We’re not sure what to think of it. Is this a revolt or done with the AOC’s blessing? It has a link to the AOC’s RFP page in Sacramento’s RFP but it appears the CCMS weary AOC won’t host the link.
Thank the good lord that the AOC isn’t issuing one of its own RFP’s for a 3 billion dollar boondoggle led by people with zero IT experience. Instead, a few of this states court IT managers appear to, with the endorsement of their courts, launched a bona fide effort and building or procuring a real, long term case management solution.
It’s about time.
We don’t know if it is a developing trend or an effort than has been around awhile but all over the California Court system we’re seeing the pooling of trial court resources and trial court purchasing power on projects like this that will benefit the participating courts. We think that all courts could do this for every service that the AOC currently provides. Unfortunately for this RFP, the time between the release date and the mandatory bidders conference is a mere weeks notice. That is surely not enough time to get the best and the brightest on this task.
In an effort to promote a viable case management solution that won’t end up costing 3 billion dollars we’re rebroadcasting this critical RFP here and to our readers and ask that you cross post it everywhere you can post it. California needs a case management solution for dozens of courts, there is no denying that. But they need something fast, functional, nearly off the shelf and affordable and the best way to achieve that is with a really good RFP open to technology companies.
Silicon Valley, come get it.
Case Management System for CITMF (Court Information Technology Managers Forum)
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/procurement/request-details.aspx?id=4
| Number: | 12-1007 |
|---|---|
|
|
| Description: | Case Management System for CITMF |
| Preferred Vendor Location: |
Nationwide |
| Due By: | 12/05/2012 |
| *Mandatory Bidder’s Conference Date: |
11/07/2012 |
| Dollar Value: | TBD |
| Contract Term: | 3 Years |
| Contact: | CITMFcmsrfp@saccourt.ca.gov Attn: Karen Brewer Phone: (916) 874-8204 |
| Notes: | Sacramento Superior Court seeks to enter into a Master Software License and Services Agreement with suitable vendors for an enterprise case management solution capable of replacing the antiquated CMS’s for the Superior Courts of California. |
| Date Posted: | 10/30/2012 7:06:50 PM |
* If applicable, Bidder’s Conference must be attended prior to the bid/proposal “Due Date.” Bids/proposals will not be accepted unless mandatory bidder’s conference is attended.
courtflea
November 1, 2012
Oh gawd, not this all over again!! Courts did this before and the AOC inserted themselves into the process and out of that came the CCMS idea. Lets hope the AOC stays out of it this time. Yeah right. They control the purse strings…just sayin
Wendy Darling
November 1, 2012
“Lets hope the AOC stays out of it this time. ” ROTFL. That is soooo funny, Flea. The AOC stay out of it . . . that is so hilarious, I just can’t stop laughing.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 1, 2012
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WUdrM_a7LbE%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
Wendy Darling
November 2, 2012
Quote of the week: “An AOC disclaimer says cost estimates are subject to change.”
That half a billion dollars plus wasted on CCMS would come in handy about now. Published today, Friday, November 2, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
No Sign of Budget Woes Ending for Beleaguered Courts in California
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California slashed the budgets for four new courthouses by another $7.5 million this week, with more reductions planned for three others.
The courts in Kings, Merced, Sutter, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Tehama and San Diego counties presented ideas for cutting costs at two closed meetings of the Judicial Council’s courthouse cost reduction committee.
“We were impressed by all of them,” committee chair Justice Jeffrey Johnson said in an interview Thursday. “Some of them were more able to respond to our questions on the spot and demonstrate their efforts for cost savings more than others.”
San Diego in particular made a big impression on the committee – ultimately putting up $5.3 million of the $7.5 million figure, Johnson said.
In the past year, the pricey downtown San Diego courthouse has cut its budget down to $473 per square foot, something that Johnson noted is no small feat.
“That’s a very feasible figure for that type of structure,” he said. “They are building a 71-courtroom courthouse so it’s going to be more expensive than others. You also have to keep in mind security and government standards in California. You can’t make a building out of popsicle sticks. There’s going to be some costs if it’s going to last 50 years.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts estimates that the total cost for the San Diego project is $642.5 million. But with the new cost per square foot of $473, the current total should be closer to $332 million. An AOC disclaimer says cost estimates are subject to change.
Smaller courthouse projects like Merced Superior Court’s have cut back on design, reducing its cost by a total of $4.4 million since last year.
Merced Court Executive Officer Linda Romero-Soles said that “each of the judges’ chambers has a restroom facility. We reduced one of the restrooms, and we took out the conference room. We want to make things as efficient as possible. We’re also looking at eliminating our children’s waiting room.”
“I have to give credit to our architect and our AOC staff,” she added. “They’re our experts, and we gave them ideas during the planning phase of items the courts would sacrifice.”
Kings, Sutter and Tehama counties are awaiting a decision from the committee on an amount they need to cut in the coming weeks. Kings County Superior’s Court Executive Officer Todd Barton said, “Basically they have to come up with the number and we have to figure out what we’re going to cut.”
The court has already cut the project to the bone, Barton said. While the court originally had a budget of about $142 million, the project has already been reduced to around $92 million. Barton noted that further cuts can pose a security threat, as the court may be forced to eliminate essentials like holding cells for prisoners, many of whom are on trial for assaults committed while incarcerated. “We have a lot of holding cells we don’t want to cut because Kings County provides support for three prisons in the county,” Barton said, adding that 20,000 of the county’s roughly 80,000 to 90,000 adult residents are prisoners.
“They all want trials,” he said. “And then you need holding cells for the witnesses that are prisoners. And then you have different gangs and you can’t have them all in the same cells.”
“We don’t know what we have to cut, the amount or where,” he added. “Over the last many months we’ve reduced our obligations more than a lot of courthouses in the state. We have cut so much out of this project. But whatever they come up with we’ll do. We won’t have an adversarial process. I’m hoping this committee will see we’re trying to be practical. We’re not looking for a bunch of fluff, believe me.”
A larger courthouse construction committee put seven other planned new buildings on hold indefinitely last month, a move that the full Judicial Council recently approved. Justice Johnson said the future is uncertain for the 23 projects allowed to move forward, given the Legislature’s tendency to sweep the judiciary’s construction fund during times of financial crisis.
“Every time money is taken away, projects don’t go forward,” he said. “We’re simply reacting to constraints that have been placed on us by the legislature and governor, so we have to do our job with the funds that are available and use the funds in the most efficacious way. But courthouses are falling by the wayside.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/02/51948.htm
unionman575
November 3, 2012
“No Sign of Budget Woes Ending for Beleaguered Courts in California”
unionman575
November 3, 2012
Here’s another Friday Night Express form the Death Star:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19538.htm
Workgroup to Evaluate Progress on Trial Court Funding
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
November 2, 2012
New Inter-branch Group to Evaluate Progress on State Trial Court Funding
Workgroup selected by Chief Justice and Governor to hold first meeting
Video of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye introducing the work of the Trial Court Funding Workgroup (2:34min)
SACRAMENTO— A working group established by the Chief Justice and the Governor to evaluate progress on state trial court funding will hold its first meeting Nov 6 in Sacramento.
As part of the state’s May Budget Revision for fiscal year 2012–2013, the Governor proposed establishing a working group to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the state’s progress in achieving the goals outlined in the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997. That legislation provided that the state assume primary responsibility for funding trial court operations.
The new Trial Court Funding Workgroup consists of 10 members, 6 selected by the Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and 4 selected by Governor Brown. The workgroup can seek input and data, as necessary, from other judicial branch stakeholders to assist in its analysis.
The workgroup’s first meeting is scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Nov 6 at the Administrative Office of the Courts, 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400, in Sacramento.
The workgroup plans to submit a final report to the Judicial Council and the Governor by April 2013.
😉
unionman575
November 3, 2012
Ethics anyone???
JusticeCalifornia
November 3, 2012
Isn’t this a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted?
George nursed along the Bench Bar Coalition to lobby the legislature
George’s November 2006 Summit of Judicial Leaders was all about using lawyers to “talk tough” and defend the judiciary against challengers and critics.
The Inns of Court are all about creating and nurturing personal relationships between lawyers and judges. In the name of “mentoring”.
Tani recently talked about manipulating legislators and “whispering in the ears” of bar members to encourage them to throw a party for new legislators because she couldn’t do it.
Don’t forget how she trotted out Edith Matthai and other lawyers to urge the legislature to throw good money after bad in connections with CCMS.
And who can forget the brouhaha when an SF judge was up for retention election, and other judges handpicked big local firms to ask them to help support the incumbent judge against a viable challenge by a local attorney?
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/07/30/legal-brahmins-organize-against-nava
Let’s not kid ourselves. The ONLY reason more lawyers are not calling out the egregious actions going down in the branch is precisely because they know if they tow the party line (often at their client’s expense), they will get party favors (fee awards, court referrals, court appointments, employment as commissioners, favorable decisions in other cases, etc., etc. etc.)
Certain judges and members of branch leadership at all levels use friendly ambitious lawyers to push their agendas. Judges and lawyers are playing “You scratch my back, I will scratch yours”.
And that is a conflict of interest on multiple levels. You betcha.
Thanks for posting this, unionman.
unionman575
November 4, 2012
unionman575
November 3, 2012
Wanted: A proven liar for this Death Star executive OGA slot:
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL
JusticeCalifornia
November 4, 2012
First former Nevada County family court services mediator Emily Gallup gets a $300,000-plus judgment against Nevada County for retaliation, and now former Marin court clerk Brook Hermann gets a $75,000 judgment against Marin County for retaliation.
http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_21916510/former-marin-court-clerk-gets-75-000-settlement
Looks like Kim Turner and her human resources manager Scott Beseda got the Marin court in hot water again. Beseda is also the one Turner assigned to act as Family Court Services director after the former FCS director who helped Turner destroy child custody evidence in the middle of the legislative audit of the Marin Family Court suddenly “retired” and became conveniently unavailable. The audit report whacked Marin for placing Beseda in this Family Court Services position although he was unqualified, and unabashedly questioned Beseda’s reliability in providing information to auditors.
JusticeCalifornia
November 4, 2012
sorry, Hermann got a settlement, not a judgment.
unionman575
November 4, 2012
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_21916510/former-marin-court-clerk-gets-75-000-settlement
Wendy Darling
November 4, 2012
And, once again, who was it that advised Turner, Beseda, and the Marin Court administration as how to “handle”, i.e., retaliate, against Hermann after she made internal complaints at the Marin court? Well, that would be none other than the AOC’s Office of General Counsel, Mary Roberts, and the idiot lawyers in OGC.
JusticeCalifornia
November 4, 2012
Wendy Darling, the AOC, our past and current cj, and the judicial council are inextricably tied to what has gone down in the Marin Superior Court because if they check their files, they will see that they have been informed for well over a decade about the problems there in general, and about Kim Turner in detail and in particular. 15 years ago the Marin Grand Jury wanted to investigate rampant claims of corruption in the Marin family court, but was advised that it had no jurisdiction over the courts. I will wager that the AOC OGC was involved in making that argument. . . .
Same goes for complaints about Jack Halpin from Shasta County. The AOC and judicial council chairpersons have fielded and ignored complaints about him for years.. . .
I predict that one day there will be the mother of all class action lawsuits involving branch administrative actions purposefully and intentionally taken to cover up rather than correct incompetence/corruption/abuse. I do not know how when what or where, but I do believe documented perfect storms have long been in the making all over the state in all areas of the law and court administration. It is only a matter of time before one or more of those storms hit. At that point, the questions will be who knew what, when, and what was done about it. . . .
Judicial Council members need to be very aware that knowledge may very well be imputed to them. . .about information provided to the AOC and Judicial Council, privately and in written and public comments; about the work of AOC and Judicial Council committees and task forces; and about the information crammed into those big fat binders at the last minute, right before council meetings.
Simply put, the judicial branch needs to clean up — not cover up–branch incompetence/corruption/abuse at all levels.
We are all familiar with the “one bad apple” and “tangled web” proverbs. . . .Re-arranging deck chairs, destroying evidence, using bar members for personal gain and protection, misrepresenting the facts, and silencing witnesses are dangerous and ineffective solutions for the judicial branch.
courtflea
November 4, 2012
Tidbit: Beseda used to work for the AOC.
unionman575
November 4, 2012
Yep.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?entqr=0&access=p&start=&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&as_lq=&q=Scott+Beseda+&as_oq=&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&as_q=&ip=208.96.4.100&proxyreload=0&proxycustom=&entsp=0&output=xml_no_dtd&as_filetype=&lr=lang_en&as_sitesearch=&client=courts&as_epq=&as_eq=&num=&site=courts&proxystylesheet=courts&as_occt=&filter=0
JusticeCalifornia
November 4, 2012
LOL, the fact that AOC alum Beseda was planted in Marin explains a lot. Dude may one day have a lot of explaining to do.
Wendy Darling
November 4, 2012
Oh, the hypocrisy. Published today, Saturday, November 4, from The Sacramento Bee:
California Supreme Court Orders Non Profit To Face Audit
Update (5:08 p.m.): Americans for Responsible Leadership did not submit information to the FPPC by 4 p.m. as ordered and instead has asked the state court to extend its compliance window to 9 a.m. Monday as it seeks a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, according to FPPC chairwoman Ann Ravel.
The California Supreme Court this afternoon ordered an obscure Arizona nonprofit to submit donation records immediately to state regulators related to an $11 million contribution the group gave in October.
The state’s highest court issued its unanimous 7-0 decision at 3 p.m. after a telephone conference and gave Phoenix-based Americans for Responsible Leadership until 4 p.m. to comply.
The state Fair Political Practices Commission had asked the Supreme Court to force ARL to turn over e-mails and transactions data behind the donation, whose specific donors the group has never disclosed. The group gave $11 million to a business campaign committee established to oppose Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative, Proposition 30, and support a measure that would restrict union dues collection, Proposition 32.
The FPPC wants to review the information to determine before Tuesday’s election whether ARL violated state rules requiring nonprofits to disclose donors if their money was earmarked for a specific initiative. If the FPPC finds a violation, it remains to be seen whether there is enough time to invoke administrative or legal procedures that would force ARL to disclose its donors by Tuesday.
ARL is directed by lesser-known Arizona GOP activists, and the group hired attorneys from a Virginia-based law firm with longstanding Republican National Committee ties.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/california-supreme-court-orders-nonprofit-to-face-audit.html
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 6, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19489.htm