We write to reference an October 7, 2013 article from the Boston Globe newspaper by Megan Woolhouse and Beth Healy which places the spotlight yet again on our branch leaders’ disastrous stewardship of CCMS.
The article referenced CCMS in connection with a Deloitte project in Massachusetts. Key points of the article are as follows: “In its brochures, Deloitte Consulting proclaims a record of “smooth implementations” of complex technology projects. But in courts, school systems, and government agencies in several states, the roll-out of computer systems built by the global consulting firm has proved to be anything but smooth.
From Florida and Pennsylvania to California, multimillion-dollar projects managed by the New York company have come in behind schedule, over budget, and riddled with problems. It is a situation that has been repeated in Massachusetts this summer; Deloitte was two years late and $6 million over budget in delivering a system to manage unemployment claims, and, separately, the Department of Revenue fired the firm for falling behind on a $114 million tax-system overhaul mired in errors.”
. . . .
“A project for California’s massive court system shows how bad it can get. Officials hired Deloitte and another firm in 2003 to create a statewide case management system, connecting 58 county courts, as well as appellate courts. By 2010, Deloitte was running the entire job, and the contract had been amended 102 times, ballooning in cost to $310 million from $33 million, according to a state audit.
Worse, the cost to install the software had been wildly underestimated. The total price tag soared to a projected $1.9 billion, so expensive that the courts could not afford to put the system into operation. “We basically got this nice SUV that can really do everything but we can’t afford to get it out on the road,’’ said Cathal Conneely, spokesman for California’s Administrative Office of the Courts. The state audit blamed the court system for agreeing to contract terms that failed to ensure it had sufficient oversight of Deloitte.”
The article also details problems with the Los Angeles City Schools project and state projects in Pennsylvania, and reports that: “In 2009, Pennsylvania’s auditor general performed an examination entirely dedicated to Deloitte’s broad reach with the state, including 25 contracts. The 179-page report detailed problems with procurement and management of contracts at agencies ranging from welfare to the state liquor board. The liquor board, for example, awarded Deloitte a $26 million contract to upgrade the agency’s technology, but the system caused inventory shortages while the cost more than doubled, to $60 million. The auditor’s review pointed back to state officials for better oversight, saying it ‘found numerous concerns, including poor accountability of contracts totaling $592.1 million.'”
The article rightly points out that the full cost of CCMS would have been at least $1.9 billion dollars and that the contract had to be amended 102 times. What is not in the article is the fact that our branch leaders ineptly signed a contract wherein the warranty on the “product” had expired before it was installed on a single courtroom computer.
We find somewhat amusing, but also sad, the comment made by AOC spokesman Cathal Conneely who described CCMS as a “nice SUV” that was apparently fabulous but, due to financial issues, was unable to be driven. You may recall that in the recent past, branch leaders have referred to CCMS as a “Ferrari” parked in a garage and, because we could not afford the gas, there it sat. These continuous attempts to spin the waste of half a billion dollars by our court leaders does nothing to enhance the credibility of our branch. When will our branch leadership take responsibility for squandering public resources on this colossal IT failure and admit that they paid over five hundred million dollars for a Yugo?
We also attach this link which details the current membership of the Judicial Council’s Technology Committee and the Court Technology Advisory Committee Liaisons. Stunningly, our branch leaders have decided that some of the chief architects and public advocates of CCMS deserve to chair these committees. We offer no further commentary on this point as we trust you will appropriately analyze the wisdom behind these appointments.
Lastly, for those of you who are providing financial support to the ACJ, we wish to thank you. For those of you who have not yet given, we encourage you to log on to the ACJ website and consider making a donation. We need to have our voices heard in Sacramento and we need the financial resources to do so.
As always, we will continue to keep you informed.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Related articles
- Yugo, Ferrari or an SUV that can do everything? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- IT Hiccups of the Week: California’s Unemployment System Upgrade Saga Continues (spectrum.ieee.org)
- Deloitte “delivering ruin” to one customer at a time
Judicial Council Watcher
October 14, 2013
You wouldn’t let a pedophile babysit your kids.
Leadership wishes to reinforce that CCMS is a resounding success if only you would cough up another two billion dollars. If they changed the leadership of this committee, in their eyes they’re admitting there’s a problem. It will probably be the same reason their leadership will be extended.
Like so many other issues they want everyone to believe that there is no problem so we get people who know next to nothing forging ahead as experts.
unionman575
October 14, 2013
More nice work ACJ and JCW.
😉
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 14, 2013
.
A NATIONAL embarrassment is right! I am additionally saddened today in that my philanthropy was murdered by the Family Law Industrialists of infamous Shasta County, led by the egregious Jack “the family ripper” Halpin, et al. It’s an ongoing statewide situation that seems almost enabled with the help of two other Shasta County judges, Baker and Jahr. (Maybe they’ll prove me wrong someday.)
Only able to watch by the sidelines – in awe of the stalwart efforts of the great ACJ and this good blog – I’m but rendered a court-impoverished, single, disabled dad raising an 11 year old daughter with a 17 year old daughter *illegally abducted* from us by Jack Halpin, et al. And I feel even worse today that I can’t donate financially to this courageous and esteemed group that gives much more than a fight: the ACJ gives us mortals Validation and Hope that California’s once great Judiciary could possibly return to providing Confidence and good Order to its citizenry. The playing field clearly needs a leveling and a clean up!
At this time, I can only give my deepest and dearest appreciation with a heartfelt, indelible memory of indebtedness to the ACJ and JCW for going beyond the scope and struggles with your fellows by including a pursuit of positive outcomes for those “end customers” you have sworn to serve. An embarrassing couple of bucks from us here and there won’t really help much. But someday, when I can bounce back from the White and Black Collared Criminals in our midst – into life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness returning to my journalistic shenanigans for an income – I will give back!
On behalf of my fellow, lay tax payers, voters, protective parents, and our children:
THANK YOU!!
[Today is Day 949…]
Wendy Darling
October 14, 2013
Not an SUV. Not a Ferrari.
Clown car. Bought by, negotiated for, defended by, clowns, then, as now, masquerading as the “leadership” of the California Judicial Branch and 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
And, yes, it is most certainly a national embarrassment. Not that that counts for anything anymore.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
October 14, 2013
Always good to have “friends” in Sacramento. Published today, Monday, October 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Bill Limiting Outsourcing of Court Jobs in California Vetoed by Brown
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a veto message Monday morning, Gov. Jerry Brown said a new law California restricting trial courts’ ability to outsource jobs “goes too far.”
The bill passed last month, AB 566, placed conditions on courts when outsourcing court jobs to private contractors. It required a showing that outsourcing would in fact save money.
Unions representing court workers argued that outsourcing of court jobs simply transferred public money into private pockets, while saving no money overall. The standards imposed by AB 566 are similar to those in place for community colleges, public libraries and school districts in California.
With the veto, court leaders immediately expressed relief.
“We’re grateful to the Governor for recognizing the fiscal damage the bill would have had on us, said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento. “The veto letter was exactly the message we’ve been trying to get out which is this bill as its written is unworkable would impose significant fiscal burdens on the courts.”
Representatives for two unions that represent court workers could not be reached for comment on Monday.
Among its provisions, AB 566 required each court to report to the Legislature’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the chairs of both the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees on whether the contract resulted in court employee firings and whether their work is being replaced by contractors.
“This measure goes too far,” Brown wrote in his veto message. “It requires California’s courts to meet overly-detailed and — in some cases — nearly impossible requirements when entering into or renewing certain contracts.”
The decision came down to flexibility in reducing costs to the courts, Brown argued.
“The courts, like many of our governmental agencies, are under tremendous funding pressure and face the challenge of doing their work at a lower cost,” he said. “I am unwilling to restrict the flexibility of our courts, as specified in this bill, as they face these challenges.”
Assembly member and bill author Bob Wieckowski called AB 566 a transparency measure to ensure courts are working in the public’s best interest. He was unavailable for comment Monday.
The bill was primarily backed by the California Court Reporters Association and the Service Employees International Union and was considered a response to Placer County Superior Court’s firing of its entire court reporter staff and replacement with private contractors.
But it also generated great opposition from the trial courts, as presiding judges from dozens of courts, including Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego, wrote to Governor Brown urging a veto.
“The Legislature wants us to do the best we can not to outsource our work and keep our employees close,” said Judge Earl in an interview. “Nobody wants to go outside and get this work outsourced, but we’re tying to think of ways to live within our budget.”
Earl said judges are amenable to continuing to work with Wieckowski on the issue. “We’re willing to sit down with Assembly member Wieckowski and to talk about his motivation behind the bill and his concerns, and to share our concerns. He’s a friend of the courts and we’ve appreciated the work he’s done on behalf of the courts in the past.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/14/62019.htm
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
October 15, 2013
I hope Assembly Member Weickowshki takes Judge Earl up on her offer to contunue to work on this issue. The current Court Executive of Placer County is 100% the reason for this bill. Jake Chatters was the Deputy Court Executive of Sacramento Superior Court before Jodi Patel had him selected as the Exec of Placer so his lineage is tied to your court. Jodi was the Northern Central Administrator of the AOC at the time when Placer was in receivership. Jake has 0% experience, let me repeat that zero experience working as a clerk or as a staff person in a trial court when she hired him as manager in Sacramento Superior Court!
This is what is wrong with court administration. The Executives just hire their “man” or “woman” who is loyal to them and will do whatever that exec wants. Sacramento Superior Court is doing it again now with their latest hatchet woman. There is no professionalism, education standards, or expertise to these executives and staff is 100% correct to distrust them.
Why does having court staff experience matter? Because if you don’t have that backgound as an Executive you’ll treat court staff like shit and try to fire them (oursource their jobs). Jake Chatter outsourced Placer court reporters even after they were willing to make the pay concessions! WTF!!!!? That’s just mean spirited and wrong. It is a terrbile message to send.
The “field” of court administration is just frields hiring friends and really needs to be professionalized. Let me describe how Sacramento (your court Judge Earl) handled it’s court analysts two years ago. Those analysts were hired by Mike Roddy or Jodi Patel who both promoted on and jumped around (sorta like AOC wonder boy Steve Nash is doing lately). So in came Dennis Jones (again), your court’s exec officer at the time and he fired many of those analysts but not based on senority or performance evaluations! They just fired who they least liked. He got away with it too because he retired and the analysts were not in a union to complain. Shame on your court all the same!!!! Your court’s actions two years ago were as bad as Placer’s are today and you have just as much to explain to the legislature when in comes to the need to improve in how court staff are treated.
It was 100% right for the court reporters of Placer to go to the legislature for help. I am very glad they did. Both houses passed this bill so what should this tell you? It should tell you the field of Court Administration is not professional and really needs to improve relations with court staff in trial courts around the state.
Where are those rehire lists for the court employees your court laid off because of budget cuts (not employee performance remember that)? How many of them have you been able to rehire as vacancies have come open due to retirements or vacancies? Do you even have a list of those laid off employees on your desk as the PJ because your are concerned about the good staff you lost due to budget cuts? I seriously seriously doubt it!
Perhaps you and the other judges legitimately felt that Sacramento Superior Court had too many analysts (as I always did). If so, then why are the people who kept hiring them immune from impact? It was their decisions to hire and hire in the boom years right? Shouldn’t Jodi Patel be let go for that error in judgment of hring more analysts if the court could not afford them in the recession? Instead she deserves to be promoted to the AOC to run larger projects? I don’t get it…..
The Governor is not going anywhere so if he sees this shit continue I bet he’ll sign the bill next year as the unions influences in the Legislature are already pissed at the way court workers are being treated. Millions wasted on CCMS and it comes out of the hides of court workers. Screw that plan! Fire the AOC management first, their 1,000 staff in SF second, and only then should trial court employees be getting pink slips.
If any heads should have rolled in your court it was Dennis Jones who is now double dipping on the taxpayer dime with both a Sacramento County retirement plan and a CalPERs pension thanks to the AOC paying his salary while working for Sacramento. Now Jake Chatters in Placer is making a six figure salary and he should receive his walking papers for his role in this fiasco for the branch. Jodi Patel should be canned as well for having made the mistake of pushing for him to have such a position which he is clearly not ready for, also for her role with the analysts of your court, and finally for CCMS blunders as well on her watch.
Your on the JC Judge Earl. Start making motions for new leadership as this crap has to be cleaned up. Thanks JCW for the forum. Fight on my friends!
Judicial Council Watcher
October 15, 2013
We didn’t like everything in this bill because it held everyone responsible for the failures of a few. On the other hand there has been little other opposition to the judicial branch contracting everything out.When you lack a stable source of income temps are the way to go for most businesses.
What’s disturbing is that even though long term employees offered to come back and match the rate, they were mowed over by a bid to privatize and give some third party a fee for management and payroll services, plus a reasonable profit. Either that costs more or court reporters are earning substantially less so that some middle man profiteer gets their pound of flesh out of their paycheck.
courtflea
October 15, 2013
Exactly JCW! Many courts that have contracted for court reporter services (or fill in the blank for the type of employee, this bill would have negatively affected many workers)for years and cannot hire a court reporter if they tried, due to location, lack of transcript income, etc. would have been screwed. Alternatively, court reporters that choose to be self employed under this bill, would have lost their jobs….talk about eating your own. It should also be noted that middle men are not always used when courts use “private” court reporters, there are often individual agreements/contracts between courts and the court reporter.
courtflea
October 15, 2013
I should have said could not hire a court reporter as an employee… my bad.
Ginny Edmunds
October 16, 2013
I would love to help others in need of free legal help. I am part of Helping Americans Navigate the Courts and helping run fixfamilycourtnow.org Please help spread the word. Too many persons are regularly deprived of rights by our corrupt legal system.
unionman575
October 16, 2013
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/snip101613.htm
Wendy Darling
October 16, 2013
Published today, Wednesday, October 16, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
San Bernardino’s Nash Heads to Contra Costa
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – San Bernardino head clerk Stephen Nash is headed back to the Bay Area after accepting a job as head administrator for Contra Costa Superior Court.
“We’re still faced with extraordinary budget problems and there are few people who have the depth of knowledge about the court’s finances that Stephen has,” Contra Costa Presiding Judge Barry Goode said.
“We’ve worked very hard to try to have in mind the impact of these cuts, not just on the public we serve but on the people who work here,” Goode added. “It’s been a challenging effort to manage through these difficulties in a sensitive and thoughtful way and Stephen will be able to do that.”
The presiding judge said the court sought out Nash and recruited him.
“We set out to find somebody who had statewide experience and a deep knowledge of the judicial branch. He’s clearly one of the top CEOs in the state,” Goode said.
Nash replaces Kiri Torre, who retired in June. She had been in the position for five years. “Kiri was one of the finest CEOs in the state. I see Stephen helping to lead the court in that same fashion,” Goode said.
Nash starts his new job in December, bringing with him a long history in state government. Before taking the San Bernardino job in 2011, he was finance director for the Administrative Office of the Courts for four years.
At an earlier job, Nash worked as a budget analyst for the California Department of Finance.
Nash’s move from San Bernardino where electronic filing has been in use since 2010 raises the question of whether he will push for a similar program in Contra Costa. Goode said the court currently uses e-filing for its complex civil cases and would like to expand.
But the Legislature’s upcoming decision whether to support Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to sweep court reserves will determine the fate of programs like e-filing.
“If that’s done we lose the ability to save money for investments that bring greater efficiency to the court,” said the judge. “If the Legislature deprives us of the ability to save our money to create those efficiencies, it will fall by the wayside. It takes incredible staff time to do something like move to e-filing. We have 296 employees. We’re down to one-third. We struggle everyday to keep clerks in the courtroom. So the idea of doing something like e-filing that requires substantial staff time is a challenge.”
“It’s on our list of goals for the court,” Goode added. “But, given our limited resources, and the uncertainty of next year’s budget situation, it’s a question of balancing the expense of e-filing versus other expenses. If anybody can do it, Stephen can do it. But we’ve had terrific CEOs. It’s not a question of the talent of the CEO but the resources the court has. Not even the best person can make gold out of straw.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/16/62092.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 17, 2013
You hired Stephen for the same reason San Bernardino hired Stephen. You’re hoping he can crap gold bricks of AOC cash.
Luckily for the citizens of Contra Costa County and unlike the unlucky residents of San Bernardino county, closing all the courthouses down in the county won’t result in Southwest Airlines being a practical way of getting to court.
When the going gets tough and he wasn’t laying the golden eggs everyone thought he could, he bailed on San Bernardino.
Richard Power
October 21, 2013
Electronic filing would be simple and inexpensive and require little staff time if you use modern techniques.
unionman575
October 16, 2013
“Kiri was one of the finest CEOs in the state. I see Stephen helping to lead the court in that same fashion,” Goode said.
Really?
😉
courtflea
October 16, 2013
yes, unionman, really…NOT. Kiri was a no nothing bitch on wheels. if judges thought otherwise, I question their IQ. scuse my language.
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 17, 2013
How long before Stevie replaces Jahr-head?
Judicial Council Watcher
October 17, 2013
Three years at most.
Delilah
October 17, 2013
Oh great. Help is on the way. Not. And the embarrassment continues.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/10/new-nonprofit-foundation-to-advocate-for-california-courts.html
“I’m thrilled to be part of the foundation as an honorary director,” Cantil-Sakauye said in a statement. “It fits in with my own efforts to promote civics education in this state, as well as what former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is doing nationally with her iCivics initiative.”
Hurl.
Wendy Darling
October 17, 2013
Sandra Day O’Connor is not a hypocrite.
The same cannot be said of Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 17, 2013
whoa! advocate for California courts. LOL. Who made these folks advocates on behalf on the courts? like they all met over cocktails one night and made this idea up (including speaking with “one voice”). sure. right. Like the government, they are here to help. yeah. right. And the CJ is “honorary” chair. pleeze. Why can’t folks just call a spade a spade? Do we all look that stupid? Come on now, Delilah is right, this is down right embarrassing!
wearyant
October 17, 2013
And the Teensy is “thrilled!” The working word used to be “pleased.” The histrionics is being amped. Barf.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 18, 2013
New nonprofit will take money from state bar and judicial council to pay lobbyists because judicial branch lobbyists (OGA) are ineffectual. They will also take gobs of cash from other non-profits getting money from the AOC because the AOC will return the money they spend in the form of grants. (laundered lobbying money whose source will be government funds that could pay for your job… or your court. )
The list of players is a list of judicial branch leadership suck-ups…. most of whom endorsed CCMS or like Dunn, were willing to cough up millions for a state bar module to CCMS.
Arturo Gonzalez was the attorney that made sure no one could intervene in the unlicensed contractor debacle so that the AOC could throw their lawsuit against the vendors and intentionally lose.
Zaremberg is a personal friend of TCS and has shown he is willing to toss his own Cal Chamber constituency under the bus to support her – and has.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
Nice JCW!
Lando
October 17, 2013
HRH-2 now an honorary director of a foundation . Isn’t it amazing how the crystal palace insiders crave constant awards and recognition and of course continually hand out these awards to each other. More amazing is that HRH-2 compares herself to one of the most outstanding Justices to ever serve this great country, Sandra Day O’Connor. The total lack of insight and ego on parade is very revealing and explains a lot about how our branch has been sadly diminished. You can’t make any of this stuff up. Really.
Wendy Darling
October 18, 2013
Tani Cantil-Sakauye can rack all of the self-affirming awards she wants. She will never be a Sandra Day O’Connor. Not even in the same ballpark.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
October 17, 2013
Wasn’t Nash in charge of AOC finances throughout the entire period that the Judicial Council and AOC spent half a billion on the rathole known as CCMS ? Did said Nash or anyone else at 455 Golden Gate ever accept responsibility for that huge train wreck ? Now as the insular ” branch leaders ” like to do, we are creating a nice revisionist history claiming Nash is an outstanding administrator. I guess we can’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
Look for Steve to take over for Jahr at some point…
😉
unionman575
October 17, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/17/62120.htm
😉
Thursday, October 17, 2013
DA Objects to New Court Site Choice in Modesto
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
MODESTO, Calif. (CN) – Stanislaus County’s district attorney joined a growing chorus of community leaders opposed to the site chosen by the California judiciary for a new $277 million courthouse.
The Modesto Bee reports that District Attorney Birgit Fladager emailed her objections to the Administrative Office of the Courts, which green-lit the site acquisition phase of the project earlier this year. In May, a committee chose a site in downtown Modesto two blocks south of the 50-year-old and woefully inadequate criminal courthouse.
But Fladager told retired Judge Steven Jahr – who has final say over where the courthouse ultimately lands – that the state’s preferred location is too far from the district attorney’s office. She asked Jahr to consider the safety of prosecutors and witnesses, and go with a secondary site, a block away from her office.
“Our primary concern is the safety of our victims, witnesses and staff,” Fladager’s email states. “A closer location obviously reduces the risk of possible harm to individuals traveling back and forth to the courthouse.”
The DA noted that more than 40 lawyers – pulling rolling briefcases filled with files – would have to travel three blocks in all kinds of weather each morning if officials go with the preferred site between 9th and 10th streets and G and H streets.
“We would have to provide shuttles back and forth,” Fladager wrote.
She asked officials to consider the secondary site on the block between 13th and 14th streets and H and I streets, which currently houses the former Modesto Bee building. The DA’s office is a block away, at 12th and I.
“I absolutely believe that the I Street site is the much better location from the perspective of the District Attorney’s Office,” Fladager wrote.
Other community leaders have also questioned the judiciary’s choice, which was made behind closed doors and without public input. That list of critics includes retired U.S. District Judge Frank Damrell, former Stanislaus County supervisor Ray Simon and E&J Gallo Winery matriarch Marie Gallo.
In May, the Bee reported that city officials have been actively lobbying for the preferred site, which the city partly owns. To sway the judiciary’s decision, Modesto offered to buy the other properties on the block, move all the utility lines and then “flip” the property to the state.
State court officials stressed that the decision must be made and property purchased by June 2015, when the current authorization expires. They said there is no guarantee that money would be reallocated to Stanislaus County if the deadline is missed.
While site acquisition must continue on schedule, the Judicial Council nevertheless delayed architectural design until fiscal year 2014-15 because of ongoing budget problems.
The new courthouse would replace seven facilities scattered around Modesto, several of which the state leases. It will also include space for four new judgeships and basic services like a self-help counter, jury assembly and deliberations rooms, and separate hallways for criminal defendants – all currently impossible because of space restrictions.
The judiciary expects to complete the courthouse by 2019.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
More on the mess in Modesto…;)
Board OKs Modesto plan to take redevelopment agency properties, but not debt
Published: October 17, 2013
There is no debt on the agency’s 31,500-square-foot parking lot on 10th Street, which is on the block where the state wants to build a $277 million courthouse. A recent appraisal was done on that property, but city staff will not reveal what was said about the land’s value.
Once the city gets title to that parking lot, it plans to sell it to the state’s administrative office of the courts.
http://www.modbee.com/2013/10/17/2980305/board-oks-modesto-plan-to-take.html#storylink=cpy
wearyant
October 18, 2013
Let it be paid for with monies used to fund AOC’s top management!
unionman575
October 18, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23823.htm
Judicial Council to Consider Enhancements in Oversight of Administrative Office
Changes geared to improve transparency, accountability, and efficiency
😉
Get me a bucket!
wearyant
October 18, 2013
Transparency, accountability, and efficiency! Look out, folks. Those words are only trotted out when the AOC intends to bend over all the beleaguered taxpayers.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23770.htm
Next Big Top Circus:
The council will hold its two-day public business meeting from 1:45 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. on Thursday, October 24, and from 8:30 a.m. to 12:35 p.m. on Friday, October 25, in the Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco.
The meeting agenda and reports are posted online.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20131025-itemK.pdf
No money for maintenance of existing courthouses but billions for the crazy building spree.
unionman575
October 18, 2013
For example…
Samples of projects that were considered for execution using the proposed $18 million but
continue to be deferred are:
Mendocino County Courthouse: Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system—replace three 3.3-cubic-foot fan coils units. These units are corroded and
leaking. This work also requires asbestos abatement. Estimated project cost: $106,863.
5
Kern County, Bakersfield Justice Building: HVAC system—install two four-ton
HVAC split system units, 200 linear feet of associated piping and wiring, and associated
UL-rated smoke detection hardware to remediate inadequate ventilation and air
conditioning in the transformer room. Estimated project cost: $104,862.
Los Angeles County, Burbank Courthouse: Roof—replace 29,000 square feet of built
up roof and 12,000 of shingled roof. System is 20 years old and at end of life. Estimated
project cost: $438,743.
Santa Barbara County, Santa Maria Courts Building C and D: Elevator systems—
Renovate two 40-year-old hydraulic elevators, to include equipment and control
modernization and Americans with Disabilities Act and fire code compliance for both
passenger and freight elevators. Estimated project cost: $236,486.
Alameda County, Hayward Hall of Justice: Air distribution system—refurbish
approximately 350,000 linear feet of leaking and deteriorated ducting to improve indoor
air quality throughout the building. Estimated project cost: $230,537.
Comments, Alternatives Considered, and Policy Implications
The TCFMAC considered various dollar allocations for the different budget categories. The
amounts recommended are based on historical data and a very conservative funding plan to allow sufficient funds for critical needs as they are identified by the courts and the AOC. This
allocation strategy will allow the TCFMAC to have the flexibility to fund the most critical
Ginny Edmunds
October 18, 2013
The AOC? Those are the persons who refuse to answer my requests for information under the CA 10.500 They keep ignoring my requests.
Here was my last request: “I would like a list of all Public Records that relate to any work Judge William McAdams has done in 2012-2013 in the Court.
I would like records pertaining to disclosure of his pay, his specific job duties, number and names (or case numbers) of all cases he has heard.
All records pertaining to any extra benefits he has received in 2012-2013.
Date of retirement.
Record of retirement benefits.
Records pertaining to the income from 2008-2013, including benefits, retirement…
Emails within the job he is assigned to are public records. I would like all email correspondence records WIlliam McAdams has had 2012-2013.
I would like all computer records of Judge McAdams Internet history while working for the Courts 2012-2013. This is easily obtainable by doing a computer copy download.
Please provide a list of the records that are obtainable, as I cannot know all records which are maintained at the Courthouses.
My last request went ignored. Please contact me with any clarification needed. ”
Their response was they had none of these records. I can em.ail proof if anyone cares to see it. fixfamilycourt@yahoo.com
unionman575
October 18, 2013
Government Code Section 68106: Public Notice by Courts of Closures or Reduced Clerks’ Office Hours (Gov. Code, § 68106—Report No. 22)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20131025-info2.pdf
unionman575
October 18, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20131025-appointments.pdf
Want to play JC scrabble?
Scroll down, way down, to pages 58, 59, 63 and 64.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
October 18, 2013
Note that Bruiniers and Reiser are re-appointed to chair and vice chair the court technology advisory committee.
And what did we say in the first comment of this thread?
You wouldn’t let a pedophile babysit your kids
.
Leadership wishes to reinforce that CCMS is a resounding success if only you would cough up another two billion dollars. If they changed the leadership of this committee, in their eyes they’re admitting there’s a problem. It will probably be the same reason their leadership will be extended.
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 18, 2013
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so very, very sad!
Mr. Bruin-ears is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Wendy Darling
October 18, 2013
“The gift that just keeps on giving.” And a gift that one doesn’t need, like the flu, or the plague.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
October 18, 2013
Musical chairs anyone? The new names were undoubtedly vetted for probable sycophancy.
Reiser apparently uses an iPhone so he’s in as an “expert.” And we have the gushing Kim Turner back! JusticeCalifornia, where are you?
Ginny Edmunds
October 18, 2013
Huge market for lawyers who can work for $30-100 hour to fight AGAINST the courts illegal moves. I have 14 friends all going to law school simply because they could get no justice in the past year in their custody and restraining order cases. After they saw the way the law is not working they took. action. So lawyers watch out, new league of Lawyers and competition for you created by the Officials illegal acts. I hope to have over 200 soon to be lawyers in southern California by year end.
The OBT
October 19, 2013
You would think after the CCMS mess that Bruiniers would have the good sense to accept responsibility and move on. The fact that he didn’t is bad enough but it is beyond belief he is still allowed to oversee branch technology issues. I guess we can all just ignore Bruiners efforts to stop the legislative audit of CCMS or his incredible claims that CCMS was ready to be deployed . This goes to the core of what is wrong at 455 Golden Gate. While J Jahr and HRH-2 claim they are reforming things, their actions such as allowing Bruiners to continue to oversee technology issues undermine their grand and false pronouncements. They are all the gifts that keep on giving and they are driving the once strong and proud California judiciary into the ground.
Lando
October 19, 2013
Bruiners may be a nice guy and decent Court of Appeal Justice but he has no business continuing to oversee branch wide tech/computer issues. The fact he is allowed to stay just demonstrates the crystal palace insiders are more concerned about protecting their power at the expense of doing right for the public. Is any one in the legislature following this continued mess.? The solution. We need to defund the Judicial Council and AOC and allow the trial courts to develop their own case management systems free of Bruiner’s oversight .
unionman575
October 19, 2013
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-warner/rationing-justice-closing_b_4124609.html&ct=ga&cd=MTA4MTk3MDQ4NjQwNjY2NTU4Mzc&cad=CAEYAA&usg=AFQjCNFk-uhWThWH6M8LMeZ-6QYSx4aENA
unionman575
October 19, 2013
Blackjack anyone?
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/10/17/state-supreme-court-chief-decries-too-tier-system-of-justice/
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Decries ‘Two-Tier System’
October 18, 2013, 4:02 pm • Posted by Scott Shafer
When she was still a young law student at UC Davis, Tani Cantil-Sakauye made good tip money dealing blackjack at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe casino. By her own account, she could hit you with a card from across the room. But as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Cantil-Sakauye has been dealt a pretty weak hand.
In her interview with me this week, the Chief said severe state budget cuts had created a “two-tier system of justice” in California, where shuttered courthouses and shorter courtroom hours are “basically denying justice across the state.”
Those who suffer most, she said, are “low-income, middle-income businesses” trying to resolve disputes.
“The truth is, those who can will use other, private alternatives” to settle their differences, she added.
“But those of us who need to go to the court, who don’t have those resources, find ourselves frankly getting a second system of justice.”
In a talk at the Public Policy Institute earlier this year, Cantil-Sakauye complained that state budget cuts were threatening a “dismemberment of the judicial branch.” Some of those cuts have been restored in the current year budget, but the reductions are still widely felt.
Her predecessor, Ronald George, was widely praised for many things, including his acumen cultivating relationships in Sacramento, where decisions on court funding get made. George, who was appointed and elevated to Chief Justice by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, was known for a soothing, nonconfrontational style that may have played well at the state capitol.
Judges generally avoid discussing politics. Like journalists, they get paid to evaluate the facts of each case and set aside their personal views. So it’s no surprise that when I asked Cantil-Sakauye this week for her views about the Republican Party, her public information officers cried foul.
“You shouldn’t have asked her about that,” a testy Peter Allen said to me after the interview.
Cantil-Sakauye was first named to the Sacramento Municipal Court in 1990 by her boss, then-Gov. George Deukmejian. She was elevated on the bench by Republican Governors Pete Wilson and then Arnold Schwarzenegger, who named her Chief Justice in 2010.
My ideals of law and order resonated with George Deukmejian’s, and I’ve remained a Republican ever since. — From a 2011 interview
When I spoke to her back in 2011, shortly after she became Chief, she said she joined the Republican Party when she was “barely 18” to get an internship with State Sen. Jim Nielsen, whom she described as “a law and order man.” She actually never took that internship, but later went to work for Gov. Deukmejian.
“My ideals of law and order resonated with George Deukmejian’s, and I’ve remained a Republican ever since,” she told me back then.
California’s judicial system is relatively free of unseemly politics. Unlike some states, where anyone can run for the supreme court and raise unlimited campaign contributions to win, California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, confirmed by the State Senate and then approved again every 12 years by the voters. This process allows them to stay relatively removed from the political fray.
Perhaps with that in mind, several prominent attorneys and civic leaders announced this week the formation of a new nonprofit foundation to advocate for California courts. The Foundation for Democracy and Justice counts among its founders former UC President Mark Yudof and Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, both of whom know their way around the state capitol quite well.
The video above is from the premiere episode of KQED NEWSROOM, a weekly news magazine program on television, radio and online, featuring Thuy Vu and Scott Shafer. Tune in to KQED Public Television 9 on Friday, Oct. 18, at 8 p.m. to watch the entire show. Listen to a rebroadcast at KQED Public Radio 88.5 FM on Sunday, Oct. 20, at 6 p.m.
😉
Ginny Edmunds
October 24, 2013
I do not know that we need anyone else to advocate for the Courts. What we need is oversight. The AOC will not respond to requests for information under the Freedom of Information act. The CJP does not take action. There is no recourse. Until someone steps up to help make sweeping changes, nothing will solve the issue of degrading law, lawyers who lie, cheat and steal, and the plight of the lower middle class in courts. Until there is actually oversight for the courts themselves, there can be no sincere change from lawyers, or from litigants, which burden the courts with high conflict cases that last 3-15 years.