Along with the 32 people who were onboarded in the month of December, we learned in early January that this process of onboarding temporary and contract workers is ongoing at the AOC. What really floored us though is our own head count analysis that put the AOC’s authorized FTE’s (Full Time Employees) at 815 and a proposed budget that increases that to 844 authorized positions in the next fiscal year, adding two million dollars to the AOC’s budget to fund these positions. We mentioned this in several other posts as comments.
In the history of the AOC, there has never been a reorganization that did not result in all of the following:
1. An increase in head count over at the AOC.
2. “mission creep” – the AOC unilaterally expanding its area of authority, oftentimes without legislative or judicial council approval.
3. The creation of more management slots in the reorganized groups
4. A permanent increase in JC \ AOC \ appellate \supreme court funding (ie the old state court system)
5. Higher pay for everyone with the title of supervisor or above because mission creep is not limited to the AOC as a whole, but it happens all across the AOC in all divisions. All of these added responsibilities regularly justify higher pay for that stellar management team that commissions these workload and compensation surveys. The more bullshit the managers jot down for those commissioned to perform the study, the higher the pay they justify for themselves.
What is typically missing as a number in that 0250 state judicial branch budget is the number of employees in the trial courts. If it is supposed to be a state funded system then the number of employees that the state is funding should be a part of the equation, yet year after year, the number of court employees in the budget has a dashed line in it, like there is no employees in the trial courts.
Even more amazing is the old state court systems ability to issue a budget change proposal to add personnel that will be permanently factored into their future budgets while the trial courts hold out a dashed line representing their head count with no ability to alter that head count with a budget change proposal. Instead, it is merely a pot of money divvy’d up among the 58 trial courts.
The neuropsychological detriment of that dashed line to budget movers and shakers is the purported independence of the trial courts to alter those figures as they see fit which conceals that more than two thousand court employees that lost their jobs, while San Francisco gets to claim unfairness of the dashed line getting so much of the judicial branch budget.
Something is seriously wrong with judicial branch budgeting but you already knew that. We believe that the dashed line of what is being funded employee-wise in the courts is the crux of the issue. Nobody understands why the AOC stands to gain 29 additional employees next year when more than 30 times that many employees will be losing their jobs. Literally, for every new AOC job, more than 30 court workers will lose their jobs.
Chief Justice – Where are your priorities?
Related articles
- Setting up the courts for an AOC takeover? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- When legislative priorities don’t make sense… (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Buying time in the hope that you’ll give up or forget has consequences (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Using judicial ethics to silence dissent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The May Revise – 4 months to make a difference (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Brown’s budget: Bad news for the courts, good news for the AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- AOC Contractors are being flipped to FTE? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The AOC’s 70+ exceptions to the current hiring freeze (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
January 23, 2013
More outstanding work JCW.
Unlimited $$$ money $$$ rains down from the sky for AOC bullshit while every trial court withers away from lack of funding to keep EXISTING court staff employed and EXISTING courthouse open for business.
The public be damned. Right Chief?
😉
R. Campomadera
January 23, 2013
“What is typically missing as a number in that 0250 state judicial branch budget is the number of employees in the trial courts. If it is supposed to be a state funded system then the number of employees that the state is funding should be a part of the equation, yet year after year, the number of court employees in the budget has a dashed line in it, like there is no employees in the trial courts.”
Well, there is a reason for that…absent a statewide staffing formula based on weighted caseload, the JC/AOC is free to dispense funding for staffing on whatever basis they want. Play along with us, and you get $$$$. Don’t, and you will suffer the consequences.
The solution is a uniform weighted caseload staffing formula with full transparency…that is, every court knows what its staffing is supposed to be and what every other court’s is, too.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Oh come on, who cares about sensible staffing formulas for the trial courts? Certainly not judicial branch “leadership”.
As the branch is reduced to ruins, who is “leading” the biggest judiciary in the Western World? Let’s be brutally honest. A former gambling barmaid turned chief justice who is still looking for tells, and a retired small town judge with no relevant administrative experience turned top court administrator in the state.
Leadership of the judicial branch is one place where it is appropriate to expect to find the best and the brightest and most qualified.
Instead, we have the mediocre at best building and reinforcing an overstaffed tower of babble, while systematically dismantling and dumbing down the entire branch.
Forget education, intellect, ethics, experience and common sense as qualifiers for promotion—just tow the party line, and you will be fine.
But Tani, what about the public—forced to pay backbreaking fees, fines and penalties, while doing without open courts, good judges, court clerks, court reporters, and adequate self-help resources?
Tani sleeps just fine at night, thank you very much. How would they describe this in French? Je m’en fou, qu’ils mangent de la brioche.
And here is the kicker. It is not going to change until those within the branch force change.
R. Campomadera
January 23, 2013
Sorry…I lost my head for a minute…I’m better now.
For a moment, I foolishly thought the purpose of the JC/AOC was to advance the cause of justice in the State Courts by, first and foremost, insuring that each of the trial courts have a sufficient and equitable allocation of resources to enable them to carry out their mission. But now I’m back to normal and remember that it’s really about featherbedding at the AOC to insure that those in the highest levels continue their coddled existence…in Switzerland, Virginia, or wherever else they may reside.
My apologies. I won’t let it happen again. Unless, of course, I forget again.
courtflea
January 23, 2013
Chief Justice – Where are your priorities? Swag bags and trying to think of something else besides the budget, of course! It hurts my head too much all of those big numbers! Mon dieu, that is what staff is for. Now back to my swag bags……..
JAD
January 23, 2013
I don’t want to watch it ’till it has been cartooned! That is the only way to make it almost palatable.
Jan. 23, 2013
New Year Message from Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
“I plan [on] focusing on our immediate budget needs, continuing our self-assessment efforts at all levels of the branch, and advocating to improve civics education so that our citizens understand that the strength of our democratic institutions relies on the public’s understanding of those institutions.”
Listen (5:10)
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
Oh, great, just what we all need: civics lessons from Her Majesty, and the most unethical and corrupt administration in California Judicial Branch history.
The hypocrisy is just astonishing.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
I knew it. Tani is a wannabe pageant queen but with her gambling barmaid past and ho-hum academic history, she couldn’t have qualified. In the face of branch disaster her wannabe-pageant-queen platform has been and always will be civics education. She can’t believe she is where she is and at this point, neither can any of us.
LOL. You are right Wendy, Tani is a poser of the worst kind.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poser
She pretends to be concerned about domestic violence, and families and children — but signs up and covers up for some of the branch’s worst court offenders. Some of the worst have been some of her favorite right hand men and women.
She is so busy admiring her “I can’t believe I am the CJ” crown that even in her press interviews she but cannot begin to pretend to be worried about the welfare of the branch or the public. It’s all about her, and can we be clear, on the record? She likes her job and sleeps just fine, thank you very much, but is getting tired of budget discussions. Can we please just talk about her platform– the importance of civics education– instead?
This gambling barmaid poser is building a faux ivory power-tower and using branch thugs and well-paid sycophants to suffocate any democratic breath the branch and the public have. . . .she does the minimum she has to, to remedy branch travesties. . . .and only after being backed into a corner.
Tani. Prove us wrong. LOL.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2013
Self-assessment starts with “self” so get on with it already Chief and then tender your resignation.
Cattleman
January 23, 2013
Hearing about the court workers that have lost their jobs and the remaining workers dealing with all work and stress really is disheartening. As a line worker for the crystal palace it’s so disturbing to see how mismanaged everything is. The reputation of the agency is so bad. I feel like I am guilty by association like I want to explain I am not a part of the inferior decision-making. As a line worker you are trying to just keep up with the all the work you have inherited. You are also trying to not see all the waste, the laziness, the meanness and the just collecting a paycheck behavior. Probably the worst part is all the unprofessional behavior is all out there so obvious and blatant. The management turns a blind eye. They don’t care about the line workers. They are just making sure they get their pensions and benefits. It is also sad that there are some people who are also in management that are good people (very few) but won’t try to make any changes on behalf of the little guy. They are either tired or just know nothing will come of their efforts, or basically don’t want to lose their jobs. So the line workers just have to suck it up. So working in an environment that caters to supervisors, managers and telecommuting attorneys is so discouraging. There are no changes, just the same bad behavior. It is a place where management is trying to create a façade to the public and also to its internal workers that the aoc is doing a self-inventory and really trying. It isn’t. It’s only trying to control the public perceptions and give the appearance. And all the line workers are given more work. More work of having to create charts, tables, etc. to offset what the SEC says. This is probably what is most disheartening. I am sure others have spoken about being a aoc line worker and feeling like nothing will get better. I wanted to share that it feels crummy feeling like you are a part of the problem that has created all this waste. In essence you are a line worker helping the agency create a façade. Management keeps people on the payroll that have performed very poorly and that have should have been let go long ago. Policy on telecommuting? Why is it ok to let attorneys telecommute four days a week? Why is ok to still let a supervising attorney telecommute three days a week? Why is ok to let attorneys come in very late and leave early as they please? Why are there work screw-ups? Well when you have an attorney come in really late and give you work that needs to be done at the end of the day and then you try to ask questions about the work but then come to find out that attorney just took off early. Well you can finish the train of thought. It always ends with the attorneys blaming the line workers for the screw-up. The policy is made up depending on who the worker is. Favoritism. Why is ok to use money to convert a conference room to an office for the finance director? Is this really true? Why is ok to be a manager and just sit in your office surfing the web till your retirement day? More importantly why is this happening and endorsed? So as a line worker it’s hard to believe any change is really happening. You feel crummy because you really know the truth that you are not valued and that you are disposable. You don’t respect the agency and the folks that are supposed to be running it. It is such a charade and you feel crummy being a part of it.
Cattleman
January 23, 2013
I am a newbie here on the site. Please excuse the duplicate entry. I didn’t think my post took so wrote twice. Anyway folks out there hopefully get an understanding of what i was trying to say.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 23, 2013
Thanks, Cattleman. You are not the problem over at the AOC. Your management continues to be the problem and if we had our druthers, we’d like to toss most of them under the bus. In fact, we would like LINE WORKERS to help us toss them under the bus because we know the agency would operate better without their current management.
Thanks for your post. There are many AOC employees both current and former that post here.
Our axe grinding isn’t against the line workers whom we have the utmost respect for. Our axe grinding is for those mismanagers that run the place while trying to pull the wool over everyone else’s eyes. Numerous reports from our JCW operatives inside the crystal palace have consistently reaffirmed that nothing has changed since the inception of AOC Watcher. They try to bullshit the line staff as much as they try to bullshit everyone else.
Welcome to JCW!. Your first post gets caught up in the moderation queue. After we approve that first post, you are free to post at will and we sincerely hope you do.
Thanks again!
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
Welcome to JCW, Cattleman. There’s quite a few AOC line staff here on JCW, and we all know EXACTLY what you are talking about. The only thing the AOC excels at is punishing its employees for telling the truth.
Who would have ever thought that a person would be ashamed to be a public employee of the California Judicial Branch, in the Administrative Office of the Courts?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 23, 2013
Excerpt from Cattleman: “Why are there work screw-ups? Well when you have an attorney come in really late and give you work that needs to be done at the end of the day and then you try to ask questions about the work but then come to find out that attorney just took off early. Well you can finish the train of thought. It always ends with the attorneys blaming the line workers for the screw-up. ”
Cattleman, my heart truly aches for you. As a wiser poster here has said, document and report. It’s probably not safe for you to report, but document, document, document in a journal that you keep for your eyes only and take home at night and weekends. Times, dates, names. It may give you momentary relief from feeling helpless, and long-term, you may have a gold mine in terms of options or even a splendid book. If it’s painful to to journal these remembrances, quickly jot them down, then get on with your daily life. Keep those jottings safe and keep your own counsel. One day, that journal will be — GOLD.
Here’s hoping you check back in with JCW.
courtflea
January 23, 2013
Wendy I’d watch it if she did it while performing the art of card dealing and shuffling! 🙂
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
Hey Flea, how about while she performs an act of Three Card Monte? Same as her current day job.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 23, 2013
And, Flea and Wendy D, watch for her “tell,” the sly, cunning smirk. You know the one, when she slips an agenda item from the discussion to consent item.
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
Don’t forget her “tell” of tossing her hair, Ant.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 23, 2013
Wow, I missed that one. Is that in anger, temper tantrum, sexual come-on or perhaps all of the above? 😀
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
I can only confirm anger, temper tantrum, hill climbing, and in “righteous indignation” should anyone dare to question her or challenge her judgement.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Tani’s “tell”? Her “game”?
It’s her helpless female (please help me Senators Steinberg and Evans, i’m a small tiny diminutive harassed female of immigrant ethnic origin from the wrong side of the tracks new to this game–never mind my gambling barmaid card-shark politically savvy and opportunistic past–) act.
And let’s not forget her giggle.
She giggles and laughs during those JC meetings, and isn’t it so charming and disarming?
Or maybe not. Her bottom line for those who don’t fall for it?
ta gueule
Casse-toi
http://translate.google.com/#auto/en/ta%20gueule%20Casse-toi
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Geez, lost in translation. . . .
I guess you cannot try to mix two phrases on Google translation. So let’s try again.
http://translate.google.com/?tl=fr#auto/en/Ta%20Gueule
http://translate.google.com/?tl=fr#auto/en/Casse-toi
Sorry, my friends, my child is studying french and I’m being privately supportive by also studying french.. . .
Michael Paul
January 23, 2013
I just received my monthly copy of the AOC phone directory. You remember Donna Hershkowitz, the one who sent the offensive email trying to ensure that the AOC appointed PJ’s and Court Executive Officers. You might know her from this site as one of the least credible people in the AOC and formerly with the office of government affairs, the number two right behind Curtis Child.
You’ll all be happy to know that she is now in charge of court re-engineering…….in the event you need her valued opinion. Another promotion for one who should have been fired.
Cattleman, I know how you feel. Everyone suffers so that the AOC can live large.
unionman575
January 23, 2013
Michael you always get the good stuff.
😉
MaxRebo5
January 24, 2013
Jody Patel created a reengineering unit in Sacramento Superior Court while she was the CEO. It was disbanded as there was no need to have full time staff doing “reengineering” all day. In times of fiscal crisis there is only money for courtroom staff, support staff related to the work of courtrooms, and other essential positions. Sacramento did the right thing and cut these unnecessary admin positions.
What is so hypocrtical is if these positions are non-essential at the local level they are even more wasteful and removed from helping the public at the AOC level. They should be cut immediately and any salary savings directed to those courts least funded.
This is what needs to happen and the Chief and Jody won’t do it. They have terrible cuts to make at the AOC but it really should start with Jody and the Curts resigning in recognition of their part in the AOC’s part in multiple scandals (CCMS, Long Beach Courthouse, expanding the AOC, and AOC raises).
Leadership is supposed to lead the way, have new ideas, and create a shared vision. In the case of Jody she is failing to lead the way by making long overdue cuts at the AOC (hell they are still hiring!), she has the same ideas (reegineering still being funded at a statewide level), and has maintained the same failed vision and culture from Bill Vickrey and Ron George that got the courts into this mess. That failed vision is top down, we know best, we need full control of the budget, of technology, of construction and of the Judicial Council. Dissenters deserve no time to speak and are not welcome. It is shameful leadership. it is wrong and it needs to end. Thanks to the JCW for providing this forum to speak out against the injustices in CA court administration.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
So Donna took ever-so-historically/ethically-compromised Kim Turner’s place and is now Tani’s “court re-engineering” maven. Sort of like how Jahr, with no relevant administrative experience, became the branch’s administrative expert overnight.
Tani’s version of recycle, repurpose, reuse. . .
I am admittedly a little harsh today, but really, I cannot believe how far the branch has fallen.
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
At some point, Justice California, it stops being recycling, and is just plain trash.
Long live the ACJ.
Curious
January 27, 2013
Re-engineering indeed. Like they tried to “re-engineer” the trial courts by taking away the right of courts to even elect their own presiding judges.
courtflea
January 23, 2013
oh Cattleman how I feel your pain. Been there done that. Hang in there my friend and no one blames you for collecting a pay check and trying to make a living. I hold this quote closely in times of extreme troubles from Miltons Paradise lost:
Long and hard
is the way that out
from hell leads
up to
the light.
In other words, your day will come my friend, you day will come.
courtflea
January 23, 2013
My friend JCA, you are not being harsh, I feel like bitch slapping someone too.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Courtflea!!!
Mon Dieu!!!
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Was I bitchslapping? Ummmm…… guess I was….LOL.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
But all joking aside, the branch has zero credibility under current “leadership”.
One great big target. Low-hanging fruit in budget wars.
And it will stay that way until the branch demands a change in policy, practice and leadership.
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
Seriously, other than Senator Steinberg, if you were a member of the State Assembly or Senate, would you really consider giving current branch “leadership” more money? It’s not exactly a secret in Sacramento that supporting current branch “leadership” is a form of political suicide.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Unless you are bargaining with someone who is willingly throwing his or her client under the bus. . . . Just imagine…..
Guv and legislature: So Tani, you are really good with this deal? We can cut branch funding by hundreds of millions, and all you are asking is for us to give you $2 mil to pad the JC/AOC?
Tani: Yep. You get to cut the branch by hundreds of millions, but it will make it look like you support me and the JC/AOC, so as far as top leadership is concerned, it’s a win-win.
Lando
January 23, 2013
I thought Ms Hershkowitz had exited the crystal palace. After the various lobbying fiascos she has been promoted to ” court re-engineering ” ? ” I wasn’t aware that the JC/AOC had any constitutional or statutory authority to re- engineer anything let alone our local trial courts.
unionman575
January 23, 2013
Special Projects Office
Reengineering
Hershkowitz, Donna, Asst. Director 818-558-3068 BUR
😉
unionman575
January 23, 2013
unionman575
January 23, 2013
With the new courthouse larger than what it is replacing, it will require more money to operate. There will be more employees needed and while some of those will be transferred here from Visalia, some will need to be hired. Cuts to the operation budget could delay the local courthouse from being full service when it opens in October.
http://www.recorderonline.com/opinion/cuts-55640-justice-funding.html
Governor needs to restore some of court funding
January 23, 2013 4:50 PM
Gov. Jerry Brown keeps cutting funding for courts and his actions are putting into question the opening of the new South County Justice Facility in Porterville. While everyone needs to feel cuts, it appears the court system has seen a larger share of cuts and those cuts are beginning to impact the wheels of justice in the state.
Over the past couple of years the governor has not only cut millions of dollars out of the budget for the state’s courts, but he has robbed some of the money generated by the fines imposed by the courts.
This year, the governor is proposing to cut $200 million from court construction funds and that has postponed the construction of several planned courthouses, including one in Fresno. He has also proposed taking away another $125 million from the operating budget.
The cut to construction will not impact the local courthouse under construction in Porterville, but his cuts from the operating budget for the courts could.
With the new courthouse larger than what it is replacing, it will require more money to operate. There will be more employees needed and while some of those will be transferred here from Visalia, some will need to be hired. Cuts to the operation budget could delay the local courthouse from being full service when it opens in October.
Also, because of recent funding cuts, the Tulare County courts system has had to dig into its reserve to cover expenses. That reserve was destined to pay for the cost of moving into the new courthouse.
State Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was hopeful the governor would not cut another $125 million from the courts because voters passed Prop. 30, the higher taxes on wealthier Californians and a quarter percent increase in the sales tax, but the governor went ahead with the proposal.
Local Judge Glade Roper said the cuts are taking a toll, with fewer people having to do more. He said the state has also had to raise fees to cover expenses to the point that more and more residents cannot afford those fees.
The governor needs to ensure that the wheels of justice in California continue to roll.
———
Editorials in The Porterville Recorder are the opinion of the editorial board which consists of publisher Paula Patton, editor Rick Elkins and managing editor Brian Williams. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily of The Recorder.
The OBT
January 23, 2013
Court re- engineering. Sounds like a perfect job for J Rosenberg, as he was way ahead of his time in closing courthouses before it was ” fashionable. If only the rest of us had such great insight lol.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2013
We’ve been a bit tardy on creating new links for the court interpreters and reporters. We created a new category called court resources, caught up on several new court reporter links and added the California Federation of Interpreters. Please use these resources and tell your friends about them.
unionman575
January 24, 2013
http://www.sacbee.com/live/
Today’s the big day: Gov. Jerry Brown delivers his State of the State speech at 9 a.m. in the Assembly chambers.
Gov Brown we are shutting down in the trial courts thanks to both you and the Death Star.
😉
unionman575
January 24, 2013
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202585527870&et=editorial&bu=The%20Recorder&cn=California%20News%20Alert%2C%20January%2024%2C%202013&src=EMC-Email&pt=The%20Recorder%20News%20Alert&kw=Bill%20Would%20Create%20Special%20Courts%20for%20Land%20Use%20Cases&slreturn=20130024091922
Bill Would Create Special Courts for Land Use Cases
By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles
The Recorder
January 23, 2013
SACRAMENTO — An East Bay senator has introduced legislation that would create specialty environmental and land-use divisions in California’s trial courts.
Senator Ellen Corbett’s SB 123 would create the mission-focused calendars to handle civil litigation involving the California Environmental Quality Act or “specified subject areas” like climate change, air quality and hazardous materials.
“California’s environmental and land-use court cases should be decided by specialized judges trained in environmental and land-use law, and whose decisions would be documented and published,” the bill says. “It is important that the judicial selection process be unbiased.”
Corbett, a San Leandro Democrat, was unavailable to comment on her bill Wednesday, according to her chief of staff, Andrew LaMar. LaMar also declined to discuss the legislation.
SB 123 does not identify any sponsoring organization, and it leaves many questions unanswered. Courts in small counties may be hard-pressed to find the time and training for one judge to specialize in complex land-use or environmental matters. Also, the bill does not include any money to set up the specialty courts.
SB 123 does authorize the Judicial Council to draft a rule of court specifying what kind of cases would be assigned to the environmental court. The council would also be charged with setting educational requirements and “other qualifications” for judges handling the specialty calendar.
“The senator raises a very important public policy issue but also some significant concerns,” said Cory Jasperson, director of the council’s Office of Governmental Affairs. “The Judicial Council has historically opposed specialty courts — tax courts, business courts — and the concern would be that this would mandate every court to have environmental and land-use courts. There would be significant funding issues.”
State law already requires courts in counties with more than 200,000 residents to have at least one judge with CEQA expertise.
“My sense is this is a good faith effort to try to expedite judicial decision making in these matters,” said Robert “Perl” Perlmutter, a partner with the environmental law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, who had just seen SB 123 for the first time Wednesday afternoon.
**** (that law firm ABOVE is the invisible hand on this one folks ) ****
The National Center for State Courts has identified 10 states that are home to courts with some type of specialized environmental focus, although the size and breadth of their work vary greatly.
Environmental groups have reacted cautiously to the bill in light of the behind-the-scenes work currently going on in the Legislature to revamp CEQA. Corbett, however, is generally recognized as a strong CEQA supporter who has been strongly backed in past elections by environmental lobbies.
“There have been some concerns,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League. “The devil’s in the details.”
unionman575
January 24, 2013
SB 123 (above) is NOT a good idea SENATOR CORBETT.
WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. UNDERSTAND THAT.
😉
MaxRebo5
January 24, 2013
Jerry Brown in his state of the state address today said:
“This means living within our means and not spending what we don’t have,” he said. “Fiscal discipline is not the enemy of our good intentions, but the basis for realizing them. It’s cruel to lead people on by expanding good programs, only to cut them, cut them back when the funding disappears.”
The cruelty he speaks of is exactly what Team Geoge is guity of. They spent and spent and expanded and expanded in the boom years when the economy was humming along thanks to the housing bubble that we all know too well burst. Now that the good times are gone they have to scale back and it is cruel for the branch to go through. There was great fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement in CA Courts.
Sadly for the courts they spent and spent and didn’t even do that well. CCMS was a bust, the courthouse on Long Beach is costing other courts from not being built, and they expanded the AOC instead of putting the money in trial courts to actually resolve disputes. They also did it all meanly and ruthlessly (Like Lance Armstrong before he finally got caught) by squashing any dissenting ideas or viewpoints. More change is needed in CA Judicial Administation.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2013
Now you know why our focus in these discussions is a non-discretionary fixed, fair source of funding like a DMV fee and/or an assessment on any corporate, state, county, city, business or professional licensing fee. It is a relatively stable source of income that will be reliably paid and can be a stable source of judicial branch funding relative to a local population, unlike begging the general fund for cash and getting it only in flush years.
In case you haven’t noticed the wall of debt Jerry Brown speaks of, there are no more flush years unless the wall of debt is reduced. California has been living way beyond our means and until we track every expenditure to a direct, collectible funding source, nothing will change that wall of debt
The CHP is funded by DMV fees and they get new cars, motorcycles, helicopters and airplanes every year. Go figure.
wearyant
January 24, 2013
http://crimevoice.com/chp-shooting-of-motorcyclist-still-under-investigation-21860
Something odorous going on here with our CHP, the protectors of our beloved JC/AOC/CJ office. The motorcyclist was not squeaky clean, but did he deserve what happened?
unionman575
January 24, 2013
And now a report from Steve Nash San Bernadino Court CEO…
http://www.highlandnews.net/articles/2013/01/24/news/doc50ff1e6775160342379981.txt
Supervisor Ramos and Lovingood to hold meeting to discuss Big Bear/Barstow/Needles Court Closures
Published: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:52 PM PST
Within one week of taking office, Supervisor Ramos learned of the planned closures of the Big Bear, Barstow, and Needles courthouses. Due to budget cuts at the State level, these courthouses are scheduled to close in May. Although the courts are funded by the state of California, Supervisor Ramos immediately began looking into what the county can do to mitigate the impact of these closures.
Ramos and Supervisor Lovingood have put together a meeting with local court officials and other principals of the judicial system to discuss possible solutions. Those attending this Jan. 31 meeting will include representatives from the District Attorney’s office, the Public Defender’s office, the San Bernardino County Bar Association, the High Desert Bar Association, the Court Executive Officer, and the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.
The public and press are excluded from the meeting.
Some of the proposed ideas to be discussed include transportation and technological solutions as well as working with our state legislative delegation to fix the inequitable funding of our courts at the State level.
Closures of these courts will create additional burdens for residents who will have to travel greater distances in order to take care of court business. The Big Bear and Barstow courthouses are located in the 3rd Supervisorial District and the Needles courthouse is located in the 1st District. Supervisor Ramos feels “it is imperative for all citizens to have easy accessibility to our judicial system and that is a primary responsibility of government to provide.” His hope is to deliver some relief for the residents impacted by these closures.
Commercial IT
January 25, 2013
A crying shame and totally unnecessary.
unionman575
January 24, 2013
Hmm. How much is this going to cost?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20764.htm
JBWCP Insurance Brokerage and Consulting Services, RFP HR-053012CK
The objective of this RFP is to seek, identify and retain one qualified Consultant/Broker (“Contractor”) to provide risk management consulting services which include: annual actuarial valuations, third party claims administration (“TPA”) oversight and audits, nurse case management audits, assistance with an annual chargeback allocation model, assistance with the ongoing identification and prioritization of risk reduction measures, implementation of existing strategies and development of new strategies designed to mitigate increased cost to the program and brokerage services for providing excess insurance coverage for the Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Program (“JBWCP”).”
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2013
Ah, yes, the “Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Program.” Someday, somehow, someone is going to scrutinize that fund, or, perhaps, even audit it. Or, more accurately, what’s left of it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 24, 2013
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=68001-69000&file=68070-68114.10
Government Code
68114.10. Effective July 1, 2003, there is hereby established in
the State Treasury the Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Fund for
the purpose of funding workers’ compensation claims for judicial
branch employees, including employees of the Administrative Office of
the Courts, appellate courts, participating superior courts,
Commission on Judicial Performance, and Habeas Corpus Resource
Center. Contributions from participating judicial branch employers
shall be credited to the fund. Income of whatever nature earned on
the Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Fund during any fiscal year
shall be credited to the fund. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the
Government Code, moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated
without regard to fiscal years. The fund shall be used by the
Administrative Office of the Courts to pay workers’ compensation
claims of judicial branch employees and administrative costs.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2013
And yet it is widely reported by AOC workers and court workers alike that one of the easiest ways to unemployment street is to be injured on the job….and that the AOC has totally screwed workers by denying they received claim forms and doing everything fundamentally dishonest to avoid paying claims.
Maybe us calling them on this specific issue is the reason for increased claims. The AOC is not an insurance company and should not be “mission creeping” into being one. Nor should the trial courts be funding and the AOC managing a big pot ‘o money on behalf of court workers.
The state has an internal mechanism using a real workers comp insurer (that is also a quasi-governmental agency) that issued their policyholders a hundred million in premium rebates last year and also took care of state workers, unlike the AOC’s program.
Here is your cheaper, better source of workers comp.
http://www.statefundca.com/statecontracts/Index.asp
Judicial Council Watcher
January 24, 2013
I’d really like a lawyer with a workers comp and commercial insurance background to review this RFP because it seems a bit…. odorous. Such a consultant it would seem would invariably have a severe conflict of interest.
Wendy Darling
January 24, 2013
Since when has a conflict of interest, severe or otherwise, ever stopped anyone or anything at 455 Golden Gate Avenue?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
January 25, 2013
I am still trying to figure out how the JC/AOC can create a re-engineering division. Just exactly what does that mean? Hmm, what are they planning to re-engineer and under what authority do they have to engage in such activities? Maybe we will see yet another attempt by the JC/AOC to take over the selection of trial court Presiding Judges. As trial courts all over the state contract and lay off valued employees what in the world is the AOC doing creating any new bureaucratic positions and hiring over 60 new full time employees. It is the ultimate irony that the CJ claims in dramatic fashion “Don’t they know there aren’t any courts anymore ” while she is presiding over the continued unnecessary growth of an out of touch and increasingly bloated bureaucracy at 455 Golden Gate .The damage this CJ has done to the once proud and strong judicial branch of California is staggering.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 25, 2013
I’d be interested in how many courts have engaged this Special Projects\reengineering office and would think that number is closer to zero than it is 58. Now that it’s headed by the venerable Ms. Hershkowitz, I would expect that number to remain zero.
Lando
January 25, 2013
Yes the damage is staggering. Ronald George knew exactly what he was doing. He picked his successor and in doing so picked someone that would be caught up with the power and trappings of office and who would never do anything to damage his “legacy”. Sadly the citizens of California pay the price. 4 hour drives to the courthouse. The clerks office closing at noon. Layoffs of our clerks office personnel and Commissioners. Courthouses being delayed or shelved. Meanwhile down at the crystal palace the “insiders” work to protect their privileges and power. In addition to HRH 2, J Hull works to derail those who dare dissent and J Rosenberg has become chief of insuring that the spin sounds great for those that populate the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. What a complete and total mess.
unionman575
January 25, 2013
May I suggest this for an AOC Retreat?
.A change of scenery may assist with the re-engineering “process”…
😉
courtflea
January 25, 2013
The OBT prior to the AOC latching on to this term, in a nutshell re-engineering was the term used for taking a close look at individual operational processes to determine if there was a way to streamline or improve the process. The desired result being improved customer service, written proceedures, and the most effective way to perform the task/process. I have no idea what this term means to the AOC. Certainly as I understand the meaning of the term, the AOC has not applied it to its operations! More than likely they mean to re-engineer the trial courts to their way of doing things.
MaxRebo5
January 25, 2013
I agree with you courtflea that they are marketing reengineering to the trial courts. The AOC’s reengineering unit is a service for the trial courts to use. I don’t think they are trying to force an AOC way of doing things on to the trial courts though. It isn’t quite that heavy handed. Instead, they are offering reengineering consultanting services to the trial courts for free but it is not free at all for CA taxpayers. These AOC staff are full time positions on the payroll and are well paid. Did the Judicial Council approve of funding for such positions or ask the AOC leadership to start such a program? I have no idea. If they did I bet it was years ago when times were much more flush and it never gets reviewed again and cut given the new fiscal reality for the branch.
Imagine Steve Nash the CEO there in San Bernardino Superior Court facing a fiscal crisis and having to close courthouses. The AOC can offer to him a reengineering review to possibly change the way business is done to adapt to fewer courthouses. Sounds reasonable right?
The problem is the AOC has nothing of substance to offer to San Bernardino Superior Court. Instead of providing real money to cash strapped courts they offer a highly paid reegineering unit from the AOC. It justifies their existence.
Why not lay off the reengineering unit and with the savings generated pay for a clerk or two and keep a courtroom open? Do these types of deep cuts in multple areas of the AOC and there is some real money to keep open the most critically underfunded trial courts in CA.
These are the painful cuts the AOC should go through and the Chief and leadership won’t do it. Each of those jobs at the AOC is a friend they would have to harm. Still it is hard to say those friends are more essential to the public getting access to justice than a clerk would be in Big Bear. This is why the Chief looks like (is) a hypocrite when she calls for more funding to ensure access to justice.
I think the Governor and Leg are correctly saying back to her you have funding but it is all ending up at the AOC. That’s why there is a special committee with the Governor and Chief meeting. The AOC grew exponentially under Team George and that has to be addressed. It was a failed vision and the Chief is hanging on to it like the last rail of the Titanic.
Let it go and start serving the CA Courts and the CA public instead of the AOC. The public needs local courts operating not a large AOC in San Francisco. Only after significant administrative cuts to the AOC are made should the branch ask for more money. Thanks for the forum JCW.
R Campomadera
January 25, 2013
The arrogance of the AOC is staggering…any bureaucratic organization that grew from less than 300 to more than 1200 in a decade, wasted half a billion dollars on a non-functional computer system, and allowed high paid employees to “work” from Switzerland and Virginia, has no business re-engineering anything other than itself, which it has proven itself incapable of doing.
unionman575
January 25, 2013
Re-engineering Union Man style:
unionman575
January 25, 2013
Despite state and city budget deficits, employee furloughs and pay cuts for state employees, the California judicial branch continues to spend money for retired judges to do the job of sitting judges.
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_22386987/get-involved-and-clean-up-lake-county-government
Get involved and clean up Lake County government
by Bill Shields
Updated: 01/16/2013 01:12:00 PM PST
How can you declare who is innocent and who is guilty if you are doing wrong yourself?
California’s justice system, the largest in the nation, is also among the hardest hit by budget cuts.
In four years, general fund support for California courts is down by more than 30 percent at a time when people need the courts more than ever.
To soften the blow, critical infrastructure funds have been shifted to court operations. Even so, courts are closing and services are being reduced throughout the state. Access to justice is at stake.
Despite state and city budget deficits, employee furloughs and pay cuts for state employees, the California judicial branch continues to spend money for retired judges to do the job of sitting judges.
I understand that senior judges have collected thousands of dollars in extra pay that pads their annual retirement payments of more than $100,000.
In many cases, many of these judges can retire on a Friday and collect their pensions. If I understand correctly.
On Monday, they return to the exact same courtroom they served in previously, before they retired and they are earning nearly double their pay. Prior to their retirement they filled the slot of an elected judicial officer, subject to their retention elections and oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance. Once appointed, they are no longer subject to retention elections nor oversight from the commission.
During the span of my years, to me a judge was someone to be held in high esteem and to be treated with dignity and respect. This system of appointing judges with no oversight puts them all in a bad light.
I don’t think that a judge who retires should get a retirement check and then do the same job and get paid double for it.
I think that this is double-dipping and it seems to me that judges should be above greed and should not be granted the power to change the lives of ordinary people without proper oversight.
I want Lake County residents who agree with me to join me and get involved in promoting better government and clean up Lake County.
Bill Shields
Clearlake
courtflea
January 25, 2013
you said it Bill!
JusticeCalifornia
January 25, 2013
The “non-profit” grant-driven National Center for State Courts is (internationally) proactively promoting the idea that reduced court budgets will result in forced reduced-budget-centralized ADMINISTRATIVE control (court re-engineering) of the judicial branches of the world.
Can I please repeat that?
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF THE WORLD.
THE ADMINISTRATORS, NOT THE JUDGES, WILL BE IN CONTROL OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
Can I please repeat that? (yes I am intentionally repeating)
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF THE WORLD.
THE ADMINISTRATORS, NOT THE JUDGES, WILL BE IN CONTROL OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
As a seasoned litigator and VERY well-documented observer and reporter of CA court corruption, I personally do not like the NCSC. The NCSC has been paid handsomely by the CA judicial branch– with public funds– to excuse and sidestep some of the most corrupt behavior I have ever seen in the CA State Courts. Yes I do have files and details and personal experience to support these claims…..LOL.
Marin County, California, and its well-documented ethically-compromised NCSC alum Kim Turner, has had a decades-long history of court corruption, excused by the NCSC. Right, NCSC?
And say hey– what about Shasta County/NCSC favorites Steve Jahr and NCSC Board member Steve Baker, who for years have gone along with the horrifically constitutionally compromised Halpin debacle, at the expense of the public they supposedly are serving?
http://www.ncsc.org/About-us/Board-of-Directors-2011.aspx
But you all decide for yourselves.
I won’t take on and expose ethically-compromised NCSC activity in CA unless forced to. LOL.
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2013
“Judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else.” Curt Sonderlund.
And that plan hasn’t changed. Not one little bit.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2013
There’s that “culture of control” thing rearing its ugly head again. Published today, Friday, January 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Press Groups Attack Public Access Shell Game by Court Bureaucrats
By BILL GIRDNER
California court administrators are trying to create a new definition for public documents that appears aimed at limiting press access. News groups submitted comments Friday calling the change a “semantic sleight of hand” that undermines fundamental press and public freedoms.
“It appears the true purpose of introducing the concept of an `officially filed’ document into the Rules of Court is to provide the administrators with justification for denying public access to records that have been ‘filed,’ under the long-understood meaning of that term, until after they have been “officially filed,” wrote Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Roger Myers and Katherine Keating with Bryan Cave.
An officially filed document, according to the proposed rules, is one that has been “processed and reviewed,” in other words, worked on by civil servants who create a computer record and run through a host of additional procedures.
In Sacramento’s courthouse, those procedures take about six weeks.
The change in definition, slipped into proposed rules for electronic filing, appears intended to give officials an excuse to deny press access to newly filed controversies, until after all the bureaucratic tasks are done.
“The proposed rule change would thus give court administrators unbridled discretion to delay press and public access to fundamentally public records until administrators decide such access is appropriate — even if it is days or weeks after the ‘filed’ date,” said the Bryan Cave lawyers.
Their comments were made on behalf of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, Californians-Aware, The First Amendment Coalition and Courthouse News Service.
“The Judicial Council should not countenance the definitional sleight of hand when the public’s access to court records — a right that is fundamental to the transparency of the judicial branch of our government — is at issue,” they said.
The quiet attempt to work a new definition of court records into e-filing rules is consistent with past policy of the Administrative Office of the Courts where its former director William Vickrey attempted a similar semantic shell game by referring to filed documents as “pre-filed,” in order to support his argument against prompt access by the media.
“In the proposed rules, the dubious notion of a ‘pre-filed’ document has been replaced with the equally dubious notion of an ‘officially filed’ document,” said the comment from the press corps.
Vickrey and his office came under fire from the Legislature and trial court judges around the state on issues that ranged from financial mismanagement to perceived arrogance.
He retired in 2011, his long-time lobbyist Curt Child was appointed head of operations last year, and the office was said to be reformed.
But the effort to create a new definition for court documents shows little tendency towards reform and instead continues the office’s old, restrictive view on public access.
Federal and state court rulings establish that timely access to public documents is part of the overriding First Amendment right. News loses interest to readers as time goes by and news outlets report new matters on the day they happen rather than a day, a week or six weeks later.
“It appears the primary — and perhaps sole — purpose of the `officially filed’ concept is to justify arguments by court administrators that the public has no right to access a court record until court staff deem it fit for public viewing,” said the press comments. “The access delays that would inevitably result would violate the federal constitutional right of timely access to court records and be contrary to the practices of state and federal courts around the nation.”
As an example of hot news tied to a court filing, football player Junior Seau’s family sued the NFL on Wednesday in San Diego and the news was reported by national sports pages that same day. But reporters could not get the document from the court because San Diego Superior Court delays access to court documents until they are processed.
That delay is contrary to courthouse traditions. Courts throughout the nation traditionally give journalists access to new filings, such as the Junior Seau matter, on the day they are filed, when the news is hot.
But that tradition has been under attack in local California courts that fell in line with the central administrative office and adopted its financially disastrous software for processing cases at a cost of a half-billion dollars in public money.
Orange County and San Diego are two of the California courts that adopted that cumbersome and now-defunct software, and both courts are now pushing electronic filing of court documents. Orange County, in particular, now requires that lawyers file electronically but nevertheless delays public access for a substantial amount of time while new matters are processed into that old software, called the Court Case Management System.
That mandatory e-filing program is the direct result of a bill passed by the California Legislature last summer that OK’d a pilot program in Orange County and said the experience from the program should shape statewide rules on e-filing.
But those new rules were written and proposed before the pilot program had even started, and now administrators are trying to push them through the courts’ policy-making body, the Judicial Council, when the pilot program is less than a month old.
“Assembly Bill 2073 explicitly requires the Judicial Council to adopt mandatory e-filing rules that are `informed’ by a study of the Orange County pilot program,” said the press comments. “But instead of following this mandate, the proposed rules were drafted and circulated before the Orange County pilot program even began.”
“The prospect of precipitously adopting mandatory e-filing rules is especially troubling in light of the recent debacle over the California Case Management System,” the comments continued. “Given the enormous amount of public funds spent on that failed project, caution is essential to ensure that the delays and inconsistencies in public access associated with CCMS do not carry over into the expansion of e-filing.”
In obtaining passage of the pilot program legislation, with the help of the central administrative office, Orange County court officials told the legislators that “E-filing makes the court records available faster and sooner to everyone, including the public.”
However, reporters who cover Orange County have found that not to be true.
In December, a two-day spot check of paper-filed complaints compared with e-filed complaints showed that the paper cases were actually processed more quickly by a day or two than the e-filed cases, a result that mirrors earlier surveys on the delays in access to e-filed, complex cases, often the most important and newsworthy cases in the court.
“After that court implemented e-filing for certain categories of cases, e-filed documents were not typically available until a day or two after their paper-based counterparts were accessible,” said the press comments.
When that discrepancy was reported in a news article late last year, Orange County court officials appeared to accelerate the processing of e-filed complaints and the delays went down. But by mid-January, the delay had again increased to two and three days between the time a case is actually “filed” and the time it is “officially filed.”
In one of the many aberrations that take place when administrators control press access, the most minor cases, referred to as limited cases, are processed first and appear more quickly for public view than the more important, or unlimited cases, that take much longer.
The press comments noted that while legislators were told e-filing would be “facilitating public access,” court administrators were instead using the legislation “as a hook to undermine public access.”
Press access under CCMS and now e-filing contrasts sharply with traditional press access in California and the nation.
Roughly a decade ago, news reporters in Orange County reviewed newly filed civil cases on the day they were filed at the end of the day, in a wooden box in the records room that was connected to the intake windows for new filings.
A survey of press and public access in courts around the nation, attached to Friday’s comments from press groups, shows that traditional, same-day press access remains the norm in most federal and state courts in the nation. The exceptions, as the survey demonstrates, are precisely those California courts that are rushing to implement electronic filing.
By contrast, federal courts have moved towards electronic filing while putting in place a host of local variations that preserve traditional, same-day press access.
Some of the federal courts send new filings directly onto public terminals at the courthouse without any processing from court officials, providing nearly instantaneous public access.
Other federal courts provide an electronic in-box that allows the press to review newly filed cases before they are processed, in other words when they are “filed” and before they are “officially filed” in the parlance of the new rules proposed for California.
Courthouse News has repeatedly asked officials in Orange County Superior Court to provide the press with access to the electronic in-box for new filings, in order to preserve the old status quo of same-day access for the press. The vendor for the e-filing service in Orange County has said such access is completely feasible, that it is simply a matter of the court’s discretion.
But that request has repeatedly been turned down by the Orange County clerk. Instead, the court’s pilot program has come accompanied by pre-written rules that, according to the comments from the press groups, appear aimed at justifying the ongoing delays in press access.
“Rights fundamental to the democratic process — like the right to know what goes on in the courts — are meaningless if they can be disregarded when they become inconvenient,” the press comment concluded.
“As history has taught us, rushing forward without taking the time to assess how these systems will actually work for all concerned is quite likely to result in a system that is worse rather than better.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/25/54290.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 26, 2013
Public access? Whats’s that?
😉
“The prospect of precipitously adopting mandatory e-filing rules is especially troubling in light of the recent debacle over the California Case Management System,” the comments continued. “Given the enormous amount of public funds spent on that failed project, caution is essential to ensure that the delays and inconsistencies in public access associated with CCMS do not carry over into the expansion of e-filing.”
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2013
“Public Access Shell Game by Court Bureaucrats” =’s judicial branch leadership’s latest version of Three Card Monte. Apparently, “re-engineering” the branch for an unparralled reputation of deception, deceit, and concealment is the standard of conduct the Office of the Chief Justice is going for.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
January 26, 2013
Who will have access to the courts? Not the ordinary folks and small businessmen who need to file a small claims or small civil matter. Family law? Not likely in anything resembling a reasonable time with all the closed courtrooms and reduced personnel. Your average wage earner or small businessman cannot afford JAMS. E-filing? Great for lawyers but not so grate for those who are forced to represent themselves.
That leaves the criminals and the wealthy with unlimited access to the courts, but unless you are a wealthy criminal, the quality of your defense will be dependent on an overworked, underpaid public defender.
Where is all this leading? Privatized justice? But how can the average wage earner or small businessman afford that? And if we arch that point, there will not be any real justice in California.
unionman575
January 26, 2013
What have we here?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/18/54083.htm
Friday, January 18, 2013Last Update: 6:23 AM PT
San Luis Obispo Courts Taking Leap From Microfiche to E-filing
By DAVE TARTRE
(CN) – San Luis Obispo Superior Court is in the midst of a two-week “fit analysis” to see how its old record-keeping system works with a new e-filing system bought for $3.1 million.
The court that covers the seaside resort of Pismo Beach and the wine region of Paso Robles was next in line to receive a statewide records system called the Court Case Management System, pushed by California’s central court administration. Before it could be installed, the half-billion-dollar CCMS project was abandoned.
In the wake of that debacle, the Judicial Council that sets policy for California’s courts endorsed the purchase by local trial courts of case management systems sold by private vendors. In June, the council approved $3.36 million for that purpose for San Luis Obispo.
During a bidding contest in July, Dallas-based Tyler Technologies bid $3.1 million while a number of other contractors bid substantially less. Tyler distinguished itself within the bidding criteria by offering to sell its system outright.
“The part that’s really attractive is that we bought the license,” said Presiding Judge Barry LaBarbera. “We’re not renting it.”
In essence, San Luis Obispo owns the e-filing system that it is now fitting into place and any fees charged to lawyers for e-filing would go to the court.
LaBarbera said the central Administrative Office of the Courts was involved in the process but the decision to award Tyler the contract was made by him and his staff in San Luis Obispo.
The otherwise well-appointed courts of San Luis Obispo were mired in the technological past, using a micro-fiche system to store court documents. With the move to e-filing, the court is taking a roughly 50-year technological leap.
“We’ll have one system instead of 21 systems,” said Court Executive Officer Susan Matherly, going on to describe a hodge-podge of computer systems that handle everything from traffic violations to murder cases.
She said Tyler’s web-based Odyssey software will also help the court do away with its mainframe computers, maintained by programmers who are retiring.
“We have the potential to go paperless,” she said. “We’ll be able to get rid of microfiche and we’ll phase e-filing into the system.”
After the CCMS system was abandoned last year, LaBarbera told the Judicial Council that he thought CCMS would have worked for his court, but that, in any case, the need for replacement of the court’s jumbled technology was desperate.
“We’ve been without a system for 12 years,” he said at the time. “Really dysfunctional for the last six. We don’t have a civil system at all.”
This week, with a new contract inked, LaBarbera said he hopes the coming changes benefit the public as well as the court.
“We are hopeful the system will give the public more access to things they are entitled to see,” LaBarbera said.
But the question of whether to charge for public documents online has not been decided.
“We’re waiting on statewide rules on public access to documents, but conceivably the public will be able to access a lot more information online,” said court executive Matherly.
California courts have so far fallen into two camps, divided between north and south, on whether to charge for public documents on the web.
Southern California courts in San Diego, Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino and Los Angeles charge substantial fees to the public for online documents.
Northern California courts in Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and San Francisco post documents online for free.
On the separate matter of courthouse operations, Judge LaBarbera pressed the point that the court would operate more efficiently as a result of the new e-filing system.
“It will decrease staff time to enter cases and attorney time in appearances and calendaring,” he said, emphasizing the costs to retrieve, process or find cases in hard-copy format.
While e-filing is not common in California courts, it has been adopted by a large number of federal courts where districts have individually adapted rules for e-filing much as they shaped local rules for paper filing.
But, contrary to the promises of e-filing vendors, officials in big federal courts such as Los Angeles have disputed the cost benefits of e-filing, noting that a large number of modestly paid clerks were replaced by a smaller number of much more highly paid technical staff, with little overall savings in cost.
Orange County Superior Court is one of the few CCMS courts in California and the only California court where e-filing is mandatory. It has fired workers from its records room, but the court has hired so many technical employees that, in a point made by an Orange County judge, there is a one-to-one ratio between technical staff and judges.
One of the goals of the defunct CCMS project was to allow e-filing but also to centralize filing procedures and trial court statistics, and that is a benefit that will now come from the new Odyssey system, said Matherly.
“A judge will ask, ‘How many of this type of case do we have?'” Matherly said. With Odyssey, the court will have up-to-date figures on the numbers of tort, theft or any other category of case the court handles.
In the end, said the court’s leaders, the decision to go with the Odyssey system was relatively easy.
Tyler Technologies beat out CourtView Justice Solutions, ISD Corp. and Sustain Technologies Inc. because of very strong recommendations from other courts and because the cost proposals were not really comparable, according to Matherly.
Instead of charging annual licensing fees, Tyler is charging San Luis Obispo a fixed one-time cost. Matherly also said the license allows the addition of an unlimited number of users.
“They were reasonable and believable,” Matherly said of Tyler, while its rivals had additional burdens hidden in the form of on-going licensing fees and support costs.
“The AOC was not terribly involved in the decision,” she added. “They assisted us. They participated in the scoring and we took their input, but it was our decision.”
She said she had talked to courts across the U.S. and in Canada, devoting several days to phone conversations with clerks currently using Tyler’s system.
“References were one of the biggest reasons,” she said in explaining the court’s decision.
“Other court administrators gave it a 10 plus,” she said, and many told her that, “Tyler came in on time and on budget.”
And after San Luis Obispo’s experience trying to get started with the now-defunct, AOC-backed CCMS, she said, “So far, compared with CCMS, this process has been painless.”
More details on what is involved in migrating the court’s old systems onto the Odyssey platform will be worked out over the next few weeks when the fit analysis currently being conducted with Tyler is complete. But the new system is expected to be up and running in 2014.
“All the old systems are so difficult,”
Matherly said. “The staff will be very happy to move to the new system.”
Judge LaBarbera said of the imminent transition: “It’s a little scary, but the staff is very excited, energetic, hopeful and optimistic.”
Commercial IT
January 27, 2013
So they got references, eh? Hmmmm. And then there’s the Internet. You know, the place where you can do simple searches that might uncover things like http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/NEWS07/307139990. Actually people in the industry who are knowledgeable have known about this and several other boondoggles for years. Deloitte boondoggles everywhere from Florida to Colorado to Texas to England to Ireland, etc. were well known to knowledgeable people. But, if you don’t bother to look, and therefore don’t see this stuff, then it’s not there. Right?
Michael Paul
January 27, 2013
Commercial IT, data conversion from multiple previous case management solutions found in 92 counties (Indiana is about twice as large in sq miles as San Bernardino County) and getting that data converted to the Odyssey system from whatever format it’s currently in (from hundreds of different systems with irregular formatting due to poor or developing code) and validating the data would take time. It will take time to do this in California as well with any case management system. This was one of the parts that was discarded from the CCMS project in Brunier’s & Moore’s effort to save face and call the CCMS application complete.
There are less counties and less systems to deal with here and those systems have more customers in them for the most part. Tyler Tech needs to evaluate the data in each system and proceed developing migration tools and validation methodology. In the case of some systems like the various versions of Sustain, they probably already have developed migration tools. It’s going to be the old county mainframes that challenge them. Indiana seems to have a different nuance going on with the state being the licensee and the counties responsible for data evaluation and conversion as well. 92+ different sets of politics is at play there to get someone to pay for those tasks.
Would you trust Deloitte more to develop CCMS migration tools or would you trust Tyler who has 450 courts under their belt already?
My bet is on Tyler and running this system locally at most every court. If they want statewide integration, they can do that as a second phase once every county is up and running. That’s the safe, smart approach. One thing at a time.
courtflea
January 26, 2013
Ha! I will believe it when I see it SLO.
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2013
There was an interesting article in Friday’s Wall Street Journal that the Pentagon, facing serious budget cuts, has decided to release all of its temporary employees, in order to preserve the integrity of their long-term workforce. There’s a lesson and a message there, but it will fall on deaf ears at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
January 27, 2013
An editorial in this morning’s Sacramento Bee by retired Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster, an official “Hero of the Judiciary”:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/27/5141876/dissidents-in-court-debate-are.html
Michael Paul
January 27, 2013
That was a great rebuttal! Thank You Judge McMaster!
wearyant
January 27, 2013
R Campomadera, thanks for posting the link to the McMaster editorial. His comments were like a breath of fresh air.
Wendy Darling
January 27, 2013
“As independent constitutional officers, judges have a right and a responsibility to speak up and push for transparency and for a democratically elected Judicial Council.”
Exactly right, Judge McMaster. And as for those judges who have honored their right and responsibility to speak up, and been branded as “dissidents” as a consequence, telling the truth is not an act of rebellion, especially for a judge.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
January 28, 2013
Great editorial by retired Judge McMaster. He is an outstanding voice of common sense. I hope the Governor and legislature are listening.
Lando
January 28, 2013
I too am looking forward to retirement so I can get my First Amendment rights totally back again.