ABC News – California Pulls the plug on multi-billion dollar computer system.
Judicial Council Watcher wishes to extend a warm thank you to the many people who’ve worked to expose CCMS’s three to five billion dollar court records racket that the Judicial Council and the AOC sought to establish. Every man, woman and child across this state has contributed 15.00 apiece towards this project and the latest projections had every man, woman and child in the state paying ten times that amount for this boondoggle.
Understand that this battle is far from over
A year ago we heard a certain chief justice indicate that she couldn’t think of a better investment. Back then we suggested she step away from the crack pipe. We’re also getting wind that the change of heart might not be all that altruistic after all – but the subject of people investigating with more people demanding a wider investigation.
As Judge Rosenberg found out, as Justice California has learned, as technology experts and evangelists across the state have been saying for some time, off the shelf solutions that are far less expensive then our so-called leadership can deliver are being delivered to courts across this country every month.
Here’s a few images of the hard working people of San Francisco Superior Court and SEIU 1021 who are helping to bring an end to this monster with more pics to come.
Here’s a previous SEIU 1021 video.
________________
PCWorld Australia
California scraps massive courts software project
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION COMMENTS REGARDING CCMS
Today, at a meeting of the Judicial Council discussing the future of the California Case Management System (CCMS) CJA President Judge David M. Rubin, speaking on behalf of the association, shared the following:
CJA’s first priority is to ensure the public full‑time access to our courts by keeping courtrooms open and adequately staffed. It is the only way to assure a vital and robust Judicial Branch. The budget forecast this year is bleak, and even that may turn out to be optimistic. Not only has our beleaguered branch suffered an unprecedented 650 million dollars in cuts, we face another possible 125 million dollar reduction later this year. While we have prepared for the worst, that may not be good enough.
CJA’s position with respect to CCMS deployment must take into account whether its deployment will adversely impact our branch priorities. Even understanding the front-loaded nature of the costs associated with V4 deployment to the first 11 courts, those costs appear staggering. Under these circumstances we at CJA do not believe the council can push on with CCMS as a branch‑wide technology solution and we back option 3
Option 3 – Terminate V4 as a statewide solution and leverage the developed technology and software to benefit ongoing judicial branch technology solutions. The cost estimate for Option 3 is $8.7 million through FY 2012–2013. Option 3 would end V4 as a statewide program for the California trial courts representing a major policy shift in Judicial Council technology direction and approach. While this option recognizes the fiscal environment that has dramatically limited the ability of the Judicial Council to maintain court operations for the public, it also recognizes and protects the significant investment of $333.3 million the judicial branch has made in the V3 and V4 software product it now owns. This option proposes to analyze and potentially leverage the technical infrastructure, application functionality, processes, and artifacts, ensuring the assets owned by the judicial branch will be used to meet ongoing need for technology solutions for the California trial courts.
With 2,500 members, CJA recognizes different courts have different needs when it comes to on‑going technology solutions, including those involving various versions and parts of CCMS. This Council needs to work with those courts, like San Luis Obispo and others, which now suffer from antiquated technology systems. And, this has to be achieved within the limits of our austere budget.
Judges understand that in what feels like a downsizing of the branch from budget cuts, technology helps us leverage our dwindling resources. We want to be as efficient as possible so that we can continue to answer the call of California’s citizens. Technology is one of the keys that will keep our courtrooms open and fully functioning.
There are many approaches out there that should be explored. CJA believes that even as the council considers these options we must continue looking forward. Part of looking to the future, is if economically feasible leverage the technology for use in local courts. This council may also wish to task its Presiding Judges Advisory committee working with a new technology, committee contemplated in option 3, with establishing a common set of case management system requirements, letting each court purchase the system it feels best fit its needs while adhering to a common convention, allowing for a future where our branch will have the enhanced communication between courts and to the public, currently envisioned. This is only one of several approaches that might be explored.
In the end, we need to make sure our courts have the technology necessary to be responsive to litigants in a mobile society. We must become more efficient and effective in the 21st century. The only acceptable means to accomplish this is one that is fiscally responsible and that does not sacrifice our mission to provide full and fair access to justice.
_______________________
Letter from Douglas Miller
Colleagues,
Today the Judicial Council met in a special, full-day session to review options for statewide court technology in the context of the state fiscal crisis and unprecedented budget reductions to the courts. We made the difficult decision to stop the deployment of the California Court Case Management System (CCMS).
An integrated, statewide case management system has been the vision of leaders in the courts and state government for more than a decade. The initial goal of replacing costly and sometimes failing local case management systems was expanded over the years to include services for many justice system partners and the public.
As development of the system reached its critical final phase, the state fiscal crisis and severe budget constraints delayed completion of the final product. In recent years, the council redirected more than $170 million from the project to ameliorate budget reductions to the courts. When the final product, CCMS V4, was delivered last November, the council initiated an independent review of the costs for deployment.
That analysis by Grant Thornton provided the factual basis for our discussion today. At an estimated cost of $343 million for deployment to 11 courts over the next 10 years, the state cannot afford to continue its investment in CCMS now, even if it is to achieve longer term efficiencies and cost benefits in the future. Instead, the Judicial Council directed that CCMS V4 be terminated, and that the software and technology be leveraged for data exchange, document management, e-filing, electronic access, and other critical needs. The many hours that hundreds of judges, court staff, and others have devoted to the development of CCMS will not be lost. Additionally, the council’s decision on CCMS will make $46.4 million available for other judicial branch priorities in fiscal year 2012–2013.
With respect to the interim CCMS products being used in seven trial courts, the council agreed to continue supporting the operation and maintenance of these products, and work to assist other courts with failing systems.
As significant as the decision is to end CCMS, in my view the more important decision coming out of the council meeting today is the council’s direction to develop a new branch technology vision and roadmap.
Over the next several months Judge James Herman, chair of the council’s CCMS Internal Committee, will be holding meetings and soliciting your ideas for bringing California’s courts into the digital age. I hope that supporters and critics of CCMS alike will contribute to creating a new plan for statewide court technology.
A news release on the meeting outcomes will be issued shortly, and you will receive a detailed meeting summary memo from the chairs of the council’s internal committees, but I wanted to share the news of this decision with you as early as possible. I welcome your comments and your participation as we look to the challenges ahead.
Douglas P. Miller
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
Chair, Executive & Planning Committee of the Judicial Council of California
Distributed via Email to:
Justices of the Supreme Court
Justices of the Courts of Appeal
Judges of the Superior Courts
Commissioners and Referees of the Superior Courts
Clerk of the Supreme Court
Clerk/Administrators of the Courts of Appeal
Court Executive Officers of the Superior Courts
cc: Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
Members of the Judicial Council
Chairs of the Judicial Council Advisory Committees
Ms. Jody Patel, Interim Administrative Director of the Courts
Mr. Curt Soderlund, Interim Chief Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts
AOC Regional Administrative Director and Division Directors
______________________
Letter from Dave Rosenberg
From: Rosenberg Dave [mailto:drosenberg@yolo.courts.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:50 AM
Colleagues,Here’s the weekly newsletter for PJ’s.
Case Management and the Courts. From the perspective of our Judicial Branch, the most significant event of the week was the Judicial Council’s consideration and action on CCMS. A full day – Tuesday – was devoted to a special meeting of the JC on CCMS and court technology. I attended this meeting as a non-voting advisory member of the JC. Speaking for PJs, I made my position known before and during the meeting: We must stop deployment of CCMS (V-4) as the sole statewide solution for the case management needs of trial courts, and we must allow trial courts to make their own case management and technology choices. I am pleased to say that the JC, in fact, took that very position. The JC also agreed to provide continued operation and maintenance support to seven trial courts which are using interim CCMS products (V-2 and V-3), and also to assist other courts with failing case management systems. In my mind, the JC has now removed the CCMS “monopoly” and has opened the doors and windows of competition allowing trial courts to choose the case management system that best suits the needs of each trial court – whether that be an existing product or components of CCMS. Personally, I believe that this competition among case management systems will not only provide a less expensive product, but will allow each trial court to tailor a system that best meets its needs. It is also my hope that trial courts and other Branch leaders can come together in the next few months (1) to develop minimum standards for case management systems, and (2) to develop a new Branch technology vision going forward. But bottom line: the vision of CCMS as the sole source for court case management in the future – is no longer the current vision.
Ethics Training and Compliance Forms. This is just an early reminder that judicial officers enrolled in the Commission on Judicial Performance insurance program must complete ethics training (three-hour mandatory core course plus two hours of electives) by December 31, 2012, and must submit a compliance form by January 31, 2013. Of the 2225 justices, judges, and subordinate judicial officers enrolled, there are approximately 1400 who have not yet submitted their compliance forms. (Note: If you took the bench after January 1, 2010, you satisfied (or will satisfy) your ethics training requirement by attending New Judge Orientation or the B. E. Witkin Judicial College.)
Once you have completed your ethics training, you can download a compliance form at: http://serranus.courtinfo.ca.gov/education/documents/compliance_form2011.pdf and submit it. If you have not yet completed the training, a list of upcoming core courses and information about electives are available on the AOC Education Division website at http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/cjer/ethics/ethics_calendar.htm. You can also find a Frequently Asked Questions about the insurance policy and training and reporting requirements at http://serranus.courtinfo.ca.gov/education/documents/ethics_faq2011.pdf. Judicial Branch Funds. For your background, I have attached a Power Point presentation that was given to the Judicial Council on the “status of judicial branch funds” that you may find informative. On May 31 we will have an all-day meeting open to all PJs with a focus on the Branch budget. More information on this meeting will follow in the coming weeks.
Cordially,
Dave Rosenberg
Chair, TCPJAC
Wendy Darling
March 28, 2012
“The Alliance of California Judges wants an investigation into the project to see if the public is entitled to any of the $500 million that was spent on the computer system. They also want an investigation to see if anyone is criminally liable.”
“If?”
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 29, 2012
For all those who read the JCW, you should each take a moment to reflect upon the momentous event that took place this week. Some years ago, HRH-1 said that those of us who dared to oppose him on certain issues would be issuing a “declaration of war”. Some years ago, HRH-1 described us as mere “ants on a trail” that he would not deem worthy of listening to, or meeting with to discuss our views. When the JCW first posted our dissent to CCMS and many of the other abuses taking place within the walls of the Crystal Palace, we were described as being “shrill” and “uninformed”. Many of us have seen the careers of highly qualified individuals stymied or people even fired due to their willingness to do what was right and speak out against the abuses taking place within the AOC or Judicial Council. The juggernaut at 455 Golden Gate Avenue seemed at times to be “unstoppable”.
The JCW and those active members of the Alliance have demonstrated that individuals are still important. Bill Vickrey, Ron Overholt and HRH-2 have learned that the power of individuals is still important. They were beyond flummoxed when AB1208 passed the Assembly. They were dumbfounded when the State Auditor and members of the Legislature listened to, and agreed with us, when it came to the folly of CCMS.
Despite the self aggrandizement that took place on Tuesday at the Judicial Council meeting, it was evident that our actions have had a significant impact on the members of the Judicial Council and the powers attempting to maintain the “status quo” within the AOC. Whatever was said within the distortion field that took place within the Judicial Council board room, the end result was that the good guys and girls won.
Each of us must remember that this was but one battle, a mere skirmish in the overall “war” that is taking place. Nothing short of democratization of the Judicial Council can be viewed as a complete victory. Hopefully, HRH-2 will chose to “retire” soon so that she may go back to buying hair conditioner for her daughters. Whenever that takes place, it is hoped that the Governor will appoint someone as Chief Justice with the organizational and management skills worthy of that office. Any worthy Chief Justice would understand that their role is not to achieve self aggrandizement, but rather to serve for the greater good of the California trial courts. They must restore the traditional and designed role for the AOC, that is that they exist to serve the trial courts, not micromanage the trial courts. The California Constitution charges the Judicial Council with recommending policies to the trial courts, not “making policy” for the trial courts.
When absolutely necessary, it is fine to have “standardization” of certain court rules, policies and procedures. That does not mean that there is a need for one-size-fits-all policies across the board. In each of the 58 counties, judges stand for election by their local constituents. There are unique local cultures in many of these counties. There have been many highly unique and effective programs, policies and strategies adopted and enacted in various counties that work and work well. In other words, before the “new age” and the House That Ron Built came along, things were actually working pretty well in most counties. Having traveled throughout the State of California, I am not aware of any “fiefdoms” that were in place before State Trial Court Funding was enacted. Yes, some of the smaller rural counties had financial difficulties at times during the year. The base concept and idea of creating a “stable funding source” for the trial courts was laudable when it was designed in concept, but it was not designed to be the power grab attempted by HRH-1 and Bill Vickrey. Vickrey used the passage of the Lockyer-Isenberg legislation as the “green light” to attempt to design a statewide bureaucracy much like the one he put into place in Utah before he came here in 1992. Remember that Vickrey had ascended from his role as a probation officer to CEO of the Utah courts in a matter of a few short years and that the Utah courts at the time had less than 100 judges for the entire state, including appellate justices.
The key to success my friends is to educate people and do what we can to make them care about these issues. Apathy is one of our biggest opponents. We will only attain our goal of democratization of the courts through our eternal vigilance, hard work and personal sacrifices. The same was true of those who founded our great Nation over 200 years ago.
Take a moment to applaud your efforts… then get back to work!
Tonysthebest
March 29, 2012
“….buy hair conditioner for her daughters.” This blog is very insightful.
Tonysthebest
March 29, 2012
“…buying hair conditioner for her daughters.” Want to be accurate. The year is 2012, right?
Silent Observer
March 29, 2012
The comment referred to the Tani’s statements when she was first nominated to become Chief Justice. Those are her words, not Nathaniel’s…
Tonysthebest
March 29, 2012
Interesting he remembered those words and used them to describe what she should be doing. Just sayin’. hmmmm.
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
Thank you, silent observer.
After observing Cantil Sakauye in action for the last 18 months, in my personal opinion as a mother and a legal professional, Cantil Sakauye would be doing the branch and her gender an immense favor if she stayed home and bought hair conditioner for her daughters, instead of throwing hissy fits, making her (hopefully short) stint as chief justice all about her, exploiting her gender and ethnicity, insulting the legislature, hiding behind Darrell Steinberg to block positive change in the branch, taking advice from fawning, ethically compromised sycophants who have thrown the public under the bus (mirror, mirror on the wall, I don’t care who you are as long as you tell me I am the fairest of them all), trying to pretend she has the street cred and power to tell 2,000 judges what to do, and last but certainly not least, doing all of the above while playing poker with branch money. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or gambling barmaid to know Cantil Sakauye is not holding a winning hand.
Wendy Darling
March 29, 2012
Justice California: Very well said. And you’re right, it’s not rocket science. Heck, it’s not even beginning algebra.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest1thymeonly
March 29, 2012
I agree with Tonysthebest. I observe this blog and that comment made me gasp. Caused me to post to this blog for the first and most likely the last time. Does not leave a good impression at all. I guess there is a certain type that likes to play here. Like or dislike me. It will prove my point.
____________________________________________________________
Yen Interactive Moderator:
JCW’s privacy policy does not protect those who utilize multiple profiles that all attempt to discourage others from reading with the occasional drive-by post. You now have six profiles which demonstrates our commitment to your privacy and your free speech. Please don’t abuse them.
Tonysthebest
March 29, 2012
“… Cantil Sakauye would be doing the branch and her gender an immense favor” Doing her gender a favor? Oh my, oh my, you guys are amazing. Just keep talking. This blog is getting very interesting. Some of my fellow jurists are finding this interesting.
__________________________________________________
Yen Interactive Moderator:
JCW’s privacy policy does not protect those who utilize multiple profiles that all attempt to discourage others from reading with the occasional drive-by post. You now have six profiles which demonstrates our commitment to your privacy and your free speech. Please don’t abuse them.
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
Spare me the theatrics.
Cantil Sakauye and her new BFFs have thrown her support base under the bus.
Ask me for an example.
anonymous
March 29, 2012
One would think the opposition would be able to conjure up a real argument instead of a duplicate profile.
Some women make such a big deal about references to who they are that men are beginning to treat women as asexual just to be safe with predictable dating consequences.
versal-versal
March 29, 2012
Did a Judge Yew who I have never heard of before but is apparently a member of the JC really say we all deserve to pat ourselves on the back for CCMS ? Could anyone be so out of touch with reality? Thanks to CCMS, countless hardworking court employees lost their jobs or will do so. Services to the public the trial courts once delivered have been radically cut back. Half a billion dollars of taxpayers hard earned money was totally wasted on an illusion of a computer system that now may end up in a handful of courts. So we are patting ourselves on the back for all that? These comments show how and why the JC needs to be revamped and democratized and the Chief Justice recalled.
Guest
March 29, 2012
Judge Yew is listening to her CEO instead of other judges who have been around and are not suck ups to the AOC.
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-santaclara.htm
Maybe getting a new $242 million courthouse for Santa Clara also has something to do with Yew’s enthusiasm and support for “top leadership”.
anna
March 29, 2012
Not only is the dim wit a member of the JC, she replaced Judge Feinstein on the CJP. Hellooooo…….. She the latest suck-up and “enforcer” for the CJ and the JC.
anna
March 29, 2012
Should read “She’s the latest suck-up….. sorry for the typo’s
katy
March 29, 2012
Yew is the new vice-chair of the CJP.
HON. ERICA R. YEW, Vice-Chairperson, was appointed to the Commission as a superior court judicial member by the Supreme Court December 8, 2010, to the remainder of an unexpired term, ending February 28, 2011, and to a new four-year term beginning March 1, 2011 and ending February 28, 2015. Judge Yew was elected Vice-Chair of the Commission in March 2012. Judge Yew sits on the Santa Clara County Superior Court, to which she was appointed in October 2001. She is a member of the Judicial Council and a former member of the California State Bar Board of Governors. She served on the Judicial Council Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants. She has worked on and led a number of projects to increase diversity in the legal profession. Among her judicial assignments, Judge Yew has presided over a dependency drug treatment court and speaks on the topic of problem-solving courts. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Yew was a civil litigator and graduated from Hastings College of the Law and with honors from the University of California, Berkeley.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
Erudite with no common sense.
Lando
March 29, 2012
Woodhull that is about the most cogent and compelling analysis of where all went wrong. The state constitution gives the JC/AOC absolutely no power to take all the trial court’s money and then dictate to them how and where it can be spent. In a similar manner , the JC/AOC has absolutely no constitutional power to micromanage the court computer budget for all the courts. CCMS represents all that is wrong with an insular and anti democratic policy making system that HRH 1 and his loyal minion Vickrey created and which her Honor continues as CJ. The result, the total waste of a half billion dollars of taxpayer money on a failed and non- working case management computer system. In the end it is the arrogance of power that defines the unelected JC. The CJ contends and claims she has transformed the JC into a new and open place. One only needs to review the demeaning comments her appointee J Hull made at the conclusion of yesterdays CCMS hearings to understand nothing has changed. J Hull is indeed a worthy successor to the insider he replaced J Huffman. You can’t make this level of arrogance up. Really. The JC needs to be democratized and the CJ needs to be recalled.
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
One need only listen to how panicked the cj became when she heard Judge Rosenberg’s motion, and how quickly the jc cut off debate on that motion, to understand that the jc meetings are still choreographed and cantil-sakauye will not tolerate dissension. Also, she tried to fold his points (such as that judges should be able to pick their own IT systems– which was echoed by the CJA and others by the way) into option 3, unofficially. She did not want that in the official language.
The cj/jc/aoc want control of the entire branch. Absolute control. Period. To this end they are far more interested in what lawyer-jc members (who have an obvious personal interest in parroting the party line) have to say, and what the bought and paid for Kim Turners of the branch have to say, than what independent-minded judges and trial courts, or the CJA, or the ACJ, or trial court personnel, or concerned members of the legislature, or members of the public, have to say.
And that is why the Judicial Council must be democratized, AB 1208 must be passed, and a comprehensive Trial Court Bill of Rights with teeth must be enacted.
Little Help Needed
March 29, 2012
Justice Cal, please try to read a summarize for us today’s (3/29)Daily Journal article “Future of Court Case Management Uncertain.” They do not allow their articles to be reprinted here or elsewhere for that matter, but it is very instructive. There are still factions on the Council who see the motion at the meeting as leaving CCMS alive. The bar member, for example, bigbux lawyer and council member Edith Matthai. See her comments in today’s DJ. Contrast them with Rosenberg–he still can’t seem to believe that he has been kicked to the curb after being front-and-center for months.
This CCMS is indeed a zombie. It hasn’t been dead three days and it is beginning to stir again. I’d welcome your take on the article, Justice Cal.
anna
March 29, 2012
Hear! Hear!
unionman575
March 29, 2012
It’s time for a recall Tani!
1.2 milllion signatures puts you on the ballot.
It’s time for real change going TOP down babe.
Delilah
March 29, 2012
Thank you to everyone here, to JCW, to the ACJ, SEIU, and all of our true “justice partners.” Yes, our work is far from over, and we will keep our eyes on the prize. But it is nice to take this moment to pat ourselves on the back before we pick up our clipboards and carry on the battle.
CA Scraps Multi-Billion Dollar Computer Project
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8598089
One Who Knows
March 29, 2012
Former Assembly Member Hector de la Torre also deserves some recognition. He was one of the first legislators who was willing to step forward and to really delve into the business practices of the AOC. He used to chair the Assembly Accountability and Review Committee. He held the first hearings that began to open the can of worms known as CCMS. Those hearings began to bring awareness to the Legislature more broadly and did help pave the way the Joint Legislative Audit Commitee request for the audit of CCMS. So bravo to Hector De la Torre!
Guest
March 29, 2012
Yes we have improved since cj George. Vickrey, Overholt and some of their friends are gone. But we still have Turner, Torre, Roddy, Yamasaki and Nash. These are the trusted soldiers of the new cj and the old AOC. We need to still realize that these are the suck ups to the old guard and are still in control. We need true leaders in the branch and that won’t happen as long as the above mentioned are in power.
anna
March 29, 2012
Don’t forget, Huffman, McConnell, Horn, and [newly added Yew]!!!!!!!
wearyant
March 29, 2012
General Woodhull, thanks for taking the time to post such an excellent wrap-up to the latest cj/jc/aoc saga. It’s much appreciated.
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
Here are Judicial Councilmember Santa Clara Judge Yew’s comments about CCMS, right before the vote to terminate the $500 million boondoggle that has robbed the trial courts and padded the pockets of Deloitte:
“We are here really at the benefit of many, many peoples’ work, their time, their energy, their hopes, their dreams,” she said. “Whatever we do today, I hope we don’t lose sight of the contributions that we will benefit from in our future, then we can take a moment to think all that we’ve done collectively because I think we deserve to pat ourselves on the back.”
You know, I am really thinking about Judge Yew’s comments and about all the concern judicial council members have voiced about the public, attorneys, justice partners, family court litigants, domestic violence victims, and courts not having the benefit of modern CMS systems with e-filing capability– and also their recognition about all the courts being closed and court employees being laid off.
How many times have we heard: “charity begins at home”? I think Judge Yew should step up and lead the charge in putting “Santa Clara” money where her Santa Clara mouth is.
The $242 million slated funding for the Santa Clara County courthouse alone would likely fund outfitting the entire branch with a solid off-the-shelf CMS with e-filing capabilities, and leave plenty (at least $100-plus million?) left over to divert to trial courts to keep valued employees. (even if you figure $1 million a court for an OTS system–that’s $58 million– double that and it’s $116 million–adjust for bigger and smaller courts–etc.)
Yes, I like this idea very much. The cj and lawyers and justice partners and council members etc. who have been lobbying for a modern case management system will get what they want, the family court litigants and domestic violence victims Tani and co. keep saying are at risk will get protection the judicial council promises a decent CMS will provide, the trial courts who need/want a modern CMS system will get what they need/want, and the trial courts will get some much needed relief so they can keep their employees, and keep the doors open. If Judge Yew offered up the funding for the new Santa Clara Courthouse to solve the problems of so many throughout the state, she could really pat herself on the back. In fact, that would be award-worthy. Yes, in these troubling times, council members should figure out how to give back to those from whom they have taken so much.
Jon Wintermeyer
March 29, 2012
Contra Costra County’s Superior Court with the current & retired CEO’s Torre (her & him) along with the most recent PJ’s, one of whom was Bruiniers (prior to his Justuce appointment by Chief Justice George), including Maddock, O’Malley and Becton-Smith were all cheerleaders for the CCMS program and this AOC wasteful use of Taxpayer monies for CA.
This during the time frame of the Contra Costa Court’s $64.5 million dollar new courthouse in Pittsburg, authorized by the CJ & AOC’s OCCM unit, that was completed in the fall of 2010.
Some of them were even part of that 2011 CCMS video done by the AOC & JC. They even managed to create some letters on their stationary and had some of their other bench officers added to the list, that was used to influence other courts.
Why wasn’t the CCMS working version ever being tried out in Contra Costa ? I remember their PJ O’Malley in the pro-CCMS video wanting to get it in their court two years ago, go back and check out that hollywood performance.
Maybe the Alliance could perform some investigation here ?
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2012
When you start looking at what the simple re-direction of funds for a SINGLE line item (say, a new $242 million Santa Clara courthouse) could do for the CA public, the CA branch, branch employees, and branch stakeholders, it is breathtaking.
It is a question of priorities.
unionman575
March 30, 2012
Yew can put her money where her motuh is.
Lando
March 30, 2012
Hasn’t Santa Clara County already had a couple of new courthouses built for them in the last few years.? How did this courthouse cut the line in terms of priority? Sorry to say but this is a JC/AOC division that likes to spend millions at the drop of the hat much like CCMS. Courthouses all over the country cost multiple millions less than here. The more important point is why are we even building these edifices when we are laying off thousands of employees and closing court at 2:30 pm ? More reasons to democratize the JC and recall the CJ .
Judicial Council Watcher
March 30, 2012
How did this courthouse cut the line in terms of priority?
Now you know how the AOC garners support for themselves and their mission. They bribe you with courthouses. Bigger suck-ups are invited to the front of the courthouse line. ( Evidence:Contra Costa’s ECCC, San Diego & now Santa Clara)
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 30, 2012
That is exactly how the game is played within the walls of the Crystal Palace!
Additionally, people are also “rewarded” for accepting the vision of the Chief that when someone within the courts spends public money, they cannot view things from the perspective as if they were spending their own money. For example, if a person’s salary is $60,000 per year, and they have no additional assets, chances are they would not consider taking out a three-year loan to buy a $250,000 automobile. Members of the various Judicial Council subcommittees are indoctrinated to understand that such a purchase with public funds is perfectly acceptable. Once members have demonstrated that they have mastered this philosophy, they may then be considered for promotion to the big leagues, i.e. The Judicial Council.
People who have questioned irrational and excessive spending are notified that they are “naive” and either need to change their outlook or resign themselves to the fact that they will be playing in the minor leagues the rest of their careers.
Guest
March 30, 2012
Don’t forget that the post-Torre CEO in Santa Clara is David Yamasaki. He was the hand picked Roddy disciple to assure that court continued the AOC suck up. Yamasaki was rewarded with a JC appointment. Oh yeah and he was rewarded with the highest pay in the branch which is being funded off of the backs of the employees in Santa Clara. New judges like Yew don’t stand a chance when they have an AOC approved CEO giving them “facts”.
versal-versal
March 30, 2012
I listened to the entire CCMS dog and pony show the other day. I was shocked when J Rosenberg’s thoughtful proposal never was debated or even discussed before being voted down like 28-1. This is so typical of the JC . Please go back and look at the history of their votes on any major issue . You will see the same . And if you can find when the JC approved CCMS, more power to you. Equally troubling are the comments of JC insider J Hull who claimed anyone against CCMS was misinformed or lying for some other purpose. I’m sorry but I didn’t know that JC membership gives you the right to demean others, including legislators, judges and court employees . Just another compelling argument for why her honor needs to be recalled as J Hull was her appointee.
Guest
March 30, 2012
Love Judge Rubin’s letter. That must torque his CEO Roddy who was the spokesman for CCMS. He led the chorus on the need to stop the courts from using their own systems and forced courts to use CCMS. Now one of his judges is advising we go back to that model. Ouch!
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
The PR campaign against AB 1208 is ramping up. Published today, Friday, March 30, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of California. Apparently, they’re drinking the Kool-Aid over at the Civil Justice Association. Perhaps the ACJ will submit a rebuttal to The Recorder:
Viewpoint: Recent Legislation Will Only Clog Courts
Kim Stone
Watching Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye give her State of the Judiciary speech on March 19, two things were clear: 1) The judicial branch is in capable hands under her leadership, and 2) what she doesn’t need from the Legislature is to make her job even tougher than it already is.
All observers eagerly waited to see how the chief justice would address AB 1208, legislation that would decentralize the court system and undermine the authority of the state’s Judicial Council, which Cantil-Sakauye heads. While she avoided mentioning the bill, she outlined how the trial court unification that began just 15 years ago has resulted in a better court system that is easier for Californians to use than it used to be. Plaintiffs and defendants deserve certainty, uniformity and efficiency in dealing with the court system and court unification has helped with this in numerous ways including jury instructions, expedited jury trials and electronic discovery. AB 1208 threatens to move us in the opposite direction and factionalize our court system.
While court unification under the Judicial Council has not gone as smoothly as many would wish, and there have certainly been complications with the court construction program and California Case Management System, the chief justice, who has only been on the job 14 months, reminded us that she has taken a number of steps to ensure greater oversight and more effective governance.
Bottom line: AB 1208 is not needed and would be counterproductive.
Cantil-Sakauye’s speech also provided us with a stark reminder of where the court budget stands. While the judicial branch is supposed to be co-equal with the legislative and executive branches, the courts get only 2.4 percent of the state budget. The judicial branch has lost a quarter of its budget since the 2008 economic collapse and as the chief justice eloquently put it, “[T]he cruel irony is that the economic forces that have led to budget reductions to the courts are the same ones that drive more of our residents to court.”
We can’t look to the court system for more cuts. Californians need to be able to rely on a fully functioning court system to resolve their disputes in a timely manner. Fortunately, the budget proposed by Governor Jerry Brown in January does not include any more cuts to the courts, but that’s all dependent upon voters approving his tax initiative in November.
What makes it all the worse, as Cantil-Sakauye pointed out, is that while the courts deal with the devastating slashes to their budget, superior court filings topped 10 million for the second consecutive year, a 20 percent increase over the past decade.
So the Legislature needs to recognize that in addition to avoiding any more budget cuts to the courts, it also needs to squash any legislative proposals that will throw even more cases into court.
Once again unfortunately, we are seeing bills introduced this year that would create more unnecessary lawsuits that would clog our court system.
Here are a few examples:
AB 1627, authored by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, would prohibit cities and counties from issuing building permits until and unless the local building official determines that the building plans contain detailed standards that significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled by the occupants of those buildings (which is already addressed under current law). The bill would create many more opportunities for lawsuits to be filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, which would slow or stop building projects in addition to clogging the courts.
AB 1999, authored by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, would
add “familial status” to the list of protected classes who may sue employers for perceived discrimination. The bill is aimed at preventing discrimination against those who are caregivers for a family member, even though there are already extensive protections for caregivers under current law. Employment discrimination claims have been a favorite area of litigation for plaintiffs lawyers any time there is an adverse employment action, and a bill like this could create more abusive lawsuits that our courts have to deal with.
SB 982, authored by Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, would place new restrictions on corporations regarding political giving and would allow lawsuits by individual shareholders to enforce violations of those new restrictions for de minimis violations. Shareholder lawsuits against companies are already one of the favored types of class actions. There is no reason to create new avenues to sue in this arena.
SB 1528, authored by Senator Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would encourage more lawsuits by allowing plaintiffs to receive awards for medical damages above and beyond what was actually paid. This bill seeks to overturn well-established case law and the California Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, 11 C.D.O.S. 10525, held that a plaintiff may only collect the amount that was actually paid by insurers for medical treatment rather than the higher retail rate that medical providers could charge an uninsured patient for that treatment.
It is readily apparent that the judicial branch already has its hands full between addressing concerns about governance and trying to make do with the skimpy budget it has been given. The State of the Judiciary was a reminder that our chief justice is committed to overcoming these challenges and to making the judicial branch function better. Let us hope that the Legislature gives her the chance and remembers the difficult circumstances our courts already face as it works through the budget and legislation this year.
Kim Stone is president of the Civil Justice Association of California.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202547418367&Viewpoint_Recent_Legislation_Will_Only_Clog_Courts
wearyant
March 30, 2012
Kim Stone, you have been fed a line … please spend at least 15 minutes with ACJ.
anna
March 30, 2012
KIm Stone hasn’t been fed a line, she’s a whore and president an organization of Tort Reform [otherwise known as tort deform]. R. George loved these types, however, our legislature made it impossible for him to do away with punitive damages.
I’m not surprised by this. These tort deformers always come out of the woodwork at times like this.
Since when does the judicial counsel have “authority” over trial courts? This woman is a piece of sh)&.
Her only concern is no one should ever be sued.
anna
March 30, 2012
Should have said, “she doesn’t need to be fed a line, she was already in the tank”.
She wouldn’t spend 1 minute with the ACJ, let alone 15 min! She’s nothing but head of an organization that wants to do away with civil lawsuits period. She’s a front and lobbies on behalf of businesses to do away with any civil liability for anything.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/from-afghanistan-to-camarillo—-jeff-gorell-is-back-home-now.html
FYI, folks, young Gorell is back. He appeared to be a light in the valley of darkness with one of his bills, and the woosy shoplifter gutted it. Here’s hoping some reason may prevail and the bullies keep off him.
Welcome back, Jeff Gorell!
unionman575
March 30, 2012
Gorell is my rep in SAC.
=)
wearyant
March 30, 2012
http://community.onelegal.com/bid/80474/San-Diego-Bar-Association-Hosts-Brown-Bag-Luncheon-Regarding-eFiling
Whut!? You mean it doesn’t take a decade, millions of lines of code and millions of dollars??
Well, I’ll be damned!
Rock on, San Diego and Orange!!
CCMS does NOT work!
Recall Tani!
unionman575
March 30, 2012
Recall Tani!
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
Also published today, Friday, March 30, from The Recorder, by Cheryl Miller:
How the Branch Killed CCMS, and What It Means for Other Woes
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — In his final State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Ronald George told lawmakers in 2010 that, despite the cost-cutting decision to close courthouses once a month, the branch had to continue pumping money into the Court Case Management System.
Judges were raving about early versions of the software, he said. Curious federal Homeland Security officials were eying the project. And the private sector, he suggested, just might be willing to invest in the one-of-a-kind development.
CCMS and other branchwide endeavors “cannot be shelved when we encounter bad times,” he said. “The welfare and safety of Californians depend upon proper investment in the long-term future of our state.”
Two years later, CCMS sits on the scrap heap. George is long gone and now so is his vision of a statewide file-sharing network symbolic of a unified court system.
CCMS works, branch leaders insist, but the financing in today’s economy doesn’t. Federal law enforcement curiosity never translated into serious dollars. And despite a brief dalliance with tech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, private investment didn’t materialize.
The council’s March 27 decision — essentially, to stop digging the budget hole any deeper — really just buries one bone of contention. Relations with openly skeptical lawmakers and hostile court-employee unions remain at or near all-time lows. This year’s budget offers little hope of restored funding and the very real possibility that courts could lose another $125 million this fall. And critics of the branch’s current governing structure say the death of CCMS hasn’t changed their resolve.
“CCMS was a half-billion-dollar symptom of the problem,” said Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Steve White, an Alliance of California Judges director. “It wasn’t the problem itself.”
LESS ‘IRON FIST’
But the path to the March 27 vote offers some clues to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s approach to managing the branch and its troubles.
In the wake of George’s retirement and last year’s scathing state audit report on CCMS, a parade of high-ranking executives left the Administrative Office of the Courts. She replaced George’s long-time executive and planning committee chairman, Justice Richard Huffman, and appointed new judge-driven CCMS oversight panels. AOC administrative director William Vickrey retired, and his interim replacement, Ronald Overholt, announced plans to do the same.
“She’s cleaning house better than Don Corleone,” said one judge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
But despite a growing chorus of criticism of CCMS, the chief justice did not put a stop to the project. She continued to tout the system’s potential benefits, only later questioning whether the branch could truly afford it. And when the end was near, she waited for a final consultant’s report and consensus from the Judicial Council.
Under George’s regime, there was little doubt that the chief justice and his close cadre of allies were calling the shots. Debate and dissent at council meetings were rare.
In the spring of 2010, Sacramento County Superior Court judges grew weary of troubles with an early version of CCMS and announced plans to set up a locally controlled server. Huffman, the chair of the council’s executive and planning committee, shot a letter to court leaders, ordering them not to buy any equipment or hire staff for the new server until staff from the AOC could review the problems.
Less than two years later, there’s less iron fist. Two presiding judges openly refused to participate in a branch-financed study of how CCMS might be deployed in their courts. And recently, a group of 16 court executives and presiding and assistant presiding judges wrote a letter to Cantil-Sakauye, urging her to “stop CCMS.” Such open criticism would have been almost unimaginable during George’s tenure.
“The big, bold personalities of Bill Vickrey and Ron George are gone,” said the judge who requested anonymity. Now, he added, council members, presiding judges — particularly from large courts — and judges’ lobbies are maneuvering to fill the resulting power “vacuum.”
MORE DELIBERATION
Sources familiar with Judicial Council workings say in the days leading up to the March 27 CCMS vote, factions within and outside the council focused on two options: freezing the project for a year and then pursuing a multicourt installation — a proposal favored by Bar leaders — or scrapping the original plans altogether and salvaging developed parts.
Cantil-Sakauye was part of those discussions, two participants said, but didn’t attempt to push a particular outcome. When it became increasingly clear that the financial numbers wouldn’t work — and lawmakers weren’t going to rescue the project — some of the chief justice’s supporters thought she should and would take a pre-emptive stand before the meeting and recommend ending CCMS. She did not, choosing instead to wait for a consultant’s report that put the project’s poor fiscal condition in black and white before putting the question to the council.
The chief justice said little during the marathon council session deciding CCMS’s fate. After the unanimous vote, several council members spoke to reporters about the decision. The chief justice did not. A spokesman said she was too busy.
“What we do best in the judicial branch is to weigh the evidence and make reasoned and deliberate decisions,” Cantil-Sakauye said in a post-vote statement circulated by her press office. “The council’s decision to stop deployment of CCMS was responsible and prudent in view of our budget situation and the facts we gathered on the actual costs of deployment.”
A spokeswoman said the chief justice was unavailable to comment for this article.
Cantil-Sakauye was fully engaged in the CCMS debate, said her newly appointed chair of the executive and planning committee, Justice Douglas Miller. But she has assumed a role as equal member of the Judicial Council, not a director, he said.
“Ever since the chief took over as the new chief justice and leader of the Judicial Council she has given full discretion to the executive and planning committee — any of the internal committees really — to provide whatever advice they feel is appropriate,” Miller said. “She came in with an open mind, concerned about a lot of things that the branch was dealing with. She didn’t say, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do and how we’re going to do it.'”
With the apparent death of CCMS, branch leaders’ focus has shifted to ongoing budget troubles and the future role of centralized operations. Again, Cantil-Sakauye and the council are waiting for a report, due in April, this time from the council’s strategic evaluation committee, which is expected to recommend changes in the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“I don’t think the CCMS debate and the CCMS vote really address those important questions,” said San Diego County Superior Court Judge David Rubin, the president of the California Judges Association. “I think those very important questions will be addressed when we get the SEC report and we start the conversation about that.”
If anything, Rubin said, perhaps the CCMS vote will “allow the heat in the room [to] come down some.”
But the fight for changes in the form of the Trial Court Rights Act, AB 1208, continues. Although state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has said the bill isn’t going anywhere in his house, its provisions have been on the table during recent behind-the-scenes branch budget negotiations. Particularly at issue is the Judicial Council’s authority to reallocate state money allotted for trial courts.
AB 1208 supporters say the judiciary will continue to be wracked by other divisive issues until leaders heed critics’ calls to democratize the Judicial Council.
“I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the decision by the Judicial Council [on March 27] takes any wind out of those sails,” Sacramento Judge White said. “The problems do not go away until there really is accountability and that accountability is to the courts.”
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
Very good article by Cheryl Miller.
Justice Miller, not only is Tani not a Felix Frankfurter, she is not too bright. She is either ill-informed or deceitful. Sound familiar? Tani came in with an open mind? Oh, please, don’t insult us. She was groomed for her assignment as cj by the insular insiders of the jc/aoc. She was even a bit of a coward on the 27th. You have to lose respect for her when observing her lack of action then.
The iron fist? That was Sheila Gonzalez Calabro. That woman could pound a square peg into a round hole. I think HRH-1 saw her ambition and cunning. A position was then created for her in the AOC over a decade ago. Now she’s “retired” as a “master gardener” solely on the public dime — and living well! Oh, well, the nation knows now, Sheila, the pain and horror you’ve caused with your pushiness and high school graduate equivalent as program manager of CCMS, the Titanic of the California judicial branch!
The people responsible for this utter waste of public funds need to be brought forward. There should be a thorough investigation. A grand jury should be assembled. At a very minimum AB1208 must be passed. Steinberg can’t be allowed to block the Trial Court Bill of Rights, which has been promised by the Legislature for over a decade.
And recall Tani!
unionman575
March 30, 2012
And the AOC dispenses more construction money to its pawns…It is time for a Recall…
Meeting Notice for the
April 11, 2012
State Public Works Board Meeting
CONSENT ITEM—1
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (0250)
NEW SAN DIEGO CENTRAL COURTHOUSE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
CONSENT ITEM—2
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (0250)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
NEW SANTA ROSA CRIMINAL COURTHOUSE (FLEET BUILDING/P20 SITES)
SONOMA COUNTY
CONSENT ITEM—3
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (0250)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
NEW SANTA ROSA CRIMINAL COURTHOUSE (OLD JAIL SITE)
SONOMA COUNTY
CONSENT ITEM—4
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (0250)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
NEW SONORA COURTHOUSE (LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER SITE)
TUOLUMNE COUNTY
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
The CEO of the Tuolumne Court, Jeanne Caughill, is another perennial AOC insider, and before becoming the Tuolumne CEO, was part of the Fuentes & Couch wrecking crew of the AOC’s notoriously corrupt HR Division. What a surprise.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
Jeanne Caughill is a Sheila sycophant from Ventura. Sheila used to say, scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, you’re either for me or agin me, and get out of the way, I’m goin’ places. Jeanne hopped aboard. She also cruelly attached Paula Negley. Yeah, Jeanne found her watermark.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
Whoops! I mean “attacked,” not attached. Paula herself alluded to this.
Been There
March 30, 2012
Interesting — wasn’t ‘t Fran Jursco her predecessor as CEO In Tuolumne?
unionman575
March 30, 2012
Yeah they are real people pleasers over there at AOC HR…
All universal moral principles are idle fancies.
Marquis de Sade
unionman575
March 30, 2012
Yes Jursco was her predecessor in Tuolumne.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
I have to say Unionman, the Marquis de Sade is a highly applicable comparison to the current AOC HR Director and Assitant HR Director, who so viciously enjoy inflicting brutality and humilation on the AOC HR Divison employees.
Long live the ACJ.
Peppermint Pattie
March 30, 2012
Well, Ant, for those that read the documents filed with the Federal Court, Jeanne Caughell’s misconduct regarding Paula Negley wasn’t just alluded to, there was deposition testimony from HR Senior Manger Lura Franzella regarding Jeanne Caughell’s behavior. And it wasn’t just Jeanne Caughell, but also Bluto Fuentes, Sofa Man, and David Wolf.
Been There
March 31, 2012
My sympathies then to the Tuolumne Court. Having a Calabro/Fuentes acolyte as your CEO must be awful. Fran Jursco was a former AOC employee too, but by no means was she an insider there. She left in part because of her antipathy for her manager there, the legendary “Miss Kitty” Torre, of digital purgatory fame. Antipathy for Miss Kitty was a common experience then at the AOC.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
“I don’t think the CCMS debate and the CCMS vote really address those important questions,” said San Diego County Superior Court Judge David Rubin, the president of the California Judges Association. “I think those very important questions will be addressed when we get the SEC report and we start the conversation about that.”
Apparently, that conversation, and the SEC, will have to wait awhile, as the report has been “delayed”, again – see below (Please note: “delayed” means that the SEC report has been sent back to the Office of General Counsel to be rewritten, again, and further sanitized, as the Chief Justice apparently didn’t like this version any more than she didn’t like the report drafted by Justice Scotland):
From: AOC Headlines
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:48 AM
Subject: Council stops CCMS deployment; Finance deadlines; SEC report delayed; Injury prevention info; AOC honored for protective order registry; Facility maintenance update
To: AOC Users-All
Please see the following information for AOC staff, which includes a recap of this week’s news items posted daily on our Intranet home page.
March 29, 2012
Council stops deployment of CCMS
Interim Administrative Director Jody Patel recaps the council’s decisions on CCMS and thanks staff for their work on the project. Also see E&P Chair Justice Miller’s message to courts about the council’s actions on CCMS and judicial branch technology.
Fiscal year-end deadlines and guidelines for AOC staff
Get information on solicitations, non-competitively bid procurements, contracts, agreements (e.g., IBAs), amendments, and purchase orders. Next deadline to note: Fri, Apr 6.
New injury prevention tips for AOC staff
See the new Ergonomics tipsheet under the Safety Bulletins & Tips Sheets link. We also posted an updated safety rep list and 2 new forms under Appendix D (Personal Protective Equipment).
4 courts to take part in local Facility Maintenance Pilot Program
Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo superior courts will take on responsibility for some or most local facility operation and maintenance tasks now managed by the AOC.
AOC honored for our California Courts Protective Order Registry (CCPOR)
Registry is a statewide repository of protective orders that has data and scanned images that can be accessed by judges, court staff, and law enforcement officials across county lines.
Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) report delayed
The committee advised the Judicial Council that the final report with recommendations on the organizational structure of the AOC will not be ready in time for the council’s April meeting. The SEC has not confirmed a revised date for delivery of the report.
_____________________________________________________________
AOC INSIDER
CCN video: Groundbreaking for new Banning courthouse
California Courts News (CCN) takes you inside the Riverside County facility to show you why it needs replacing; also see what the new and improved building will look like. (video – 3:10min)
DID YOU KNOW?
California Supreme Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich to retire
Frederick “Fritz” Ohlrich has served the Supreme Court for 12 years and is serving his second term as an advisory member of the Judicial Council. His retirement date is June 29.
NCSC newsletter on new media and the courts
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports on proposed rules changes in Pennsylvania that address tweeting in court, a UK court provides proof of service via Facebook, and more.
More News Calendar Training Headlines Archive Contact Us
AOC Headlines is a weekly e-mail briefing on news and resources for AOC staff. To offer comments, questions, or news, contact Blaine Corren, ext. 5-7449, blaine.corren@jud.ca.gov.
**********************************************************************************************************
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
March 30, 2012
Well, well, well. Thanks Wendy for that news on the delayed SEC report. Is anyone shocked about this development ? While the CJ deserves credit for suggesting such a study I wonder what is going on behind the scenes. J Scotland’s exit as chair of the SEC, a few months back caused me great concern as he has the integrity, experience and smarts to have prepared an honest and complete report about the AOC. The further delay of this report is equally troubling. I fear that insiders at the JC /AOC don’t like what the report is saying and if it is released now, it just gives further support to 1208 and the reforms that come along with that. Believe me nothing is going to change until the JC is democratized and the CJ recalled.
wearyant
March 30, 2012
I’m praying for a leak of the SEC report — and an attack of conscience from Scotland when he understands that his prelim report is being covered up.
Wendy Darling
March 30, 2012
There’s a whole bunch of us right in there with you, wearyant. So much for “transformation” and “triumph”, i.e., “transparency” and “accountabiity.”
Long live the ACJ.
lando
March 31, 2012
” The Chief Justice who has been on the job 14 months reminded us that she has taken a number of steps to ensure greater oversight and more effective governance ” That is a perfect pr sound bite created by the Pravada like spin machine located at 455 Golden Gate. The JC E and P committee still has way too much power as evidenced by their hiring of insider J Patel in less than a day. No real meaningful discussion over big issues like CCMS really occurs at the JC as evidenced by the effort to cut off debate on Judge Rosenberg’s sensible motion to give the local trial courts discretion to build their own case management systems. And if you want to dissent instead of being called a “clown” in the words of J Huffman, his replacement on the the JC , J Hull uses equally demeaning terms referring to the critics of CCMS as essentially liars. J Hull of course, was an appointee to the JC by out current CJ. The bottom line is that nothing has changed and all the spin from the crystal palace can’t and won’t change that result. We need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ !
unionman575
March 31, 2012
I am simply shocked and amazed the SEC repoprt has been delayred AGAIN. Time for another re-write of that bad boy report.
And…Time for a RECALL TANI!
JusticeCalifornia
March 31, 2012
We have seen many changes in the last year.
It is true that high-level Team George members have technically left their positions–only to be replace by other tow-the-line Team George members. But–
Let’s not forget that the legislature TOLD cantil sakauye to bounce Vickrey. She then waited over a year to get the brochure for his replacement done– appointing Overholt and then Patel in the interim.
The BSA TOLD her CCMS was a mismanaged debacle.
The legislature TOLD her the building and construction costs were outrageous.
And her right hand thug/favorite appointee, remains Kim Turner.
My conclusion is that changes are taking place in spite of, not because of, cantil sakauye. She cannot take credit for those changes, although I am sure at some point she will try to.
I believe the SEC report was not released because Tani and her handlers know Team George cannot afford another massive public relations hit–and it might support AB 1208 legislation. We know, from the BSA CCMS audit, and the CJA poll, that the branch has not been happy. Team George can revise the report all they want, as long as they provide the raw data backing it up, like the BSA did.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 1, 2012
TCS can’t take credit. She’s demonstrated herself thus far to be a leadership vacuum. Her lack of leadership represents most of the reason large chunks of public funds are flying away from her grasp. They’ve been mismanaged under her and she’s taken no corrective action instead choosing to pump up an epic failure into some illusory accomplishment we all should be proud of?
So now the message to the judicial branch is keep her model governance in place and the see/hear/speak no evil games but get used to doing so with less money. Welcome to the game Tani where everyone knows the empress wears no clothes. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
The changes instituted are at best cosmetic and are typically illusory. Destruction of court records that are later declared not part of the court records. Raises for AOC employees, layoffs for trial court employees.Statements like she would never vote to close courts over funding certain boondoggles before she did just that. Leadership that should be fired and/or indicted being her most trusted. Leaders like Vickrey and Overholt that stop leading to go join the pension-spiking lifestyle of privacy, invisibility and nothing to do lifestyle of the 4th floor east offices. A pause in CCMS that was never really a pause. A declaration that an application that requires a raft of development is complete and delivered so the warranty period can kick in and start ticking away. The termination of two courthouse projects so that they could afford to re-order the priorities list and give the favored few new digs over those that really need them.
And the latest – Termination of the CCMS program that really isn’t termination with 8 million going towards the program will keep everyone in the AOC employed and their lips sealed. At least for another year.
anna
April 2, 2012
That 8 million dollars, in other circles, would be known as “hush money”.
unionman575
March 31, 2012
MIller open your mouth:
lando
April 1, 2012
J Miller the face of a new JC/AOC not. With CCMS put on the shelf at least for now , the next JC/AOC boondoggle, waste of courthouse construction funds, needs to be closely scrutinized. Someone needs to address why it appears that construction per square foot is so much more expensive here than in other states ? Is it really necessary to spend another half billion on a courthouse in San Diego ? Other questions to answer are why are we building courthouses when we can barely keep them open and staffed? Shouldn’t courthouse construction funds be redirected to operations for keeping existing courthouses open? Finally the process for selecting which courthouses get built and in what priority is a huge concern. Do San Diego, Riverside and Santa Clara really need new court facilities that take priority over every one else in the state particularly when some of these counties recently had new courthouses built ? Given the CCMS mess , all these questions need to be addressed now before we waste millions if not billions more of taxpayer funds . The answer,we need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ .
Wendy Darling
April 1, 2012
Unfortunately, Lando, it’s not really about priorities, or about need. It’s about who in those courts are willing to do and say anything in goosestep with “Speak With One Voice.” Those that do, get shiny new courthouses, at three to four times the going cost anywhere else, and jump to the front of the line ahead of those courts, and their judges and CEO’s, who dare to ask questions and speak the truth.
And, yes, the Judicial Council needs to be democratized and the Chief Justice should be recalled. But even before that, there needs to be an outside, independent, investigation, which the AOC isn’t allowed to control, or re-write the report on, preferably by law enforcement. If this was any other public agency, it would have already happened by now.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 1, 2012
A federal grand jury needs to be assembled.
Pass AB1208.
Recall Tani.
Long live ACJ.
unionman575
April 1, 2012
Will CCMS be Tani’s Titanic? I sure as hell hope so…
At 11.40pm on the night of 14 April 1912, en route to New York and on her maiden voyage, the RMS Titanic struck the iceberg that would ultimately lead to her sinking less than 3 hours later. At around 2.20am on the morning of 15 April, RMS Titanic disappeared beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, a disaster that resulted in the loss of more than 1,500 lives, almost two-thirds of the people on board.
Wendy Darling
April 1, 2012
All because there weren’t enough life boats, because of the arrogance of asserting that, you know, the Titanic, i.e., the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, were “unsinkable”.
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
April 2, 2012
We need the US Attorney in San Francisco to have the courage to take this on and look at how half a billion dollars of money was wasted on CCMS. The essential question to explore was who approved CCMS to begin with ? A through check of JC records will show there is no public meeting when an agenda item was set forth and a discussion had that said we agree to create a software system for the entire branch. . Next why and how was Deloitee selected to be the creator of the CCMS program? Perhaps one should also look to the other systems that company has failed to deliver on. Finally why was so much money continually poured into all this and did JC and AOC officials lie about CCMS’s capabilities ?
unionman575
April 2, 2012
A Saturday night, fine food and wine, a yacht, and envelopes full of cash…Deloitte…hmm
Res Ipsa Loquitor
April 2, 2012
Versal you set forth the ultimate questions: who approved CCMS; why and how was Deloite selected; why was so much money poured into a failed system; and why the would CJs and JC members continue to lie about CCMS capabilities?
In response I can only offer a question: Cui bono? And therein will lie the answer. Follow the money!
Wendy Darling
April 2, 2012
And should that happen, Versal, the US Attorney also needs to look at where some of that half a billion dollars came from. For example, the US Attorney should take a look at the Trial Court Workers Compensation fund, or rather, what’s left of that fund and what’s missing.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Let’s see what we can “leverage” leverage from CCMS…
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
In the midst of the present internal governance debate, differing viewpoints should be represented on the Judicial Council. It is useful for “outsiders” to have a bird’s-eye view of the current internal workings of the Council, and an “official” capacity in which to speak, and it is equally useful for “insiders” to hear perspectives and ideas that do not originate from Team George.
The Executive and Planning Committee of the Judicial Council of California is soliciting nominations to fill vacancies on the Judicial Council. Deadline April 13, 2012.
The cj has been advised to bring in new blood, but donors need to step up and apply.
It is understood that qualified change-minded judges and court executive officers may be passed over in favor of Team George sycophants anxiously awaiting or being promised “payback” for towing the party line, but isn’t that part of making a record?
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4650.htm
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
‘Goal 1 of Justice in Focus: The Strategic Plan for California’s Judicial Branch, 2006–2012, focuses on access, fairness, and diversity in the courts. “The makeup of California’s judicial branch will reflect the diversity of the state’s residents.” The Judicial Council continues to promote broad diversity among the membership of the Judicial Council and its advisory bodies in order to ensure diverse perspectives and an inclusive environment. (Goal 1, Policy 8.)
Judicial Council Vacancies
Nominations are sought to fill four voting positions for superior court judges and one non-voting position for a court administrator.’
FOUR VOTING POSITIONS FOR SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
ONE NON-VOTING POSITION FOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR [to replace Kim Turner?]
Duty is calling.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Change-minded judges and court executive officers may need to grab their ankles.
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
or be prepared to a) hope for the best, walk softly and carry a big stick, and then b) if necessary, come out swinging.
Team George is on the ropes.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_on_the_ropes_mean
That does not, for a moment, mean getting cocky or letting anyone’s guard down.
It simply means that change is inevitable, because oppression will not be tolerated here.
antonatrail
April 2, 2012
“An audio recording and an unedited transcript of the spoken words of each meeting are posted here within a few days of the meeting. Meeting minutes are posted once approved by the council, usually at the subsequent business meeting.”
Since I dig self-flaggelation, when do you suppose a transcript of the March 27 meeting will be online? I’d love to read the comments from the commoners that were to be heard around 9am. As for the whole raucous meeting, let the hurting begin!
wearyant
April 2, 2012
Sorry. My iPad isn’t up to date on who I am.
wearyant
April 2, 2012
I found the pdf today. Sorry for the spammin’!
Having fun reliving the horrors of the 27th meeting …
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
I wrote my farewell to AOC Watcher today, and went through the archives to find what we were all posting on July 14, 2010–the day ron george announced his retirement. We were planning our “no on George” demonstration/campaign. Courtflea was on an especially creative party planning roll . . 🙂
Memory lane. . . .
http://aocwatcher.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/discussion-thread-for-aoc-employees/
Thanks AOC Watcher, for providing that forum.
wearyant
April 2, 2012
I hope AOC Watcher stays “up.” Memory Lane. Yes. There’s enough there for an investigation at the least and a federal grand jury should be assembled!
Delilah
April 2, 2012
I’ve been wondering about courtflea for quite a while now. Long time, no see, Flea.
AOCWatcher, July 14, 2010, to JCW, April 2012. Wow, how time flies. Or fleas.
Where would we all be without these sites. Still out here, but scattered, and now unified because of their existence. Many thanks.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
http://www.kcra.com/news/30821554/detail.html
Plug Pulled On Pricey State Court Computer System
Auditor: Computer System Could Have Cost $2 Billion
JusticeCalifornia
April 2, 2012
Unionman575, thank you for the above gem. Team George has put their front line defense out now to battle the BSA– watch out!! It ain’t the chief justice, or any judge. . . .it’s. . . .hold your breath–we all know that bought and paid for voice– “Leann Kozak– reporting from San Francisco–for California Courts News.”
Team George is indeed on the ropes. LOL
unionman575
April 3, 2012
You are welcome Justice.
I do ok for a guy with an IQ of 10 1/2 (the same as my shoe size).
=)
JusticeCalifornia
April 3, 2012
You are a veritable wealth of information. . .
What is not so funny about the news clip you provided is that in a show of extreme hubris and denial, “top leadership” is trotting out their marketing spokesperson to publicly claim that Auditor Elaine Howell’s numbers are WRONG:
““As far as the size of the cost overrun, it’s significant. It’s one of the largest that we’ve seen,” state auditor Elaine Howell said. Howell said the final cost of the CCMS could have been nearly $2 billion, and that her audit found that project’s contract was modified than 100 times.”
‘Kozak admits the system was too expensive, but disagrees with the auditor’s figures.
“No, those figures are not accurate. I’m (going to) have to check those, if you want to go into figures, but those figures are not accurate,” Kozak said. “We have a difference of opinion about what we are putting in that basket to come up with that number.”’
Yes. Leanne, go ahead and check. I think the number $5 billion was mentioned at the last JC hearing. . . .
While Howell is suggesting that the CCMS debacle be used by the State of California and entities in the state of California as an example of what not to do, Team George has yet to acknowledge that anything at all was wrong with CCMS and the way it has been handled. No,according to top leadership, everybody– including the state auditor –is wrong, and the only problem is the money ran out.
Yesterday’s news clip can be used as Exhibit “A” in support of AB1208. Cantil-Sakauye has had plenty of time to educate herself– presumably she has read the same reports we all have– and yet she is purposefully trotting out an AOC public relations spokesperson to play “lalalala I can’t hear you” with the state auditor. The question can legitimately be posed to the legislature:
Given a) the overwhelming proof of waste and mismanagement that repeatedly has been presented to the legislature; b) top leadership’s steadfast denial of any waste or mismanagement; c) a Trial Court Bill of Rights was promised, but never delivered; and d) a legislative fix is presently available and on the table– isn’t it IRRESPONSIBLE for the legislature to continue to hand over $3 billion to this gambling barmaid-in-denial, for disbursement as she and her handpicked yes-men and yes-women see fit? Isn’t it painfully clear that trial courts should have the ability to select members of top leadership, and have a say in how branch money is spent?
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Four Courts Selected to Pilot Local Facility Maintenance
Courts Will Test Three Decentralized Approaches
SAN FRANCISCO—Four trial courts–those of Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo Counties—will take over some or all of their local facility maintenance in a pilot program to begin July 1, the Administrative Office of the Courts announced today.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
AOC Employment Recruitment Contract for the 58 Trial Courts..
.I can’t fucking believe this one!
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Help I’ve fallen and I can’t get up…
AOC Emergency Notification Contract…
Someone get me a bucket !
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Now I know they have so many kickbacks coming in to them in CASH, that they need armored car service…
AOC Armored Car Contract…
I shit you not!
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Or are those armored car deliveries hauling away a ton of Trial Court Trust Funds?????
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Smile you are on candid camera!
AOC Video Surveillance Contract…
Hey Wendy say cheese!
Wendy Darling
April 2, 2012
As has been previously noted, unionman, the AOC is run like a police state. Accordingly, the line staff are viewed, and treated, like inmates.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
So stipulated Wendy.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
Now that we have “independent” court construction oversight, we can expect better value for our court construction dollars.
Nah! Watch the construction dollars go up in smoke.…
Independent Capital Construction Program – Oversight and Consulting Service
Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc.
http://www.pegasus-global.com/principals
http://www.courts.ca.gov/15876.htm
Wendy Darling
April 2, 2012
Probably a good front for moving money around, in a never ending shell game.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 2, 2012
I’ve got 50 cents for anyone that knows the connection between the AOC OCCM and Pegasus.
unionman575
April 3, 2012
There are Pegasus investors among the powers that be.
=)
Been There
April 3, 2012
Unionman, don’t know much about Pegasus but note it’s “corporate office” is in Cle Elem, Washington. Has anyone been to Cle Elem? I have. It’s a small, small town in the ski area on the interstate between Seattle and Spokane. Washintonians usually stop there to visit its legendary Italian restaurant — more like Occidental on the Russian River than Palo Alto.
Curious.
unionman575
April 3, 2012
See above re “investors”.
Been There
April 3, 2012
Unionman, are you willing or able to name names? A little sunlight on the right people might have a most satisfactory outcome!