April 25, 2013
Dear Members and Others:
By a show of hands, who thinks the half-billion dollar failed computer project, known as CCMS, is dead? If you raised your hand, you obviously made the mistake of thinking that our court leaders meant what they said a year ago when they voted to terminate the failed project.
We attach an article by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo which details the efforts of branch leadership to resurrect what was once thought to be dead, but apparently lives on to consume more precious trial court funds.The article contains links to various documents that disclose the behind-the-scene machinations to expand CCMS V-3 to include family law and juvenile dependency. You will see that the Orange, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Superior Courts have wisely objected to this plan. Inexplicably, the Ventura and San Diego Superior Courts support the effort, which will cost each court hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Alliance questions this stunning turn of events in light of clear legislative action last year that put the brakes on further CCMS spending. We are also mindful of a Judicial Council vote that appeared to stop CCMS in its tracks. We now learn that it takes more than the legislature and a vote of the Council to end what is the largest information technology failure in California state government history.
One final point. Alliance board member and Sacramento Superior Court Judge Kevin McCormick has requested the current list of active AOC/Judicial Council contracts. In the past, these lists were readily available and helped to shed light on the number of “temporary employees” and CCMS contractors who were on the payroll. We are now informed that the AOC no longer maintains this type of a list — a judge, or anyone for that matter, can no longer readily determine how public dollars are being spent. As a result, the AOC and Council can continue to fund CCMS notwithstanding legislative action, public statements or Judicial Council votes to the contrary. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the AOC is opposing an audit of its contracting work, insisting that the State General Fund must pay for it.
These are tough times for the local courts. We have all witnessed valuable employees being shown the door, curtailment of hours of service to the public, and the closure of numerous local courthouses. It is truly bewildering that while this carnage is taking place our unelected branch leaders believe it is prudent to revive and expand on a computer project that has done irreparable harm to the judicial branch. Clearly this does not help to make the case for additional funds for the courts.
After the Courthouse News article we have pasted member emails we sent after the Judicial Council supposedly voted to kill CCMS. Perhaps with your help our concerns will be heard. We will continue to keep a close watch on this Council and its uncontrollable hydra, the AOC, and we will continue to advocate on your behalf for an elected Council with the conviction to put the interests of the trial courts and the public ahead of those of the central planners and their uninformed devotees.
Directors
Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________________
Courthouse News Service
4/23/13
Ghost Rises From Software’s Grave
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Despite instructions from legislators to stop spending money on a controversial software project, a court technology committee is now looking to pour more money into the project long thought dead. A key administrator noted the political risk in spending additional hundreds of thousands of dollars on the aging Court Case Management System used by only a few trial courts. The great majority of trial courts, said the administrator, could see the spending as “enhanced funding for a project deemed cancelled.” In more freewheeling language, judges slammed the software as “a money-sucking beast” that deserves “a stake through its heart,” thence to be “dragged out into the sunshine to rot.” The renewed life of the CCMS project was sparked by a recommendation from the Court Technology Committee, one of the powerful court committees that work closely with the Administrative Office of the Courts and meet in sessions closed to the press and public.
Earlier this month, the committee’s chair, Santa Barbara Judge James Herman, sent a letter to the five courts that use an interim version of the software, asking if they would like to enhance” the system for a cost of somewhere from $317,000 to $381,000. Specifically, the proposal would expand the case types that can be included in the third version of the software to include family law and juvenile dependency cases. Over its decade-long development, the expense of the software project has been underestimated by administrative office officials and wound up costing more than a half-billion dollars in public money.
The project was supposed to be terminated last year as a result of a vote in the rule-making arm of the court system, the Judicial Council, saying money could only be spent to maintain the system in the few courts that use the software. This month’s technology committee letter proposing the expansion of the software’s ability to handle additional case types was signed by Herman who was not available for comment. He said in a February interview concerning alternate court software that CCMS had in fact been successful. “CCMS was a technically successful, completed product,” said Herman. “What defeated CCMS was we didn’t have the money.” Orange County Judge Robert Moss, who is also a member of the technology committee, echoed that point in an interview this week.
“It’s all about money,” said Moss. “The three courts that are against it don’t plan to use V3 for other case types and they don’t want the limited resources that exist to maintain V3 to be diluted by expanding. It’s not an irrational thing, but it’s a dilemma because the trial courts are not in agreement.”At its Monday meeting, said Moss, the technology committee decided to go back to the courts to see what funds each can afford to contribute, if any. “We’re looking into whether the courts would have the ability to share the cost.”
The letter from the technology committee, sent early this month, has brought opposite reactions from the five courts that use the software. Sacramento, Orange County and San Joaquin are strongly opposed. Ventura and San Diego think it is a good idea. Sacramento head clerk Christine Volkers said the proposal “poses too much of a political and financial risk.” “Sacramento is keenly aware of the discussions surrounding the reduction or elimination of funding for CCMS V3,” she said. “If additional case types are added, this could be considered by other courts as enhanced funding for a project deemed cancelled.”
Volkers, who was hired late last year, also gave voice to the point often made by judges — that the central administrative office has been subsidizing individual courts that agreed to use the software by footing the bill for the software’s development.The great majority of California’s 58 trial courts did not take on the software, so they are required to buy case management software, which routinely costs millions of dollars, out of their own operating budgets. “Many courts may believe that the CCMS V3 courts are receiving special treatment, when many are paying for their case management systems out of their trial court trust fund allocation,” wrote Volkers. Sacramento adopted the controversial software under a previous clerk. Since that decision, the court’s leaders have been in a number of confrontations with the administrative office over the software project and they were instrumental in its demise with a deeply critical assessment of the software’s reliability and efficiency.
“It’s a reality that we are given additional money because we were ‘early adopter courts,'” said Sacramento Judge Maryanne Gilliard. “Our court can’t afford to keep CCMS afloat without it.”
“It is such a money-sucking beast,” she added, “and so staff and employee driven.”
Another of the five affected courts, Orange County, said through its head clerk that it is “not interested” in the expansion. The court’s letter said expansion could jeopardize additional funding the court receives now receives to maintain the defunct software. “If case types are added to V3, other courts that already object to any funding being provided for V3 courts may gain additional supporters and may succeed in cutting off the funding altogether, even for defect fixes and legislative updates,” said head clerk Alan Carlson.
Judge Moss, from the technology committee and also from Orange County, said that even if the committee decides to roll out the expansion for only two courts, the other three will still have to pay for testing to ensure the changes don’t affect current operations. “Every court that has V3 running will have to do regression testing if the program is modified,” said Moss. “Orange County will still have to do a lot of testing to ensure the modifications don’t affect functionality.” Like the administrators in Sacramento and Orange, the head clerk in San Joaquin Superior Court is also skeptical. “When V3 was deployed, there were several deficiencies in the accounting and financial area that today remain unresolved after several releases of ‘fixes’ to the original V3 product,” said the court’s head clerk Rosa Junqueiro. “We believe adding additional case types that require filing fees prior to fixing the existing accounting problems will create the need for additional ‘work arounds’ thus creating more work.”
San Joaquin is currently looking to replace its entire case management system with off-the-shelf software put together by Justice Systems Inc., one of three companies recently selected by a group of trial courts to be approved for the sale of software to California’s trial courts. “We do not believe it is in the best interest of our court, given our limited resources, to expand V3 at this time,” Junqueiro wrote. “Like many courts, the ultimate goal for our court would be to use a single case management system to support all case types.”
Coming from the other end of the debate spectrum, San Diego’s head clerk Michael Roddy thanked the technology committee on behalf of both San Diego and Ventura, saying he “strongly endorsed” the proposal. But Roddy also said the expansion could take longer and cost more money than the technology committee had thought. The conversion of old case information had not been addressed, said Roddy and he would need more “tools” to help in data conversion, in addition to “information from Deloitte,” a reference to the consultant that rang up enormous bills before on the software project. Ventura’s presiding judge, Brian Back, also supported the enhancement with a letter saying it would help the move to e-filing. That ability to file court papers via the Internet was the original promise of the CCMS project. The final V-4 version was supposed to allow e-filing, but no trial court was willing to use the final version.
While the letters from the five trial courts gave a decidedly mixed review of the expansion idea, commentary from judges was withering. Referring to the statements from legislators telling court administrators and their judicial supporters to stop spending money on the CCMS project, Judge Andy Banks in Orange County said, “It would be great to see what language is used to finesse how this is okay under the clear directive of the Legislature.”
California legislators have used severe language to criticize the CCMS project. Assembly member Joan Buchanan called it “a good example of how not to develop an IT project.” Assembly member Gilbert Cedillo in March 2012 called for a halt to the project, saying, “Basically, using the parent language, we’re taking a little time out here.” Two weeks later, the courts’ top rule-making body, the Judicial Council, voted to kill the project while salvaging some of its technology for the future.
At the time, there was no discussion of specific future uses for the technology. However, this month’s letter from the technology committee made it clear that the notion of expanding the software’s application came almost immediately after the software project was declared dead. Specifically, Ventura’s court made the request for expansion the next month, in April 2012. “A lot of people were afraid it was like a vampire,” said Banks. “You could never be sure it was dead until you put a stake through its heart and drag it out into the sunshine to rot.”
Gilliard in Sacramento used a similar analogy to something that would not die. “It’s like a Terminator movie,” she said. “You think it’s been killed off but then a bolt starts to scoot cross the floor.” “I thought the Legislature was pretty straight forward when they said, ‘Don’t spend any more money on this failure,'” added Gilliard who is a member of the Alliance of California Judges, a group that has been highly critical of the software project. “How can our branch leaders think this is a strategically good thing to do in light of the fact that every single court in this state is hurting and the Legislature told them to quit pouring money down this hole?”
Technology committee member Moss defended the expansion by saying the money had already been set aside in funds intended for V-3 maintenance, which he added should not conflict with the Legislature’s wishes. “We’re mandated to continue operating and supporting V3 and this is within that budget,” said Moss. We’re not seeking any more money.” As it had in years past, CCMS still keeps its ability to inflame debate within the judiciary, among the different courts, and within the same courts. In San Diego, Judge Runston Maino was troubled by the letter from his court’s head clerk endorsing the expansion.
“There a number of us who, despite Mr. Roddy’s protestations to the contrary, believe that CCMS was and is a failure,” said Maino. “As many of us see it, CCMS was not only a failure but it has cost this court about 40 million dollars.” He added that the judges in his court shouldn’t be kept in the dark. “Could I suggest that it might be a good idea to send out a judge wide email telling us what is going on? How much money is this going to cost us? Where is the money going to come from? What is the business plan?” Maino added by email comment, “The AOC has learned nothing from the CCMS fiasco. Their stubborn inflexibility to understand that CCMS is dead is troubling. What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand? They are acting like the dog and fool in Proverbs 26:11.”
In the King James version of the Bible, Proverb 26:11 says,”As a dog returneth to its vomit so a fool returneth to his folly.”
____________________________________________
April 5, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
We have been sending you frequent updates because there is a great deal of news and public interest being generated due to the collapse of the CCMS project. We are providing you now with a copy of the most recent article by Maria Dinzeo from the Courthouse News Service and a link to a broadcast on Los Angeles Fox News Channel 11, both released yesterday.
The Alliance has been advocating since 2009 that the CCMS project be terminated and that the interim systems currently in use be delivered to the courts using them for continued use and maintenance upon local servers by those courts’ own IT staff and with some “bridge” funding until each of those courts can maintain the system within their existing operating budgets. We are concerned that the “termination” of CCMS may prove to be similar to the “pause” that wasn’t a pause last year, and the hiring “freeze” at the AOC which wasn’t really a “hard” freeze, but was a “soft” freeze.
We have repeatedly asked whether the expenditure of over $500 million of taxpayer money has ensured that at least the AOC owns the codes and can deliver those codes to local IT departments. The AOC has repeatedly stated that it owns the codes. Ms. Dinzeo’s article raises the issue that there are elements of the software apparently proprietary to Deloitte Consulting, the program developer, called vendor works that may have been included in CCMS and which may require continued payments to Deloitte.
Please review these news stories. We invite you in particular to consider what the AOC is paying for in its effort to “leverage” the current state of CCMS development.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
________________________________
May 31, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
The media continues to show interest in last Friday’s release of the SEC report. In fact, the Sacramento Bee has published an editorial calling on the Chief Justice and Judicial Council to heed the recommendations of the report. We attach that editorial for you, as well as a Daily Journal article by reporter Ciaran McEvoy and an Associated Press story by Paul Elias.
On another topic, most of us thought that the Judicial Council’s vote last month to terminate CCMS meant it would be terminated. We were apparently wrong. We include for your information an email that was sent to certain Presiding Judges, court CEOs, and court CIOs inviting them to a CCMS demonstration originally scheduled for May 30. Shortly thereafter, the demonstration was cancelled by the AOC as follows: “The CCMS functional demonstration scheduled for Wednesday, May 30…will be rescheduled. With the suspension (emphasis ours) of the CCMS program, and the reduction of contractor support, the CCMS application is in maintenance mode…On Tuesday we encountered technical issues in the PAT environment, which prevent us from proceeding with the demonstration.”
The email from AOC staff seems further evidence of the disconnect and lack of meaningful oversight by the Judicial Council that the SEC referenced in its review. The Council was given the option to suspend CCMS, but they voted to terminate the program. A decision of the Council is meaningless if AOC staff are free to treat it as advisory only.
We will of course continue to keep you updated on all of these matters.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Related articles
- A Constitutional Amendment to Democratize the Judicial Council (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- AOC in Woodshed over LB – Chief re-appoints three to Judicial Council – From the desk of JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The End of the Line for Reform (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
unionman575
April 25, 2013
More fine work ACJ & JCW.
😉
Wendy Darling
April 25, 2013
“One final point. Alliance board member and Sacramento Superior Court Judge Kevin McCormick has requested the current list of active AOC/Judicial Council contracts. In the past, these lists were readily available and helped to shed light on the number of “temporary employees” and CCMS contractors who were on the payroll. We are now informed that the AOC no longer maintains this type of a list — a judge, or anyone for that matter, can no longer readily determine how public dollars are being spent.”
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. For those with plenty to hide, they do this: cover-up.
Long live the ACJ.
Richard Power
April 26, 2013
What it will take is time. My guess about the sequence is that first the court system will continue to shed services. It will crumble around the edges, with the process progressively working its way through various areas. The first to go will likely be general civil (contract, PI, PD, WD). We will come fairly soon to a situation where general civil actions effectively cease to exist. Next, there will be pressure on unlawful detainers, probate, family law, and perhaps other areas, probably in roughly equal amounts. Criminal will resist, due to statutory constraints. There will be a number of catastrophes due to the absence of a civil justice system. Businesses will accelerate their flight from California. There will be further time lags on responsive action. Further disasters. Finally, some force will step in after substantial damage has been done. And the public will discover that there were simple solutions all along. Then come the recriminations, finger-pointing, blame.
Lando
April 26, 2013
Insiders at the Judicial Council= Arrogance. As they meet today at the William C. Vickrey Conference Center all should ask why they would allow J Herman and J Moss to propose wasting more millions on CCMS. Perhaps none of the insiders have seen a courthouse close anywhere near them? Perhaps none of the insiders has seen the pain on the faces of the loyal employees of the clerks office when they have been terminated? Perhaps none of the insiders set foot in the clerks offices to see the ever expanding lines of Family Law and Traffic litigants ? Yet despite all that, the Judicial Council and AOC working in their crystal palace, are fine about pushing the discredited CCMS forward. The timing on this couldn’t be worse. The insiders are so out of touch that they just undermined their own arguments to have more funds allocated in the May revise. It sure looks like under our new Chief Justice everything has changed and been reformed lol. You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really.
wearyant
April 26, 2013
Today at the love fest, where we all are thrilled that the love is flowing and the patting of backs and self-accolades continue. A comment from Mr. Phil Eisenberg this morning:
“Phil Eisenberg: Thank you very much. This is not the judicial council room I sat in for five years, I can tell you that. It is much more functional and attractive.”
Yes, Hon. Eisenberg, it certainly is! That’s where the public funds disappeared to firstly after 1997. And the JC/AOC rejoiced back then! It’s been GREAT to be king/queen.
The OBT
April 26, 2013
First we can’t give up on CCMS , then the overlords at 455 Golden Gate continue to hire to expand the AOC empire. One of the Curts, Sonderland I believe, announced yesterday they are terminating 18 contractor positions which will save 350,000 or more ? At the same time he stated they will hire 18 new full time positions. What ? How is that possible? How is it possible that the AOC gets to keep hiring people when the trial courts have to keep laying them off? Further, how is making these 18 positions permanent saving any money at all ? With full time employment come benefits so there can’t possibly be any savings here. Now we learn above the AOC won’t reveal anything about these outside contractors. What we have here is a failure to communicate enhanced by the JC/AOC’s policy of passing legitimate public information requests back and forth between AOC staff and Justice Hull. Sounds like Wendy is right and the dictatorship has something to hide.
unionman575
April 26, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/26/57074.htm
Friday, April 26, 2013Last Update: 10:01 AM PT
California Judicial Council Rearranges Itself
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – California’s Judicial Council on Thursday set up a system to give it more oversight of its vast network of advisory committees, task forces and working groups.
By unanimous vote, the council established new procedures for almost 50 groups.
“Under the leadership of the Chief Justice, The Judicial Council has been examining itself and its processes. We are doing this to improve the council’s accountability and transparency to the public, the branch, and the two other branches of government,” said Justice Douglas Miller, head of the council’s powerful Executive and Planning Committee.
Under the new standards, the smaller groups must report to bigger internal committees such as Executive and Planning and get approval before launching new projects or creating their own subgroups.
The structure of these groups is also under review. In a report to the council, Miller recommended merging some groups and dissolving others.
“Although we have accomplished a significant amount of work in the past few months, as always there seems to be more to do,” he said. Miller said his committee will work on specific guidelines to address the purpose of each group, their make-ups, duration, project timelines and how many Administrative Office of the Courts staffers they should have.
“We all agree this is an ongoing process and something that we will all have in the forefront of our minds,” said Justice Harry Hull, council member and chairman of the council’s Rules and Projects Committee, which will also oversee certain groups.
“Obviously, the work of the advisory committees and task forces is not static. So I think this is something that we can address as needed and continue to work towards the efficiencies and cost-cutting measures,” Hull said.
At the meeting, the council heard reports from members on recent court visits, as part of a liaison program started last year.
While some courts expressed concerns about budget cuts and delayed courthouse construction projects, Judge Teri Jackson of San Francisco reported that some San Mateo judges peppered her with questions about the makeup of the council, and why its members are not chosen democratically.
“One of the judges raised the issues about whether members could be voted on to the council. I explained that requires a constitutional amendment. More importantly, that is the constitutional authority of the chief justice,” Jackson said.
She said another judge asked how many council members belong to the Alliance of California Judges, a reformist judges group, and whether a formal Alliance seat could be established, as it is with the California Judges Association.
Jackson said she told the judge that members belong to dozens of organizations.
“Those were some of the issues raised by individual judges, not necessarily the reflection of all the other judges on the commission,” Jackson said.
In her report on a recent visit to Ventura, Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst relayed that court’s struggles with its case management system for family law and juvenile dependency cases.
“They noted that their system has crashed several times and they feel that there’s a risk of it crashing permanently,” she said.
Ventura is one of two courts that requested an expansion of the V3 edition of the Court Case Management System. The other one is San Diego.
Ashmann-Gerst said the court is considering buying an off-the-shelf product or working on a solution with other courts.
Last year, the council terminated the latest V4 project, but retained funding for maintenance of V3.
Judge James Herman of the council’s Court Technology Committee said the proposed expansion falls under maintenance.
“As council members will recall, in July 2012 the Legislature directed the branch to spend no more funds on V4 without the approval of the Legislature. None have been expended. However, the Legislature also directed the council to continue to maintain V-3,” Herman said.
The three other V3 courts, in Sacramento, Orange County and San Joaquin County, are wary about expanding V3.
“Those courts have expressed strong reservations about case type expansion, based on the view the effort might divert staffer resources from maintenance of V-3,” Herman said.
Herman said his committee hasn’t reached a decision yet, and is waiting for more information from the courts, expected next week.
😉
Anonymous
April 27, 2013
Half truth:
“One of the judges raised the issues about whether members could be voted on to the council. I explained that requires a constitutional amendment. More importantly, that is the constitutional authority of the chief justice,” Jackson said.
No it does not require a constitutional amendment. The CJ could by rule change agree that she would appoint only judges and justices elected by the courts according to some formula. Also, the CJA position is an ex-officio position created by CJ George. Nothing (other than good sense) prevents the current CJ from doing the same for the “other voice of the judiciary” the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
May 1, 2013
“By unanimous vote”. Really? Not one single dissenting vote?? Not one member of the Judicial Council was willing to vote for retaining at least the semblance of independent viewpoints and recommendations on the part of the advisory committee structure?
Good grief…the Judicial Council is just like the Supreme Soviet, the “legislature” of the Soviet Union, where votes were always unanimous.
Are we really to believe that not one single person on the Judicial Council had an alternative opinion? Really? That’s just amazing!!
R. Campomadera
April 26, 2013
“Under the leadership of the Chief Justice, The Judicial Council has been examining itself and its processes. We are doing this to improve the council’s accountability and transparency to the public, the branch, and the two other branches of government,” said Justice Douglas Miller, head of the council’s powerful Executive and Planning Committee.
Under the new standards, the smaller groups must report to bigger internal committees such as Executive and Planning and get approval before launching new projects or creating their own subgroups.
Huh? How does this “improve the council’s accountability and transparency to the public, the branch, and the other two branches of government”? All I can see that it does is tighten The Dictator’s control over things…the possibility of dissent and alternative views will be reduced that much more, with the Dictator placed in total control all advisory structures, their membership,and their agendas.
This statement is totally Orwellian. Freedom is tyranny!! Tyranny is freedom!! Rejoice, citiizens!!!
If The Dictator is sincerely concerned about improving the council’s accountability and transparency, perhaps the recommendations of the SEC should be adopted forthwith, CCMS given a decent burial, and membership of the Council democratized.
wearyant
April 26, 2013
Eisenberg’s closes with comforting and politically correct words for the chummy bureaucrats:
“ … if I may digress for a moment, painful as it is, you’re doing a pretty good job. I know you don’t get any credit — and, by the way, that’s the business. You get no credit for doing things well, you never get any credit for doing things well, that’s expected of you. Don’t hope for anything else. But the reality is, in America, people only talk about things that they are unhappy with. And that everything — you have a tough job of managing the system. I think you are doing pretty well for all of the problems that you face — glad to be part of this result.”
Yeah, right. Anyone complaining is just a know-nothing whiner. That’s what good citizens do, ignore the good and accentuate the bad. Buck up, fat-ass bureaucrats, GREAT job you’re doing, destroying the trial courts, impeding justice to we commoners and building and feathering your own nests so well!
wearyant
April 26, 2013
Oh, did ya know? The AOC is 30% down and spread thin! Astounding, the excellence in this branch! That was actually said this morning! I’ve never thought about hitting the bottle so early. But why do I think anything will change with these cheese-balls? I must be the dog returning to its vomit in thinking anything will EVER change for better with these [expletive deleted].
Scout Finch
April 27, 2013
That Eisenberg character sure stepped in it. Hey, Eisenberg, what about the First Responders who rushed head on into the flames in West, Texas? How about those Bostonians singing their hearts out, loud and proud, before the start of a hockey game? Or, those Americans along the Boston marathon route who opened their homes to complete strangers so as to provide comfort during a time of profound grief? Have you failed to notice the Americans who have learned to live without limbs now sharing their special healing gifts with those who will face a life never the same?
Are the Alliance judges who have spoken up courageously just a bunch of whiners like the rest of those who live in the America you describe? The Alliance Judges are the First Responders of the California Judiciary, willing to run into the carnage left by cowards.
wearyant
April 27, 2013
Well said, Scout Finch. Thanks for posting.
Wendy Darling
April 27, 2013
Well said, indeed, Scout Finch.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 26, 2013
If JC insiders = arrogance then AOC = kiss my a$$ judges we do whatever the hell we want.
This ones rich: the legislature decreed no more funding for V4….do you really think that the legislature did that rather than meaning the whole frickin CCMS project?? hell no. pleeze! These idiots will say anything to do whatever the hell they want. Legislature, are you listening?! Expansion = maintenance? Wrong. See AOC = above.
Good for the judges of San Mateo for quetioning the composition of the JC. More judges need to follow their lead.
I’m with you wearyant, with all of this BS we all need a drink or waders.
Wendy Darling
April 26, 2013
Published today, Friday, April 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
New Division of Funds Among California’s 58 Trial Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The Judicial Council on Friday voted for a new method of allocating money among the local trial courts in California, marking the first time the funding formula has been changed in almost two decades.
The old funding model was frozen along historic lines, based on ratios established in 1994 that carried forward into 1997 legislation that centralized court funding and rule-making and started a big expansion of the central administrative office. After Friday’s vote, trial court funding will slowly begin taking into account the volume of cases handled by individual trial courts along with other factors.
But the slow pace with which the new funding formula will be put in place brought a strong challenge from the presiding judge of seriously underfunded San Joaquin County, who asked why relatively rich courts should be allowed to keep most of their oversized allotments while poor courts continue to suffer.
“For over 15 years the inequity of that system has been perpetuated,” said Presiding Judge David Warner in a public comment period at the start of the meeting. “It has rewarded some courts from a monetary standpoint and punished others.”
Presenting the new funding model to the council, Sacramento Presiding Judge Laurie Earl said the reform was necessary to convince the governor and legislators that the judges are serious about getting their financial house in order.
“We have to do something in fiscal year 2013-14, and this is a precursor to seeing any further reinvestment in the trial courts to make sure the other branches of government and the public understand our budget development process and understand where the money that the branch gets is going,” said Earl.
Presiding Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara County, a member of the sub-committee, put it more bluntly.
“The legislature said to us unless you come up with a new allocation method, we will not give you new funding,” said Walsh.
All of the 17 voting members present at the meeting voted in favor of the new model, including the Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
The new plan will be implemented in small increments over five years. In the budget for 2017-2018, half of a court’s funding will be based on the new model, and the other half will come from the historic model. Earl added that the most intense debate among the members of her funding methodology subcommittee centered on the transition schedule.
“This was by far the most boisterous discussion- about how and when we should implement the model,” Earl told the council.
While judges and administrators argue that all 58 trial courts in California are underfunded, some are considered to be severely so. Under the new model, courts used to getting a traditionally higher share of the overall budget will inevitably have to give up some of that money to those courts in worse fiscal shape.
The five-year schedule is intended to give the courts with better funding a comfortable amount of time to trim their operations. But in a public comment period before the vote, Presiding Judge David Warner from San Joaquin urged the council to move ahead quickly, saying swift implementation is “key to the survival of the San Joaquin Superior Court.”
“For over 15 years the inequity of that system has been perpetuated,” said Warner. “It has rewarded some courts from a monetary standpoint and punished others.”
San Joaquin is arguably the most underfunded court in the state, and Warner said he was “taken aback” by an argument he’d heard that courts like his wouldn’t know what to do with the extra money. He said, “We are under-resourced, not stupid.”
“We’ve been waiting 15 years for a fair process,” Warner added. “And now that we can see it and its within our grasp, if we phase in the system, it really won’t provide much benefit. We are told that the phase-in is necessary to allow the well-funded courts to adjust. There are other options. Our request is to fully implement the methodology to allow the courts taking cuts to apply for supplemental funding if they faced a deficit, as we were told to do. If that is acceptable for under-resourced courts why is it not acceptable for the better resourced courts?”
Earl said the committee considered abandoning historical funding and moving over to a workload based model immediately, but decided it would do too much damage to courts like Orange County, which would lose $41 million a year, or Alameda County, which would lose $26 million.
“If we were to implement this new model 100 percent on July 1 we would simply flip the position of some courts who are underfunded with those who are woefully underfunded,” Earl said. “We’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. The five-year implementation schedule will allow us to glide into parity.”
Fundamentally, the complex methodology is a two-part system, the first being a budget process that uses a court’s case filings to estimate its workload, and converts that data into its full-time equivalent staff need. That number is converted into dollars, and added to the court’s operating expenses and other unique factors.
That number is then added to the cost of the court’s special expenditures on programs like dependency counsel or security. After adding in some additional costs, one arrives at its total budget need.
The second part is the allocation process, based on the court’s percentage of share workload-driven need. The first year, only ten percent of each court’s allocation will be based on the new method, and 90 percent will be based on the historic model.
Earl noted that the method still needs tweaking.
For instance, 14 small, two-judge courts would receive a decrease in funding the first year.
“We knew that wasn’t right,” she said. “The amount of money that is involved is about $450,000 so we decided to keep them out of the model the first year,” Earl said. Adjustments for cost of labor across the 58 counties will also have to be made.
Presiding Judge Tom Borris of Orange County, a member of Earl’s subcommittee, said although his court would lose some money, it still endorses the new model.
“We have to lower the draw bridges, fill in the moats we’ve put around our counties and start thinking of moving on from something we have done since 1994,” said Boris. “Orange county believes in this formula. There is a lot that needs to be worked on and tweaked. But it is sound, it is fundamental, it is transparent.”
In addition to Orange, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Mendocino, San Diego, San Francisco and San Mateo will lose some funding.
“Their need, relatively speaking, is not as great as other courts,” said Earl.
Courts like Riverside, Kings County, San Luis Obispo, San Joaquin County, Santa Barbara and Imperial County will benefit.
“What we bring before you is not perfect, but it’s better than good,” said Walsh from Santa Clara. “In fact it is the best.”
He said the plan should not be considered a “Robin Hood” method under which funds are taken from wealthy courts and given to the poor.
“We can assure you there are no rich courts,” Walsh continued. “I think of it not as Robin Hood but a black and white movie from the Great Depression. Two people are out of luck and one slightly better off than the other reaches into his pocket and gives a quarter to the guy who is really hurting.”
“So it’s not Robin Hood,” Walsh concluded, “It’s, ‘He’s not heavy, he’s my brother,'” drawing laughter from around the council table.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/26/57103.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 26, 2013
Brian Walsh was right about one thing:
Presiding Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara County, a member of the sub-committee, put it more bluntly.
“The legislature said to us unless you come up with a new allocation method, we will not give you new funding,” said Walsh.
What they all missed was that they were discussing judicial branch funding which includes the appellate and supreme courts as well as the AOC.
It will take them about….. oh…. 30 days or less to be reminded of that.
Wendy Darling
April 26, 2013
tick, tick, tick . . .
Long live the ACJ.
Richard Power
April 27, 2013
I note from Maria’s article the mention of San Diego and Ventura as having crash-prone legacy systems handling family law that might be on the verge of failure. Is anyone here from either of those areas? Have any connection to court administration? Do you know what areas of law are covered by these legacy systems? (I have seen family law mentioned and I understand a number of old legacy approaches covered criminal.) If you have such information, please contact me. There are e-mail links to me at my RCP Software Web site.
Can you possibly secure cooperation to stave off a disaster?
If there is an impending total failure, the multi-million dollar question is whether these folks would swallow their pride and accept help before a failure takes the data down. To save the data in spite of an impending failure is a specialized process but it can be done quickly, with the data being extracted, converted, and injected into a new system (mold). And the latter could be created in a few days, assuming good cooperation.
In some cases, certain legacy systems ran specialized versions of COBOL. That required very specific hardware. It was manufactured in the 1970’s. If you’re in that situation, and you can’t find the specialized hardware, you’re screwed. The data is permanently gone after a total hardware failure.
This is not a laughing matter although I realize a number of people might love to watch certain court administrators squirm as they try to explain why they couldn’t/didn’t save the data, after a total irreversible crash has occurred. It’s time for cooperation and solutions, putting all the internal wars to the side. We cannot sit idly by and watch our court system be torn apart by all the warring factions. Solutions now, recriminations later if at all.
So if you have any knowledge and/or connections to those two counties, please contact me.
unionman575
April 27, 2013
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/inmyopinion042613.htm
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Friday, April 26, 2013
Page 6
IN MY OPINION (Column)
Court System Is on Life Support
unionman575
April 27, 2013
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/27/5375603/court-closures-pose-safety-risk.html
Viewpoints: Court closures pose safety risk for domestic violence victims
By Camille Hayes
Special to the Bee
Published: Saturday, Apr. 27, 2013 – 12:00 am | Page 11A
unionman575
April 27, 2013
“You have to be asleep to believe it.”
😉
http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0426-whittier-law-school-courtroom-20130427,0,7653914.story
Campus courtroom offered up
Whittier Law School says its new 4,400-square-foot space could be used for real cases, alleviating pressure on state system.
By Jeremiah Dobruck
April 27, 2013 | 1:53 p.m.
A Costa Mesa law school hopes to ease the stress on the California court system, which has suffered severe budget cuts, by offering its newly christened practice courtroom on campus for official legal proceedings.
In response to belt-tightening within the state’s legal system, Whittier Law School plans to invite authentic trials and arbitration to its facility. Such a setup would benefit students, as well, allowing them to observe the proceedings in the school’s fully functioning 4,400-square-foot courtroom, which opened this month.
California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye spoke at a grand opening for the space this week.
A substantial amount of funding to build the $2-million facility came from Whittier graduate Paul Kiesel. He is co-chairman of the Open Courts Coalition, a bipartisan group of lawyers lobbying Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature to reverse cuts to California’s courts.
“In the last five years, the courts budget has been cut by $1 billion,” Kiesel said, leading to a backlog of 20,000 personal-injury cases in Los Angeles County scheduled for three courtrooms.
“We’re in uncharted territory,” he added.
Because of that, he hopes Whittier could ease some pressure through the rare practice of hosting public court proceedings at a private law school.
“It should quite frankly be in a public courthouse,” Kiesel said. “But the way our budget funding is going, it may be that law schools are going to be providing the basic services.”
Whittier plans to approach judges and attorneys soon to offer the space, which includes a 134-seat spectator gallery, jury room and judge’s chambers, school spokeswoman Judy DeVine said.
Students have been practicing in the facility since it was finished in early April and observing mock trials with jury deliberations.
The school believes watching a true court session will boost the facility’s educational purpose.
“Students can not only practice in the new courtroom, but they will be able to observe actual trials without having to leave the campus,” said Penelope Bryan, Whittier’s dean. “We can hold proceedings right here.”
That’s contingent on a judge and attorneys agreeing to pay the school a small fee, DeVine said.
A jury trial may not be in Whittier’s future unless a dire need for space continues, Kiesel estimates, but arbitration or other legal proceedings are feasible.
“If you build it they will come,” he said. “I think that’s much of what’s been done at Whittier.”
Richard Power
April 28, 2013
The offer from Whitter Law School is certainly gracious and Mr. Kiesel is certainly an interesting fellow attorney. Perhaps, as an interim, other law schools could make similar offers. The San Francisco courts could sure use an extra courtroom or two and San Bernardino County is in dire straits.
It is also time for a parallel effort to fix the underlying problems. Overhead costs that exceed operating funds available, due to the widespread use of ancient business practices, is killing off the California court system, piece-by-piece. The process we are witnessing is like a tree self-protectively shedding leaves and then branches when it doesn’t have enough water to sustain itself. We should be mindful of the fact that the end of that process, when the water doesn’t come in sufficient quantities to revive the tree, is the death of the tree.
What would be so wrong with everyone getting together, putting the past aside for the moment, and solving the underlying operational problems? Does it really matter that much where the solutions come from?
Anonymous
April 28, 2013
This shows how poorly people understand the court funding problem.
There is no lack of courtrooms. There are courtrooms sitting empty across this state. Using someone else’s courtroom saves no one anything. Courts are closing not because of facility costs, but because the state gives too little money to pay the support staff needed to operate a courtroom, and what little is left over is swept by the AOC for ill conceived projects.
Richard Power
April 29, 2013
Oh I realize, Anonymous, that providing a law school courtroom isn’t going to solve the funding or operational costs problems. Let’s just say the offer was gracious. It was a nice gesture. What the counties primarily need is more operating courtrooms, not necessarily more physical courtrooms, although in some counties both are needed. The solution to getting more courtrooms into operation I believe is to dramatically reduce overhead costs per courtroom. That could be done but people in the justice system world would have to cooperate and that has been the stumbling block.
R. Campomadera
April 28, 2013
In a society based on the rule of law, trial courts belong in public courthouses, not law schools, shopping malls, or multi-use private office buildings.
Richard Power is right about one thing, though…it’s high time for the courts to get rid of what he accurately describes as their “ancient business practices”. With few exceptions, the California trial courts still rely on paper documents the way they always have. Judges still require chambers copies. Processing of documents drags on for days if not weeks. Documents that should be instantly available on-line are effectively lost in an antiquated paper-based system that is collapsing under its own weight.
Contrast this with the federal courts…The federal courts have a modern case management system that has a consistent user-interface throughout the entire country. Nationwide case and party searches can easily be made. The federal courts have had electronic case files and e-filing for years. Documents are available for viewing almost instantaneously after filing. Counsel can file, serve, and view court documents at any time from anywhere on Planet Earth where they have a connection to the Internet. As a result, the productivity of the federal courts has soared at the same time they’re providing a vastly better product.
And the state courts? They’ve squandered a half a billion dollars on the failed CCMS system and seem Hell-bent to waste even more of the taxpayers’ money on an ill-fated attempt to resurrect it. They’ve commissioned Taj Mahal courthouses that suck up scarce resources that could have been used to build less grand, but perfectly serviceable courthouses throughout the state. They’ve failed to control a bloated bureaucracy, retaining and even promoting the very bureaucrats that are responsible for the mess.
And a mess it is. The People of the State of California should be demanding to know who is responsible for it. It shouldn’t be a difficult search.
disgusted
April 29, 2013
And the L.A. Federal Court is hiring court reporters today. Go figure.
disgusted
April 29, 2013
hiring “more” court reporters.
The OBT
April 29, 2013
Everyone here should watch all available video of the Judicial Council meetings. Most can be accessed by going on to YouTube. What is remarkable about these meetings is that some Judicial Council members seem very concerned about the budget problems we find ourselves in but never seem to connect those problems to their decisions or those of the AOC. There seems to be a staggering disconnect or outright denial of their role in why the trial courts budgets have been slashed. Equally disturbing is the body language and laughter that accompanies some of the Judicial Council discussions , despite the grave nature of the problems being discussed. Oh what tangled web we weave … We need to democratize the Judicial Council so the current tyranny can be changed for the benefit of all Californians.
Richard Power
April 29, 2013
Good morning, R. Campomadera. We are certainly on the same page about the paper problem. And handling that paper costs a lot of money. And the heck of it is that, for less money than is being proposed to be spent on adding two areas of law to CCMS V3, an entire new case management system, using modern technology, could be designed, then installed in one superior court for a demonstration. I assume most of you know that CCMS employs a number of concepts that are years out of date, largely owing to the fact that the original plans were put into place many years ago. In the software world, the highly economically useful life of any version of software is about 3-4 years max. CCMS design goes back to the early 2000’s and even then it used some outdated/inefficient concepts. It also depends on certain things working that cannot possibly work due to technical limitations.
If the court system people don’t come together soon on revamping their business practices, particularly the technology, the damage to the courts and our state is going to be irreversible. The Legislature cannot continue to finance inefficiency and they have already shown some reluctance to provide funds to that end. This is all heading toward a really bad outcome.
Just wondering
April 30, 2013
What is the problem with contracting with the federal system and using its existing electronic case managment system that works and is proven?
Wendy Darling
April 30, 2013
The “problem”, Just Wondering, is doing that would make too much common sense. And 455 Golden Gate Avenue distains doing things that make common sense. Instead, they choose to do things that cost enormous amounts of money that don’t work, and then lie about it.
As the late Will Rogers once observed, have you ever notice that the only thing common about common sense is just how uncommon it is?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Richard Power
May 1, 2013
Might seem simple at first to use the federal PACER system but it’s not, technologically. Different types of cases, courts, etc. Total misfit from a software standpoint. Principles might be somewhat common but that’s all. Much simpler to just write a case management system for California courts from scratch. I’m pretty darn sure about this because I have extensive experience writing data management software.
R. Campomadera
April 30, 2013
NIH*
*(Not Invented Here)
R. Campomadera
April 30, 2013
It makes sense in so many ways…it is a proven system, it could be installed in every state court at relatively low cost, it has a robust ECF/e-filing component, and every attorney, paralegal, legal assistant, and legal secretary who practices in federal court already knows how to use it. It is customizable at the local court level to meet local needs. It would have to be modified to accept case types not found in the federal courts, but the basic programming and infrastructure is there and works.
It makes so much sense, the top leadership of the California courts will never embrace it, if for no other reason, because it would utterly and completely expose the fact that they made the colossal mistake of spending a half billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money on a failed IT system when a perfectly good alternative already existed. It would expose, once and for all, just how incompetent they all are.
Richard Power
May 1, 2013
Unfortunately, R. Campomadera, you can’t just lift the PACER system over to the California state courts. And don’t attribute too much importance to any e-filing component because e-filing can be set up very quickly and at very little expense, and utilizing, in most cases, electronic documents with advanced features. It’s really not that big of a deal. If you’re curious what I’m talking about, contact me and I’ll show you.
R. Campomadera
May 1, 2013
Richard Power, you confuse the underlying federal court case management system — CM/ECF — with its public interface system known as PACER. They are two separate systems.
While you are correct that modern data base management software is incredibly powerful and flexible, the complexity is in development of the case management system utilizing that software — what the State of California paid Deloitte and others $500 million to develop.
We can all agree that a huge sum of money was wasted in that effort, but it does indicate the complexity of the challenge. Case management software is notoriously difficult to develop…it’s not simply a matter of putting together a “data base”. And having some considerable hands-on experience myself with court software development, I can assure the gentle readers of this blog that developing an e-filing system isn’t as easy as you suggest, either.
I maintain that the federal courts CM/ECF program could readily be modified to work in the state courts. I’m not attempting to sell a product of my own, so I’ve got nothing to gain or lose by saying that.
The bottom line is that we must agree to disagree.
Richard Power
May 1, 2013
Just spotted this from R.C. Will reply in the morning. Gotta go watch a TV program now.
Richard Power
May 2, 2013
Good morning, R. Campomadera. You probably shouldn’t just assume that others whom you have never met are confused. I urge you and others to get some education first before discussing certain matters. I write commercial software, and the technology columns for the Sacramento Daily Recorder, and have been a MS beta tester on several items. You might want to visit my Web site and request some of the demos. And you might want to contact me and come here. You can run any of the software I have written hands-on and I will answer any of your technology questions. I am anything but confused.
I am well aware of the nature of PACER. I have a PACER account and have used it a number of times. For those not aware of the nature of PACER, you might want to go to http://www.pacer.gov and read the explanation. PACER is associated with the main case management system. However, the content is a copy of some of the content in the basic case management system. It contains what is appropriate for the public to see. It creates a limited public access portal to the data.
Why is that a good approach? Well, some of you may recall the little debacle a while back in Sacramento where a member of the public came into the clerk’s office and said they might want to go out in the lobby and see what people were looking at on the kiosks. People were reading litigants’ medical records, bank statements, counseling reports, etc. This was just another demonstration of the fact that none of the people involved in CCMS, or the vendor, had a clue what they were doing.
If you create a copy of items that are appropriate for public viewing, then put that all on a different computer which is accessible from the outside, and keep the internal portion inaccessible, you have the PACER model. In the tentative system I created, the same model is followed. No direct electronic connection between the outside and the server computer which contains senstive materials.
Yes, modern computers are powerful. And software can be written quickly. I do it all the time. You really should take a look at some of it before drawing conclusions about how difficult it would be for someone like me to create a case management system. If you come here, your identity will remain safe. Block coding tools, sequential coding tools, the ability to quickly modify components in strings, etc. make life easier now. Code can be written perhaps 1,000 times as fast now as say 10-15 years ago. And with far greater accuracy. Virtually everything in CCMS is outdated besides the problem of having tens of thousands of bugs. It is possible to create a basic case management system for one area of law for one superior court in a matter of days. And likely with zero bugs.
And that could include electronic filing. Creating e-filing is not really any big deal at all. Many modern business use technology that parallels it every day. So do I, on my Web site. People have been misled into believing it has to be some separate, expensive project.
You noted complexity of the challenge of writing a CMS. The complexity of the challenge to creating a case management system for California superior courts lies only in the politics. The technology is easy to create. If anyone here can get past the politics, and secure the necessary cooperation from intended end-users, I will create the whole thing in a matter of weeks. This is something I do all the time. The difference is that I have motivated and highly cooperative end-users when they ask me to create new data management software.
As an example of the use of modern technology, I received a call last evening from a potential customer in Las Vegas. After we went over her needs, I constructed a customized version of an application for her. She purchased it on-line by paying through PayPal as we were talking. Note that model. The courts could learn from that if they will accept the help. In such situations, the software is provided to the customer via the Internet, except in a few cases where the file size exceeds Inbox size limitations and the software must be sent on disk.
No, R. Campomadera, I am not the least bit confused. And I cordially invite you to come here. And hey, if you like golf, you can even have a cold beer and hit golf balls up the hill.
Richard Power
May 1, 2013
And P.S. I write the technology columns for the Sacramento Daily Recorder. Information gathered for purposes of such use is protected against forced disclosure by the provisions of Evidence Code section 1070. So what you tell me after seeing what modern technology can do is protected. Your identity is secure as the source of the information. Contact information is on my RCP Software Web site. You will be able to try out modern data management software hands-on if you wish. Don’t wonder about all this in the dark. See for yourself.
unionman575
April 30, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21775.htm
Fact Check: Whatever Happened to the California Court Case Management System (CCMS)?
The California judicial branch faces significant technology challenges. Many courts need to replace their antiquated and failing case management systems and cannot currently afford to do so. The Judicial Council and its Technology Committee are working with the courts to set a direction to help meet those challenges, with support from the Administrative Office of the Courts.
March 2012: Judicial Council Stops CCMS Deployment
On March 27, 2012, the Judicial Council voted to stop deployment of CCMS V4 as a statewide technology project. The council directed the Technology Committee (then known as the CCMS Internal Committee) to partner with the trial courts in developing timelines and recommendations to the Judicial Council to find other ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system, as well as develop new strategies to assist courts with failing case management systems.
July 2012: Legislative Restriction
As part of the 2012–2013 Budget Act, the state Legislature amended Government Code section 68085 to prohibit the Judicial Council from expending Trial Court Trust Fund monies beginning in fiscal year 2012–2013 on CCMS without the consent of the Legislature. However, the legislation specifically excluded the operations and maintenance of CCMS V2 and V3, currently used by six courts.
August 2012 to Present: Judicial Council Technology Committee Oversight and Planning
Since CCMS was decommissioned, the Judicial Council Technology Committee has led collaborative planning to address several branch technology issues, including development of a technology roadmap, addressing maintenance and support issues for courts using V2 and V3 of the case management system, furthering e-filing, and development of a shared request for proposal for case management system procurements.
Current Status and Direction of V3
The five courts who use V3—the Superior Courts of Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Ventura Counties—represent approximately 25 percent of the civil cases filed in California. These courts have been working collectively to plan the future of V3. Two of these courts—in Ventura and San Diego Counties—proposed to the Technology Committee that family law and juvenile dependency case types be added to the system. The three other courts who use V3—in Orange, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties—oppose the proposal.
The Technology Committee has requested additional information. Any recommendation the committee makes on the proposal will go before the Judicial Council and will weigh the project risks and costs in dollars and staff time as well as the negative impacts on non-participating V3 courts.
© 2013 Judicial Council of California / Administrative Office of the CourtsSite Map | Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy
wearyant
May 1, 2013
Scary. I see a ghost writer of Vickrey whilst toiling through the above fact check of CCMS. He used to love to go back to the invention of the wheel in every statement, written or oral. It’s too early for Halloween, potsy bureaucrats!
Wendy Darling
May 1, 2013
Vickrey was the architect of the AOC’s “revisionist history” policy, which remains alive and employed daily at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
May 1, 2013
You have to read this bureaucratic b.s. carefully…here’s what it says: “On March 27, 2012, the Judicial Council voted to stop deployment of CCMS V4 as a statewide technology project.”
The keyword is “statewide”. They evidently think that as long as it isn’t “statewide”, i.e. in all 58 counties, it is somehow okay to continue development of V4 functionality and call it “maintenance” of V2 and V3. Too clever by a half.
Parse away, JC/AOC…you can’t turn the pig into a swan no matter how you spin the story.
Wendy Darling
May 1, 2013
Justice California — where the heck are you?
Richard Power
May 1, 2013
She’s up north. And she should be getting certain basic software on her computer and checking out what modern software for family law looks like but ….. I think she’s busy getting readjusted to life in the woods.
wearyant
May 1, 2013
My thoughts exactly, Wendy Darling. Helllooooooo? Miss you, JusticeCalifornia!
Richard Power
May 2, 2013
I prodded her privately by direct e-mail.