May 1, 2013
Dear Members and Others:
We attach an article by Daily Journal reporter Paul Jones regarding the apparent demise (again) of the disgraced CCMS project. The Alliance recently highlighted a questionable maneuver by branch leaders that would have resulted in the deployment of much of the V4 project as originally contemplated by the AOC.
After we issued a member email commenting on the verbal gymnastics employed by the Chairman of the Judicial Council’s IT Committee, who attempted to characterize this expansion of CCMS as “maintenance” and suggested an apparent willingness to obtain a legal opinion justifying the action, the Alliance received a communication from a Judicial Council member which included this concession:
“I agree that calling this request ‘maintenance’ was clearly inappropriate. It’s clearly not “maintenance.”
We ask then: Why did not a single member of the Judicial Council — including non-voting members — question or challenge Judge Herman’s characterization of this obvious expansion as “maintenance”? The Alliance can provide an informed opinion on this. It is because “speaking with one voice” trumps everything. That is why it is essential that we democratize the Judicial Council.
The Alliance once again calls on the Chief Justice to support democratization, either by a constitutional amendment changing the composition of the Council or by simply allowing some or all of her 15 appointees to be elected by the judges of this state. It is obvious to those who follow our leaders’ actions that dissent is discouraged. One need only listen to a Council meeting to witness the blind allegiance of the appointed members of the Council and see that every vote is a foregone conclusion. Unless and until the makeup of the Council changes, expect more of the same.
Finally, we will continue to closely monitor the CCMS project. We are not yet convinced that it is dead.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________________________________________
Daily Journal
5/1/2013
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click “Reprint” to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website.
Request to modify court case management software shelved
By Paul Jones
A request by San Diego and Ventura County superior courts for the Administrative Office of the Courts to modify their electronic case management systems resulted in a minor outcry by a group of dissident judges last week, but the judicial branch’s technology committee head now says the plan won’t go forward.
The Alliance of California Judges, a group of judges who were instrumental in advocating to end the expensive software upgrade project, cried foul, arguing that the Legislature had banned future spending on the system.
~snip~
“It is truly bewildering that … branch leaders believe it is prudent to revive and expand on a computer project that has done irreparable harm to the judicial branch,” according to an email by the Alliance to its members last week. “Clearly this does not help to make the case for additional funds for the courts.
~snip~
(This line is not a part of the article) Judge James Herman of Digital Purgatory fame:
“Had we reached that point where a good business case could be made for going forward with expanding case types for these two courts, we would have gotten a legal opinion from our own legal services offices … and we would have gone to the office of governmental affairs to communicate with the Legislature” to determine if the spending was allowable.
~snip~
______________________________________________
A note from JCW:
As the ACJ indicated, we too do not believe the CCMS issue is dead. Rather, on Monday night they did a lay of the political landscape and came to the realization of how much damage had been done by suggesting that more funds be flushed down the CCMS rathole. Like a lot of people looking at the record thus far, we view this change of heart as merely a delay tactic that the central politburo hammered out at the last minute after they heard how well received this news was in Sacramento.
The legislative reception of the news was confirmed by one of our own legislative contacts who characterized the proposed investment in V3 with this tidbit: “They put Jasperson & Co on an inverted cliff face without ropes by spelling out what they would be doing with supplemental funding.”
Related articles
- What Will It Take to Kill The Beast? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- More on California Judicial Council’s Technology Advisory Committee , CCMS, Yolo County Judges Dan Maguire and Dave Rosneberg: Alliance of California Judges on CCMS – Judge James Herman ; Technology Advisory Committee [ TLR Note: 1. Contrary to content (lesliebrodie.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
May 2, 2013
Nice work ACJ and JCW.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
May 2, 2013
You might have heard about AOC employee & appointed federal prison receiver J.Clark Kelso ordering 40% of the inmate populations of Pleasant Valley and Avenal state prisons moved due to the prevalence of Valley Fever. Coming well after the governor tried to make his case about breaking free of the receiver this news is received in Sacramento as another AOC gift to the state that’s sure to be padding Kelso’s AOC originated CALPERS pension for years to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/us/california-prisons-ordered-to-move-some-inmates.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
courtflea
May 2, 2013
Maybe a different tactic should be considered by the ACJ: if the CJ won’t democratize the council, ask that E&P be democratized. Face it, all of the decisions are really made there, long before anything gets to the council. And it won’t take a consitutional amendment to make such a change.
wearyant
May 2, 2013
Another related article and old favorite:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/02/11/the-judicial-council-technology-task-force-banana-republic-style/
I seem to recall an article called: “It’s alive! ALIVE!” And it says it in my ear in Gene Wilder’s voice. Haven’t been able to find it … but Gene Wilder can linger in my brain as long as he likes. Love that guy.
Democratize the JC! De-fund the AOC! Long live the ACJ! The JC/AOC/CJ exist solely to serve themselves. Let’s dump them and save our trial courts!
courtflea
May 2, 2013
Ah my friend wearyant you are hearing Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein in your ear. And CCMS appears to indeed be a living monster.
thanks for posting the old fav, I loved that “Obsolete” Twilight Zone clip that someone posted in that string. Maybe someone will post it again, it certainly is appropriate when talking about the kool-aide drinkers.
wearyant
May 2, 2013
Hey, courtflea! I found it after slogging through sci-fi stuff. A great trackback complete with a scene from Young Frankenstein, as you said. CCMS is waiting to rise out of the bathtub!
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/05/25/its-alive-its-alive/
Wendy Darling
May 2, 2013
“I agree that calling this request ‘maintenance’ was clearly inappropriate. It’s clearly not “maintenance.”
Uh-huh. And calling it “maintenance” was clearly a lie.
The three most sacrosanct words in the Judicial Council and AOC playbook: deny, delay, deceive.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
May 3, 2013
On the maintenance issue Wendy as always is right. My question is where was anyone else in authority in HRH2’s royal club of insiders last week? Why did they allow this blunder fiasco to get to this point ? I fear the result is that the branch as a whole will pay the price. Don’t the insiders see what they are doing ? They keep making mistakes and won’t ever admit it. A pretty sad state of affairs indeed.
Richard Power
May 3, 2013
You are unfortunately correct, Lando, that the entire court system will pay the price. This warring has to stop and soon. The court system is collapsing piece by piece. My suggestion is to produce solutions to the underlying problems and people should then just accept the solutions regardless of the source. And people should also set aside all the animosities and finger pointing for the long run good of the system. Mistakes were made. Leave it at that and let’s on with getting the court system running in the black.
unionman575
May 3, 2013
Defund the AOC – shut it down.
courtflea
May 3, 2013
HRH2’s royal insiders consider themselves above the law so they don’t anticipate anything to come back and bite them in the butt. And when it does, they clam up and delay until the thing blows over and then do whatever the hell they want. Like the SEC report.
Wendy Darling
May 3, 2013
Published today, Friday, May 3, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Proposed Court Software Expansion Bites Dust
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A request by court clerks in San Diego and Ventura to expand the reach of a highly controversial and expensive computer system has brought a fierce blast of criticism and a subsequent decision by a powerful court committee to reject the idea.
The proposal to expand an interim version of the old Court Case Management System to cover more types of cases brought a sharp reaction from judges who have fought the half-billion-dollar software project.
“What will it take to kill the beast?” asked the Alliance of California Judges.
The project was supposed to be terminated last year as a result of legislation ordering the courts to stop spending money on the computer project other than maintenance for the five trial courts using early versions of the software.
Among those courts, San Diego and Ventura asked last year that the software be expanded to include family and juvenile cases. But clerks in Orange County, Sacramento and San Joaquin opposed the idea, saying it was politically untenable and that it would threaten the maintenance money they currently receive.
“If additional case types are added, this could be considered by other courts as enhanced funding for a project deemed cancelled,” wrote Sacramento clerk Christina Volkers.
Promoted over the course of 10 years by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the software project was shelved in the wake of increasingly specific direction from legislators to stop spending money on it.
In the at-times arcane terminology of the software project, the final version 4 — that no trial court has installed — would have provided lawyers with the ability to email documents to the courts and would also have added family law and juvenile dependency cases.
As a result, critics suggested that the proposal to now spend roughly $350,000 to include those same two case types in the earlier version 3 was really a sneaky move to put elements of version 4 into use.
As part of last year’s budget, the Legislature passed into law a government code sections that says, “The Judicial Council shall not expend any of these funds on the system known as the Court Case Management System without consent from the Legislature, except for the maintenance and operation of Court Case Management System Version 2 and Version 3.”
Judge James Herman, who heads the Court Technology Committee, said the two courts asking for the expansion were well aware of that language.
“The courts asking for additional case types for V3 were aware of the four corners of the V3 legislation allowing the funding of the operations and maintenance of V3,” he said. “At this point, however, that issue is moot.”
In a Monday meeting, the technology committee, one of the powerful court committees that are shuttered to the public and the press, voted down the proposal.
“Accordingly, there was no need to consider legislative intent,” said Herman. “Keep in mind this is about V3 and the individual courts who still depend on it, not about V4, the terminated state wide system. The idea of reviving V4 has never been part of this conversation.”
Although the technology committee’s vote puts an end to the most recent issue, the proposal stoked the ongoing controversy over how policy decisions are made in California’s court system.
“These are tough times for the local courts,” wrote Judge Maryanne Gilliard in a statement from the Alliance of California Judges. “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.”
“We will continue to keep a close watch on this Council and its uncontrollable hydra, the Administrative Office of the Courts,” Gilliard continued, “and we will continue to advocate 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.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/03/57316.htm
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
May 3, 2013
“Accordingly, there was no need to consider legislative intent,” said Herman. “Keep in mind this is about V3 and the individual courts who still depend on it, not about V4, the terminated state wide system. The idea of reviving V4 has never been part of this conversation.”
Wow…what a Spinmeister he is. Even in defeat, they have to lie about knowingly violating the Legislature’s directive. Not about V4? In what parallel universe?
This time, they got caught and had to reverse direction. It’s a good thing someone is keeping a close eye on these people…they’ll try anything they think they can get away with.
It’s time to pass a law opening all meetings of the JC/AOC to the public, with only the narrowest of exceptions for confidential HR and pubic contracting matters.
wearyant
May 3, 2013
“Judge James Herman, who heads the Court Technology Committee, said the two courts asking for the expansion were well aware of that language”
How does Judge Herman know what is in the minds of Ventura and San Diego?
wearyant
May 3, 2013
“Accordingly, there was no need to consider legislative intent,” said Herman. “Keep in mind this is about V3 and the individual courts who still depend on it, not about V4, the terminated state wide system. The idea of reviving V4 has never been part of this conversation.”
How can Judge Herman make this claim? I sure would not want him to judge a case of mine. He apparently makes up facts as he goes along.
unionman575
May 3, 2013
Richard Power
May 3, 2013
What exactly is supposed to be a big deal about having case management for family law and juvenile dependency matters and what is supposed to be a big deal about e-mailing documents to a court? We’re talking here about stuff that could be set up in a few days. Most of the time would be spent educating the lawyers and court staff about how to manage the documents, not on creating any actual technology.
unionman575
May 3, 2013
Another Death Star Friday night blue light special….
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21863.htm
Judicial Council Soliciting Nominations for New Committee
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7740
May 3, 2013
Judicial Council Soliciting Nominations for New Committee
SAN FRANCISCO—Building upon the recently completed work by the Trial Court Funding Workgroup and a budget subcommittee that helped create a new funding allocation method for the judicial branch, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye announced today that the Judicial Council will be soliciting nominations for the newly established Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee.
“In the last three years of self-assessment, the judicial branch has launched a number of initiatives related to reorganization, restructuring, and the creation of new funding models,” said the Chief Justice. “It’s important to bring these efforts to completion by making sure we have the right leaders in the right places. We have justices, judges, court administrators, and lawyers who have developed valuable expertise in the last few years and we don’t want to lose that expertise. Justice Harry Hull did a masterful job as co-chair of the Trial Court
Funding Workgroup. And the work of presiding judges and court administrators on the Trial Court Budget Working Group and a subcommittee chaired by Sacramento Presiding Judge Laurie Earl was a game changer. We need to keep the momentum going.”
The Judicial Council is also considering extending two advisory positions to the council set to expire in September. If approved, the Chief Justice plans to make selections to those seats by next month. She also expects to make appointments to upcoming open seats on the council as well as those on the new Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee.
“When making appointments to the council and its advisory committees,” she said, “I look for diversity of viewpoints, experience, and background. At the same time, it’s important that members of the council and its committees have a statewide perspective while serving the public’s interest and improving access to justice for all Californians.”
Members of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee will be making funding recommendations to the council for the coming fiscal year. As part of its restructuring, the council decided at its business meeting on April 25 that the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee would become a standing council advisory committee. It answers to the Judicial Council, and its members are appointed by the Chief Justice.
The California Constitution limits the number of voting members on the council to 21. According to the state Constitution, the Chief Justice chairs the Judicial Council, and appoints one other Supreme Court justice, three justices from the courts of appeal, 10 trial court judges, two nonvoting court administrators “and any other nonvoting members as determined by the voting membership of the council.” Members serve three years and new council members begin serving in September. The State Bar’s governing body appoints four members and the state Senate and Assembly each appoint one member. The council currently has 11 advisory members.
###
A nice Vodka Tonic can be quite refreshing on a Friday night.
R. Campomadera
May 3, 2013
“When making appointments to the council and its advisory committees,” she (The Dictator) said, “I look for diversity of viewpoints, experience, and background”.
(…so long as their viewpoints are the same as mine, that is. We must all speak with the same voice.)
unionman575
May 3, 2013
I particularly like the quote about Hull above.
courtflea
May 3, 2013
Democratize E&P and then the Council. gut the AOC.
Thanks ACJ for dogging these idiots and exposing their antics.
wearyant
May 3, 2013
Unionman575 and courtflea, I raise my glass of vino to your glass of vodka tonic and frosted beer this Friday night! Have a good weekend, all!
Scout Finch
May 3, 2013
Tocqueville’s “The Old Regime and the French Revolution” accurately describes the mindset of our current branch leadership from Herman to Hull to HRH2:
“It is no exaggeration to say that a man’s (woman’s) admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he (she) feels for those around him (her).”
wearyant
May 4, 2013
My, my, my. That quote is an absolute portrait of teensy Tani. And her ilk follow closely behind in her belief system.
Recall the CJ! De-fund the AOC! Democratize the JC! Long live the ACJ!
Lando
May 4, 2013
Well stated Finch. HRH 2 is a total failure and should resign so the credibility of the branch can be restored again. J Hull is just a disgrace. His arrogance demeans the once proud California judiciary.
The OBT
May 4, 2013
Scout Finch and Lando you got it right. Hull a Court of Appeal Justice is assigned to suppress dissent within the branch. The citizens we work for should be asking who assigned him this task and why? They should also ask why he would accept such an assignment and then carry it out. A disgrace to the judiciary sums it up pretty well.
unionman575
May 4, 2013
PUBLIC NOTICE OF CHANGE IN COURT LOCATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106 AND
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 10.620
LIMITED CIVIL CASES (EXCLUDING UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES) WILL BE HEARD AT THE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER AND NO LONGER BE HEARD AT THE NORTH JUSTICE CENTER
Click to access 68106-orange-20130430-NJC.pdf
unionman575
May 4, 2013
PUBLIC NOTICE OF CHANGE IN COURT LOCATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106 AND
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 10.620
ALL FAMILY LAW CASES WILL BE HEARD AT THE LAMOREAUX JUSTICE CENTER AND WILL NO LONGER BE HEARD AT THE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
Click to access 68106-orange-20130430-LJC.pdf
unionman575
May 4, 2013
Click to access 68106-orange-20130430-Laguna-Hills.pdf
PUBLIC NOTICE OF COURT CLOSURE
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106 AND
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 10.620
NOTICE OF CLOSURE OF HARBOR JUSTICE CENTER – LAGUNA HILLS AND REASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO OTHER LOCATIONS
unionman575
May 4, 2013
Click to access 68106-orange-20130430-CJC.pdf
PUBLIC NOTICE OF CHANGE IN COURT LOCATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106 AND
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 10.620
ALL PROBATE AND MENTAL HEALTH CASES WILL BE HEARD AT THE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER AND WILL NO LONGER BE HEARD AT THE LAMOREAUX JUSTICE CENTER
R. Campomadera
May 4, 2013
That should, of course, read “public” contracting, although I suppose the other should be confidential, too.
wearyant
May 4, 2013
The Feds now have their ox gored re sequestration in Frisco land:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/03/57323.htm
Where was the outrage when the state courts were getting pummeled? Did the state trial courts have to grease the skids in order for eyes to be opened? Feds, this is just the beginning regardless of where sequestration goes. Wake up, attorneys and judges everywhere.
unionman575
May 5, 2013
wearyant
May 6, 2013
Nice.
Agent 99
May 5, 2013
Remember Hymie the Robot, developed by KAOS the international organization of evil, but switched to CONTROL by Max? Hymie reports that KAOS Headquarters has moved from Bucharest to San Francisco and now uses the acronym AOC in an effort to disguise itself. He also reports that in the fall of 2011, KAOS attended an emergency meeting, flying down to Ventura to meet with Ventura Superior Court officials when CCMS groupies Bruniers, Herman and their rulers Overholt and Mark Moore learned that Ventura did not want full deployment, but rather wanted to add civil case types to V3 along with e-filing. Hymie tells me that the above named KAOS Officials attended the meeting with others, unnamed. Panic had ensued at KAOS Headquarters where Ventura had been tauted as one of two remaining early adopter courts for V4 deployment, meaning all case types, including criminal. Ventura didn’t need criminal deployment at that time, and wanted to pull back.
According to what Hymie tells me, Overholt and Moore had already started to spin V4 as a “modular” system even though the legislature and the public had been advised that CCMS V4 included deployment of all case types.
“Confidential” KAOS documents reflect that as far back as mid-2011, Mark Moore referred to “unbundling the delivery of CCMS so it can be delivered in modules” when courts need the addition of specific case types.
Hymie reports facts. Max is confused most of the time. Chief hates technology. I turn to you, JCW and Friends.