 13, 2012
Noreen Evans can be bought by a crappy little nonsensical plaque from the AOC/JC/CJ office? Gawd! There’s gotta be something else behind this garbage.
JusticeCalifornia
March 13, 2012
Gotta love Bill Girdner’s courthouse news article.
Bottom line. . . . .with or without AB 1208, the courts are jumping the sinking AOC ship.
But a legislative adjustment to the status quo, with appropriate oversight and democratization of the Judicial Council, remains the responsible longterm course of action.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 14, 2012
Tani is at the helm of the ship she named the Bismark. She and her minions within the Crystal Palace and all its hangers-on believe that their ship is just too big to sink. Hmm, seems to me that we dealt with this issue once before….
The level of arrogance being shown by those seating passengers on the Titanic is simply amazing. This will take time, however for those of us involved in the struggle for almost a decade, we can see the sea change that has occurred in recent years. Things will change, it is just going to take some more time… Keep the faith.
p.s. Sorry about all the nautical references, I think it is because I had chowder last night.
Silent Observer
March 14, 2012
Credible dishonesty
An excellent point was raised by JCW not long ago about the issue of credible dishonesty. Citizens of California should not have to ask themselves if their Chief Justice is a fabulist, cozener, or what might commonly be called a liar.
Having reviewed countless articles written about and by HRH-2, the only rational conclusion that one can come to is that she is completely ill-fitted for her current position and is, as she described herself, but a “place-holder” in the position of Chief Justice.
Anyone can assume that there will be a certain amount of “puffing” of one’s resume. Reading HRH-2’s resume, there is very little overall substance, and the one substantive assignment displayed is quite misleading. In each and every resume for Tani, it is intimated that somehow she masterminded the formation of the Domestic Violence Court in Sacramento. Perhaps to understand the background and formation of the Domestic Violence Court in Sacramento, one should read the December 2006 report by LPC Consulting Associates, Inc., titled: The Domestic Violence Response System of Sacramento County, California. You will not find HRH-2’s name anywhere in the document. Nor was the formation of this collaborative court the effort of any one person, let alone judge.
Tani told a writer for her Alma Matter, UC Davis, about her conversation with Governor Schwarzenegger in 2010 when she was informed she had been selected to serve as Chief Justice. The quote is as follows: “Governor, today you have changed my family’s history. Now, from our daughters’ perspective, they have a set of grandparents who worked in the fields. Since her father was an airline mechanic, I can only assume that at some point in his life he worked in “the fields.” If that is that criteria, I worked in “the fields” as a “farmworker” as did my parents, grandparents and the like. With reference to internment, the National Archives certainly does not list any Filipinos on the registry as ever having been interred.
Diversity seems to be the central focus of her administration. That is all well and good, but how about focusing on competence, rather than diversity for diversity’s sake. She drags out the same tired mantra: It is important that people who appear before us need to see themselves before them so they know that we have walked in their shoes. Why? Why is that remotely important? I don’t care what someone looks like; that would be the worst type of stereotyping. The first black judge I appeared before almost thirty-five years ago became highly agitated at a comment made by a litigant, noting: “I’m not your brother!”
On the one hand, HRH-2 is critical of the Branch being monopolized by White Males. The she tells UC Davis and the Contra Costa County Bar Association that throughout the 1990’s she worked less difficult assignments so that she could raise her kids. “I had to be out of here by 5 o’clock, chop, chop, chop.” She ran an arraignment calendar for nine years so she could get out of there by 5 pm. “I’ve gotta pick up my kid – chop, chop, chop, chop.” When being interviewed for a Superior Court position, HRH-2 said she was asked why her resume was essentially blank for the previously three years and she said it was because she had a 2 year-old.
With reference to her current position as Chief Justice, HRH-2 states: “I consider myself solely a place-holder – solely a place-holder. “ That is a pretty sad commentary, but true.
Bottom line, it seems that Tani cannot really make up her mind about who she is or what she wants. She claims she “worked like a demon, like a cougar stalking a lamb at a watering hole.” (Whatever that means) Yet, she expected and still expects that any and all accommodation will be made to benefit her personal schedule.
JusticeCalifornia
March 14, 2012
Wow, Silent Observer, very well said.
As for Tani dragging out DV credentials (fake or not), that is a joke. She did immeasurable harm to DV victims when she supported and excused Kim Turner’s destruction of Marin family court child custody evidence– which included police reports, medical reports, pictures of DV injuries, witness statements, and ever so much more. Then she made Turner her right hand thug in her administration. (Say, isn’t Turner’s Judicial Council gig up in a couple of months?)
What is likely going to happen is this: Like Overholt, Cantil-Sakauye will have to get out, because she has turned the branch into a tawdry overbudget reality show. The branch won’t be able to get back to business or regain any credibility as long as she is around whining, stomping her feet, taking counsel from thug-sycophants, insulting (or hiding behind) legislators — and worst of all– arrogantly refusing to meet with the “opposition” to discuss a reasonable resolution of AB 1208 issues. Who the hell thinks that was a good, smart move for a cj?
Tani may be the second CJ in a row forced into exile for being a pretender to a non-existent throne.
The good news is that she is Exhibit “A” for the argument that the branch needs a very well-respected, dignified, experienced chief justice who is going to clean house and mend fences. We should all once again start thinking about a short list of names.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
It is time for the CJ to retire.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
It’s also time for everyone from the Director level on up to Patel to be let go in a massive executive maangement group shakeup at the AOC.
Lando
March 14, 2012
General Woodhull has it right , this CJ ‘s arrogance will eventually lead to real reform and meaningful change and and an end to the anti democratic insular rule of the crystal palace. Her arrogance centers around the assertion without factual basis that she has transformed the branch. While she claims to have fixed CCMS by creating multiple overlapping committes overseen by J Bruiners , the result is things have gotten worse. J Bruiners signed off on the CCMS warranty fiasco and can never keep straight how many hundreds of millions we’ve wasted not including the 250,000 dollars a day we keep spending on this quagmire. The CJ touts as one of her big reforms installing J Miller as head of JC Executive and Planning Committee. While it’s true J Miller hasn’t called a fellow Judge a clown for speaking up , Executive and Planning remains a closed insider group that ended up promoting Jody Patel the consummate insider to run the ever darkening hallways at 455 Golden Gate. Then like her predecessor this CJ won ‘t bother to meet with anyone who deigns to disagree with her in or outside the branch. Those reading these blogs should never be fooled or misled , this CJ’s arrogant attitude is probably even worse than her predecessor as astounding as that could be. The reality is nothing has changed and nothing will , until the JC is democratized and this CJ recalled.
wearyant
March 14, 2012
The CCMS hearing is currently going on in the CA state assembly subcommittee and I just can’t resist pointing out that during Howle’s report, Feuer asked her something to the effect of what happens if development on CCMS was suspended. I think Big F was interested in perhaps if CCMS is “suspended,” the BSA will have no more reason to be involved in the JC/AOC shenanigans? Maybe I misheard. Big F seems to have no other questions. He appears to still be an AOC lackey through and through. Of course we all know that the word “Suspended” means something different that the usual meaning to the AOC thugs. They’ll call a turd a diamond if it suits their interests.
Charles Calderon was interested in why this IT product was “accepted,” which then triggered the warranty to begin running. Why? Why was this product “accepted”? Good question. Thinking people who don’t drink Kool-Aid reason it may be to “save face” only. There doesn’t seem to be any other reason for this weird step in this total boondoggle.
wearyant
March 14, 2012
“I’m new. Give me a chance!”
It’s been a year. The honeymoon’s over, teensy Tani!
What about a cost-benefit analysis! It’s been a friggin’ year now! Actually one could have been done since 2002. Before 2002 when this IT project was a twinkle in HRH1’s/Gonzalez-Calabro’s eye would have been nice.
During the LAO presentation Charles Calderon asked what’s the point of a feasibility study on this AOC project seven, eight years down the road? Umm, no good answer really. But reasoning people know why; to save face and PR purposes. Always, always only for the good of the JC/AOC titanic.
A half a million for a study from Grant Thornton recently. What a waste of taxpayers’ dollars (my humble opinion).
Next up. The dog and pony show. Hon. Herman is here.
Wendy Darling
March 14, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, March 14, from The Sacramento Bee, by Dan Walters:
Assembly Panel Blocks Expansion Of Court Computer System
An Assembly budget subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to block expansion of a statewide court case management system that has become the focal point of a months-long political war between the state’s judicial leadership and some rebel judges.
The latter — backed by the politically powerful Service Employees International Union — have complained that millions of dollars are being wasted on the computer system while local courts are being compelled to curtail their operations and lay off employees as state financing of courts is reduced.
The budget subcommittee’s action bolsters the Assembly’s position in a conflict with the state Senate over court management. The Assembly has passed legislation, Assembly Bill 1208, that the rebel Alliance of California Judges sponsored to give local judges more power over distribution of operational funds.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chairs the state Judicial Council and heads the Administrative Office of the Courts, has publicly complained that the legislation violates judicial independence, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has declared that the bill will be held in his house without a vote.
Steinberg, however, is under pressure from the SEIU, which represents court employees facing layoffs and is a major source of campaign money for Democrats. Wednesday’s action makes the computer system financing a potential bargaining chip in the inter-Capitol maneuvering over the legislation.
The subcommittee’s action came after the Legislature’s budget analyst and the state auditor delivered reports that strengthened the critics’ positions.
So far, legislators were told, the Administrative Office of the Courts has spent $556.5 million on the system but it’s been deployed in only a few counties. Even so, Auditor Elaine Howle pointed out, the AOC certified that the system is complete, thereby triggering a limited warranty period from the contractor that could leave the state holding the financial bag if problems crop up later.
Judges themselves are divided over the efficacy of the system, some professing that it lightens their workloads, while others saying it is unusable. In recent weeks, the chief justice and her allies have backed off their previous intent to install it in every county and indicated that they’d give local judges more leeway.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/california-assembly-subcommittee-blocks-expansion-of-court-computer-system.html
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
March 14, 2012
Ha! I have a wooden stake! At least cutting off the program sends a message of legislative priorities of keeping courthouses open over the V4 vaporware.
Tani, where I come from, they call that checks and balances.
Welcome to America.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
I have a wooden stake too.
=)
Silent Observer
March 15, 2012
Just in case, I’m going to use a silver bullet.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
Perhaps now the legislature will finally follow through and kill CCMS.
Hopefully they will remember this as stated so well by Judge David Lampe: ““Courts are not computers or buildings. Courts are sessions of people — where children in foster care have their fates decided, where crime victims and injured persons, and those accused of crime or causing injury have their day in court. Access requires open doors.”
JusticeCalifornia
March 14, 2012
Steinberg has painted himself into an uncomfortable corner with his defiant promise to block AB 1208. Basing decisions that impact the entire legislature, thousands of judges, tens of thousands of court employees, and all court users on his law school friendship with a gambling barmaid has undermined his credibility and called his professional judgment into serious question. Like I said, it is going to be interesting to watch her take him down. The SacBee article shows that it won’t take long. . . .
Meanwhile, speaking of credibility, the gambling barmaid, her thugs and PR machine should be very aware that top leadership is getting the hairy eyeball from pretty much everyone at this point. Top leadership is so used to playing fast and loose with the truth, and bullying people, and getting away with it, that they have been very, very sloppy. Their PR doesn’t match their own research and documents and publications and statements, and a lot of people are more than willing to publicly call out top leadership’s patent lies and misrepresentations. The sad thing is that top leadership’s obfuscation, cronyism and outrageously expensive sideshows have a) completely undermined the trust and confidence in the courts; b) diverted the branch away its primary purpose of providing access to justice; and c) harmed millions of California residents.
Hurray for checks and balances.
Delilah
March 14, 2012
Will any of this somehow translate into NO MORE LAYOFFS OF COURT WORKERS? That is the immediate question in my mind. The money-sucking vortex of CCMS has been the long-term and ongoing damage. The layoff of experienced Commissioners/Referees, clerks and court reporters is the current, future, and ongoing damage. Also, I have a question. If you are laying off line-staff left and right, why are there no commensurate layoffs in HR, Finance, Payroll, IT departments, etc.? Presumably, when a court’s workforce is diminished by layoffs, a court would not require the same number of other-department personnel to oversee a smaller workforce. And god forbid any court should lay off a few research attys with a combined total of 5 years of service amongst them — (and a judge may have to do a bit of his/her own research :-O ) — when courts are laying off line staff who actually interact with the public, and who, individually, may have over five, 10, or 15+ years of service behind them.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/ (Scroll down to “California lawmakers call for halt to court computer project.”
And:
Legislature Puts Court Bureaucracy On NoticeOver IT Mis-Spending
Sacramento, CA – The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, released a statement from Jim Partridge, a San Diego County court reporter, on the Assembly Budget Subcommittee’s decision to halt funding for the California Courts Management System (CCMS) project:
“It is refreshing to see California’s Legislature injecting some common sense into the debate over the CCMS with their decision to halt further funding on this misguided project.
“Today, the Legislature reasserted its constitutional authority – and responsibility — to hold the Administrative Office of the Courts accountable for taxpayer dollars.
“Court workers have taken the lead in shining the light on wasteful spending because every dollar directed to this misguided project is a dollar taken away from serving justice in our communities.
“As a court worker, I see the result of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ misguided priorities: backlogs in serving families looking for justice, doors of our courts closed to businesses seeking to resolve disputes.
“As the budget process continues, we are hopeful the Legislature continues to make justice the highest priority for our courts.”
JusticeCalifornia
March 14, 2012
I totally agree.
The basics: An open courthouse, a good judge, court clerk, and court reporter.
And as Tani looks herself in the mirror, and asks what she can do to fix this terrible mess in which she finds herself and the branch, here is the answer:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/chief-justice-asks-for-resignations-of-aoc-directors-and-council-members/
unionman575
March 14, 2012
If it were up to me I would burn my local trial court management at the stake AND keep the workers working serving the public.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
The end is near for CCMS.
NOW we have to pry that cash from the AOC and get it to us in the trial courts NOW before many more are croaked in mass layoffs. Keep up the good work everyone!
Lando
March 14, 2012
Huge developments in Sacramento today as the Assembly committee wisely voted to end CCMS funding reportedly cutting off chief CCMS cheerleader J Bruiners in mid sentence. It would appear that J Bruiners who actively lobbied against the CCMS audit has run out of road in Sacramento. Perhaps this stunning turn of events has something to do with the CJ’s arrogance , calling out Assembly members after the 1208 vote and by her refusing to meet with the Speaker and Assembyperson Calderon who extended an olive branch on 1208. Honestly tomorrow will be a bad day in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate, as the crystal palace keeps shattering . Maybe the CJ should do the right thing and simply resign and allow a less arrogant and competent manager restore trust and credibility to our branch.
Wendy Darling
March 14, 2012
Published late today, Wednesday, March 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Assembly Committee Votes to Pull Plug on Expensive Court IT Project
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A California Assembly committee voted unanimously Wednesday to suspend a costly and controversial statewide IT project for California’s courts after the state Auditor revealed serious concerns about the project’s future.
“Basically, using the parent language, we’re taking a little time out here,” said Assembly member Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), chair of the budget sub-committee on public safety.
Presiding judges from trial courts around California also sent a letter to the chief justice Wednesday, urging the leader of the courts to stop spending any more money on the IT system and send that money instead to struggling local courts that are laying off staff and closing courtrooms.
The committee vote came after state Auditor Elaine Howle presented a report revealing that the court bureaucracy in charge of the project had not fully implemented the recommendations made by her office a year ago, failing to give rigorous oversight to the project and the huge sums it is costing.
“The project is a good example of how not to develop an IT project,” remarked Assembly member Joan Buchanan (D-Contra Costa).
The committee’s vote may be the end of the line for an enormous and often loathed project, caricatured as a sinking Titanic and variously called “misbegotten,” a “boondoggle” and a “fiasco.”
The central court bureaucracy that has ballooned in size and in consumption of public funds, as a result of legislation 15 years ago, has been been pummeled by legislators and trial judges over the ambitious project that has already cost a half-billion dollars and is budgeted to cost another quarter-billion in the next couple years.
The Court Case Management System was intended to unify information from all 58 county trial courts in California. But a blistering report by the state Auditor last year revealed poor management by the bureaucrats, cost overruns, and no financial analysis of the project prior to its auspicious inception in 2003.
The auditor’s report also found that many courts did not want the system, and the Administrative Office of the Courts had failed to report the true cost of the project to the Legislature.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the state auditor said the administrative office has taken steps to meet her recommendations, but those efforts fall short.
“Although we’re beyond the one year date, many have not been fully implemented,” Auditor Howle told the Assembly committee. “There’s a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding the cost of deploying the system and whether or not they really have addressed the concerns we have. We have a lot of outstanding issues.”
The auditor’s technology expert, Payson Hall, testified that while the administrative office had hired a vendor to confirm that the system worked, “The caution is it might be challenging to maintain. Have you ever made a hideous excel spreadsheet and not left breadcrumbs to let you know what you did? Imagine doing that with 6 million lines of code,” he told the legislators.
Recently the administrative office announced its intention to install the final version of the software, CCMS V4, in ten California trial courts. A feasibility study is to be unveiled later this month before the Judicial Council headed by the Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
However, Wednesday’s vote urging “a time out” leaves little room for interpretation concerning the Legislature’s wishes.
The motion to suspend the project was made by Assembly member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the lower house’s judiciary committee and is normally a reliable vote in support of positions taken by the court administrative office.
“The final action of the Legislature is not before us today. It’s a committee action,” said Feuer. “The motion is that CCMS be suspended, except for the seven counties in which CCMS is currently operating, pending further legislative action.”
Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) criticized the administrative office for a slow pace of reform. “I was disturbed to hear that in some areas there hasn’t been progress where there should have been a lot more made in the last year,” he said, noting a particular concern about a limited warranty from Deloitte Consulting, the system’s builder.
“A year later, there could have been a decision made by now,” he added. “Why haven’t they come to agreement to address that very serious problem which is only making the project more expensive? The AOC needs to do a much better job reporting back to the Legislature all the necessary steps it’s taken to address the concerns of the state auditor.”
Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara testified that the Judicial Council will be voting on a number of options at a meeting on March 27th, one of which is suspending the project. But, Herman testified, maintaining the status quo would also be expensive.
“It’s not a laptop computer that you can just shut down,” he told the legislators.
The committee’s vote should not affect the handful of courts that are using early versions of the CCMS software. The system shuts down occasionally and has problems that require continuing work by programmers. Those courts would be left in the lurch if no funds could be used for fixes.
Buchanan, the Assembly member from Contra Costa, said some courts have no choice. She pointed to San Joaquin Superior Court, which uses an early version of the controversial software for some departments.
“If they did not have CCMS, they would have no system in place,” Buchanan argued.
“I don’t think we should go out and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars implementing when we need to keep courts open,” she added in reference to the extensive cost of trying to put the huge program into the courts. “But we have to think about courts like the one in San Joaquin County.”
That line of argument was contradicted by a court clerk in San Joaquin County Superior Court who attended the hearing.
In an interview afterwards, clerk Monica Jones said legislator Buchanan is mistaken when she says the San Joaquin court has no alternative system.
“I perked up when she said that,” Jones commented. She said her job as a “front-line person with CCMS” has given her a great deal of experience on “the problems it poses.”
As with many courts, an old system is still in place in San Joaquin Superior.
It still works, said Jones, and the staff thinks it is much better than the software sent down from the administrative office. That old IT system is called Show Me, said Jones, and is used in the court’s family law, juvenile dependency and elderly dependency departments.
“That system is still in place,” Jones said. “I would like Buchanan to be aware that we do have it. If she could find the time and come over to our family law courthouse, she can see how it functions.”
In contrast to that old system, she said, CCMS is sluggish and has done nothing but create more work for the clerks. “The work load has doubled,” said Jones. “What would take ten minutes has now tripled to 30 or 40 minutes to open one case. It now takes five to ten minutes just to input one document into CCMS.”
That assessment dovetails with statements from judges who have said, in surveys taken over the past year, that the cumbersome data entry requirements of CCMS actually increase labor costs and take a great deal of extra staff time.
In anticipation of Wednesday’s hearing, a letter was sent to the chief justice Wednesday morning, signed by presiding judges from nine trial courts of California — ranging from tiny Trinity in the far north to monsters Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside in the south.
The letter urged the chief justice to stop spending any more money on the IT project and in particular the “finished” version of the software, V4, that is supposed to allow filing of documents through the internet. No court in the state has adopted it and a group of big courts have specifically rejected it.
“It is our firm position that we can no longer support further development or deployment of CCMS V4. If statewide deployment of CCMS V4 was ever an attainable goal, that time has passed as the state’s budget crisis has grown and endured,” wrote presiding judges from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Riverside, Orange, Kern, Mariposa, Trinity and San Mateo.
“We urge you to vote to immediately cease funding CCMS V4,” the letter added, saying that money should instead go to the trial courts.
“Now is the time,” said the judges, “to honestly identify those programs that are truly essential to our justice system, to abandon outmoded priorities, and to move forward with a realistic vision of the Judicial Branch in these economic times. Now is the time to stop CCMS V4 and to redirect all funding to the trial courts.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/14/44708.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
It’s going to be a very interesting dog and pony show at the 3-27-12 JC “special” technology meeting. I can’t wait to see the idiots all dance on 3-27-12.
unionman575
March 14, 2012
Let’s finish this job. We can all do it together, JCW, the ACJ and all of us as concerned citizens of California.
wearyant
March 15, 2012
Will the arrogant AOC pay any attention to the suspension of CCMS called for by the subcommittee? Or will 250,000 dollars a day continue to be funneled in to that disaster of an IT project? Here’s hoping that the trial courts and their line workers who are in the trenches benefit immediately from this decision by the assembly!
Recall Tani!
unionman575
March 15, 2012
Yes, recall Tani!
unionman575
March 15, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Thanks JCW!
CourtObserver
March 15, 2012
But will any of this really help court employees? The lawyers tell me this won’t likely make any difference unless the Senate agrees and the two houses jointly take some action. Something needs to happen before any more staff are laid off.
JusticeCalifornia
March 15, 2012
Steinberg should be targeted for protests and a letter writing/call campaign, as he is the one who is blocking consideration of AB 1208. Same goes for Noreen Evans.
And calls should be made to ALL Senate judiciary committee members.
Individuals can call or write their elected representatives and ask them to object to Steinberg’s actions, support AB 1208, and support the removal and/or limitation of power of Cantil-Sakauye in any way they can.
A protest during Tani’s State of the Judiciary address would be PHENOMENAL, but a challenge to pull off on short notice. It is in four days.
From the CA Court’s website:
“Chief Justice of California Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye will deliver her first “State of the Judiciary” Address before a joint session of the California Legislature at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 19, 2012. The Address will be given in the Assembly Chamber of the State Capitol Building, Sacramento.”
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2012
Published today, Thursday, March 15, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Clerk’s Office to Cut Civil Phone Hours, as of Today
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The financially distressed Los Angeles Superior Court is cutting the telephone hours for all clerical units of the civil courts downtown, effective today.
Court employees were informed by e-mail yesterday afternoon that telephone service will be available to the public between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. only. Callers to those units outside those hours will receive a pre-recorded message and will not be able to leave a message, the e-mail said.
The court recently announced that it will lay off 300 employee and close more than 50 courtrooms in order to close its budget gap for the fiscal year beginning July 1. There were no layoffs during the current fiscal year, but the court has been downsizing in other areas to deal with what court leaders have said “may be our greatest challenge ever.”
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2012
This should sound disturbingly familiar. From Courthouse News Service, by Iulia Flip:
Info Technology Contractor Accused of ‘Largest Fraud Ever’ Against New York City
By IULIA FILIP
MANHATTAN (CN) – Science Applications International Corp., the lead contractor for New York City’s automated payroll system, will pay $500 million in restitution and penalties for “the single largest fraud ever perpetrated on the city of New York,” the U.S. attorney said.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Wednesday that SAIC defrauded the city into “significantly overpaying for the CityTime information technology project.”
The city will get more than $370 million in restitution and another $96 million in penalties; another $34 million will go to the Department of Justice.
“I can now report that, while the criminal case against eight individuals is still pending, we have now made good on our pledge to make the city whole,” Bharara said in prepared remarks about his deferred prosecution agreement with SAIC.
CityTime was an information technology project designed to modernize New York City’s timekeeping and payroll systems and prevent payroll waste, fraud and abuse. By 2011, the cost of the project had ballooned from $63 million to more than $700 million.
The program manager of CityTime and seven other people were accused of bilking the city of millions of dollars by hiring so-called “consultants” from whom they received kickbacks.
SAIC hired a “single source” subcontractor, Technodyne LLC, in 2003 to provide staffing for the project. According to charges filed by federal prosecutors, program manager Gerard Denault and other SAIC employees received millions of dollars in kickbacks from Technodyne for steering business to the company. SAIC had paid Technodyne nearly $325 million by 2011, according to an SAIC statement.
Technodyne’s two owners fled to India as the scandal unfolded.
In 2010, the U.S. Attorney’s Office began investigating SAIC’s failure to monitor CityTime and prevent fraud.
In the deferred prosecution agreement, “SAIC has agreed to pay more than $500 million in restitution and penalties, and to forgive more than $40 million in payments that the city would otherwise owe to SAIC arising out of the CityTime project,” Bharara said in his prepared remarks.
“This resolution is, as far as our office is aware, the largest by dollar amount arising out of any state or local government contract fraud in history. It is also a resolution that ensures, as promised, that every penny of fraud will be returned to the city.”
SAIC agreed to pay $500,392,977 to the government and to forgive $40 million in invoices for work on the CityTime project.
SAIC said it would cooperate with authorities in the pending criminal case and adopt
internal reforms against fraud.
SAIC also agreed to be subject to an independent monitor for the next 3 years.
The government will dismiss criminal charges against SAIC after 3 years if the company complies with all of the terms.
In the statement of responsibility filed with the Southern District, SAIC admitted that its “managerial failures” and its failure to investigate an ethics complaint in 2005 enabled its employees to defraud the city.
“SAIC accepts responsibility for the illegal conduct alleged against Denault and admitted by [Chief Systems Engineer Carl] Bell during the course of the CityTime project,” according to the statement. “The company acknowledges that the conduct and managerial failures described herein contributed to the ability of Denault and Bell to commit their alleged crimes against the city, and that the city was defrauded by SAIC as a result.”
SAIC admitted it failed to oversee Denault and other employees, to monitor their activities and control the costs of the project. And the company ignored an anonymous 2005 ethics complaint that alleged that Denault was taking kickbacks from Technodyne, and did not notify the city that the complaint had been made, according to the statement.
“SAIC’s failures resulted, in part, from an overemphasis on the financial and operational success of the CityTime project by those assigned to manage the project, at the expense of the company’s own ethics, human resources and procurement policies,” SAIC said. “In order to assure the success of the project, some managers supervising Denault and the project disregarded warning signs of possible corruption, and tolerated Denault’s improper handling and supervision of the CityTime contract and SAIC’s New York office. As a result, SAIC failed to take actions that might have detected, disrupted or curtailed the charged conspiracies, allowing the city to be victimized repeatedly and systematically for more than seven years.”
SAIC fired the managers who directly supervised Denault and the project, and agreed to revise its policies and procedures.
“In short, the investigation revealed that SAIC managers responsible for CityTime placed profit ahead of principle, time and again,” Bharara said. “That is why we insisted that the company pay from its own pocket every penny of the massive fraud perpetrated against the city. And that is why, by the close of business tomorrow, SAIC will make a total forfeiture payment of more than a half billion dollars – which includes a restitution amount of at least $370 million and a penalty of $130 million. Almost all of it will go to the City of New York.
“Half a billion dollars is a staggering sum, but it is a sum commensurate with the staggering scale of the crimes and misconduct we uncovered, and it is an amount that makes the city whole.
“It represents essentially all of the money overpaid by the city to SAIC plus a penalty; it leaves the city with a functional web-based timekeeping system; and it enables the city to achieve this outstanding result at a time of real need for the city, without having to incur further expense or delay in litigating this matter with SAIC or others involved in the fraud.”
By signing the deferred prosecution agreement, SAIC, one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, with 41,000 employees, managed to avoid losing billions of dollars in current and future government contracts.
According to the U.S. attorney, SAIC generates 93 percent of its business from government contracts.
Federal prosecutors also seized $52 million in assets from eight criminal defendants involved in the CityTime fraud. If the government wins the cases against them, the total recovery could approach $600 million, Bharara said.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
March 15, 2012
This should sound familiar too. It made the front page of the SF Chronicle today. Wonder why courthouse construction and the graft and mismanagement at the AOC never makes the front page or rarely even gets a mention in “mainstream” newspapers.
Buildings Go Up as Universities’ Budgets Go Down
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/15/MNVV1NJPN7.DTL
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2012
From Channel 10 news in San Diego:
“We are in agreement with implementing all of these recommendations,” said Soderlund.
Despite the assurances, the subcommittee voted to ground it for now.
“To use the parent language – we’re taking a little time out here,” said Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) who chairs the Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety. “It should not be considered more than that. You have opportunities to persuade us to go forward.”
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego) has been an outspoken critic of the AOC’s spending practices and applauded Wednesday’s action.
“For years we have seen mismanagement, incompetence and disregard for taxpayer funds from the AOC,” wrote Fletcher in a statement to 10News. “I commend the Assembly budget subcommittee for denying the Administrative Office of the Courts the ability to expand its court case management system.”
http://www.10news.com/news/30681536/detail.html
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 15, 2012
Folks, each and every one of you should be proud for the achievements that took place in Sacramento yesterday. Mr. Bruiniers is reportedly licking his wounds with a giant cocktail in Contra Costa County. None of us however, should get too cocky and think the battle is won.
This action by the Assembly Subcommittee is but the first step. I personally know that both members of the Legislature and their staff read JCW.
JCW, here is a tip of my cap and an offer of an adult beverage for the services that you provide to the citizens of California. Michael Paul, I am sorry for your personal sacrifice in this honorable cause. I understand sacrifice, having given my life for the formation of this Union. My reincarnation suffers as well.
Keep up the fight and keep posting information that you each glean from your respective sources. Together, we will get HRH-2 and those at the Crystal Palace to understand that they serve the Courts and the citizens of California, not the other way around.
Delilah
March 15, 2012
Nathaniel,
You just made me cry. In a good way. Thank you. I would be lost and bereft without JCW and everyone here. And I echo your sentiments to Michael Paul and JCW. So, thanks to you all, and long live the ACJ!
JusticeCalifornia
March 15, 2012
Yep, JCW, what a really, really amazing forum this is.
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2012
Thank you, General Woodhull, for your words of encouragement. They are needed in these dark days.
I, too, am thankful for Michael Paul and his personal sacrifice in this honorable cause. However, he is not the only AOC employee who has paid, and continues to pay, dearly and have lost everything they have worked for all of their lives because they spoke up and told the truth about the appalling misconduct, and in all probability illegal actions, taking place at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. The retaliation against them by the AOC, and sanctioned and protected by the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice is unspeakable. They, too, should be recognized and not be forgotten.
And as for Mike Feuer, his actions yesterday should be viewed in this light: after repeatedly supporting and advocating for the AOC and speaking against and voting against AB 1208 in the Assembly, Feuer announced his candidacy for city attorney. That would be Los Angeles city attorney, where, as we all know, the superior court is now bracing for massive layoffs and the closure of scores of courtrooms. Only now, with his political viability for city attorney at stake, does Feuer take any responsible action. What a hypocrite, fraud and coward.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 15, 2012
Feuer has been a long time piece of ****.
But he did the right thing, self serving or not yesterday.
Wendy Darling
March 15, 2012
Yes, Unionman, yesterday Feuer did do the right thing – finally, but for the wrong reasons. He should not be elected to the office of Los Angeles City Attorney.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 16, 2012
I agree his political career must end. Feuer should never hold another public office again.
JusticeCalifornia
March 15, 2012
Can I just say that I have the utmost respect for the ACJ members who have publicly refused to accept the status quo. They have remained elegant, eloquent, professional, factual, and calm, while moving forward, step by step, to overcome the formerly insurmountable.
Let’s just all pause and imagine the crash and burn if multibillion dollar CCMS and those fancy $24 million dollar one-courtroom courthouses were going up full speed ahead, without a whimper from the branch. . . .
unionman575
March 15, 2012
Agreed!
unionman575
March 15, 2012
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I CE CCMS 3-14-12
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/crimjust/2012/California_case_management_system_03_14_12.pdf
unionman575
March 15, 2012
Next stop recall row for Tani.
And a good thorough housecleaning of the AOC executive management “team”. They all must go out the door NOW.