We provide you with a link to Dan Walters’ column in yesterday’s Sacramento Bee that discusses the formation of the Foundation for Democracy and Justice, a new public education foundation headed up in part by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. It is our understanding that this charitable foundation will be involved in public education regarding the importance of the judiciary, and it will not engage in legislative advocacy.
The Alliance has no quarrel with efforts to educate the public on the importance of an appropriately funded judicial system. We agree that the greatest problem facing the courts is insufficient overall funding. All areas of public function have suffered budget cuts in the recent downturn. Recovery is problematic.
The major impediment to restored funding, however, is not a “lack of education” on the part of legislators and other policy makers. Those we have talked to understand the great need to ensure that we have open and accessible courts. The major stumbling block to increased funding has been a sense within the legislative and executive branches that the Judicial Council and the AOC have squandered resources, wasted money and failed to make open, functioning trial courts the first priority of the branch. The problem has been a lack of transparency and accountability.
In last year’s budget discussions, no one in the Legislature or Department of Finance could be sure exactly how the Judicial Council and AOC were spending the bulk of their $170 million budget. There was consternation over the ongoing balances in the construction funds amounting to hundreds of millions. No one has done any “zero based” budgeting analysis to determine if funds in the hands of the AOC should be or could be redirected to offset trial court reductions. This is precisely why we have called for an audit of these funds in the coming legislative year. This information needs to be available so that appeals for additional funding sound with credibility.
It seems ironic that the new foundation is formed for “Democracy and Justice.” Much of the waste occurred because the Judicial Council and the AOC were allowed to spend freely, without the “checks and balances” that are critical to a healthy democracy. This is because all of the judicial members of the Judicial Council are appointed by one person, the Chief Justice, which has resulted in blinded and insular leadership. Trial court funding decisions need to be subject to the accountability which ensues when the decisionmakers are elected by their peers.
We hope that the new foundation will help to educate about the need for an audit of the judiciary and the need for democratic selection of the decisionmakers who are best suited to set the spending priorities of the judicial branch.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________
- New nonprofit foundation to advocate for California courts (blogs.sacbee.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 23, 2013
Hear, HEAR!!
unionman575
October 23, 2013
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.
Henry Ford
😉
Wendy Darling
October 23, 2013
Quote of the day: “The major stumbling block to increased funding has been a sense within the legislative and executive branches that the Judicial Council and the AOC have squandered resources, wasted money and failed to make open, functioning trial courts the first priority of the branch.”
A “sense” within the legislative and executive branches that 455 Golden Gate Avenue wastes money, squanders resources, and fail to make the trial courts top priority? Wonder where the legislative and executive branches got that idea. The over half-billion dollars plus wasted on CCMS? The enduring cavalier attitude of 455 Golden Gate Avenue regarding CCMS? The continuing raises, promotions, and hiring shenanigans at the AOC while trial courts are dropping staff like flies? The lying and complete lack of credibility of judicial branch “leadership” with the State Legislature and the Governor’s office? Shuttered court rooms all over the State, but still plenty of money at 455 Golden Gate Avenue for make-work projects and consultants?
The legislative and executive branches are fully aware at this point that “more money” isn’t going to fix what is really wrong with the California Judicial Branch.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
October 23, 2013
This “foundation” will offer up many, many opportunities for mischief for those so inclined. Will the nation be diligently searched again (please note sarcasm) for a CEO and the only possible candidate will be — [drum roll] — big Bill Vickrey! Or is Sheila tired of gardening by now? Only nightmares ahead.
Long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
October 23, 2013
Speaking of CCMS. Access to justice . . . for the right price. Published today, Wednesday, October 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Tech Gold Rush Strikes CA Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A new gold rush has come to California, with the state’s massive legal system open for mining as courts and lawyers move to new technology. Investor Warren Buffett’s right hand man has joined in the race along with enormous software and publishing companies from around the nation. “It’s truly the wild west here in California,” said an industry insider, “a land grab.”
They are scrambling for a mother lode of multi-million-dollar contracts for software and licensing, vast additional sums for upkeep, and the right to set up a toll booth on Court Road for 38 million people.
The rush of deal-making follows the collapse of a half-billion-dollar, ten-year state project to develop a Court Case Management System for all California’s 58 trial courts. Widely savaged by judges as a “fiasco” and a “boondoggle,” the software developed by Deloitte Consulting was abandoned last year.
“When CCMS finally collapsed, the combination of pent up demand and deferred maintenance of local courts resulted in a vendor feeding frenzy that while strong today, will only grow over time,” said an industry executive who asked not to be named.
In the ruins of the statewide project, a group of judges, tech staff and administrators wrote a model contract and selected three top bidders: New Mexico-based Justice Systems Inc., Texas-based Tyler Technologies and Pennsylvania-based LT-Tech owned by Thompson Reuters formerly West Publishing.
The deals have three basic financial components, licensing and installation for millions of dollars, yearly upkeep for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, a golden egg, the right to charge lawyers a fee, generally around $5, for every document electronically filed.
In one big Southern California court, for example, about 750,000 documents are projected to be filed this year. That’s in Orange County’s civil section alone. Multiplied by a $5 fee, the flow of money would amount to $3 million a year.
Extrapolating based on population, total income from the per-document fees could easily rise to $40 million a year throughout the state, paid by California’s lawyers. That’s just for civil litigation and not counting the millions paid by the courts for software installation, licensing and yearly upkeep.
Helping to propel the technological shift, lawyers in California uncharacteristically have not resisted change. They have generally embraced electronic filing in large part because it is much cheaper than paying a runner to deliver paper documents.
A Better Typewriter
With the market heating up, Fresno in California’s vast Central Valley became the latest to announce a deal. On Monday afternoon, the court said it had agreed with Tyler to replace its old software, including an early version of CCMS for criminal cases and the Banner system for civil cases. They will be replaced by Tyler’s Odyssey system for $4.8 million.
“We have a very, very old civil case management system and it was nine versions behind and we could not update it anymore,” said the court’s head clerk Sheran Morton. “We referred to it as ‘the typewriter.’ That’s how far out of date it was.”
The central administrative office in San Francisco will pay about half of the purchase price and the rest will come out of the Fresno court’s budget. The deal covers case management, e-filing, document storage and public access. Morton said the per-document fee charged to the filing lawyer has yet to be worked out.
“We knew we were looking at a good idea to get off this product and move on,” said Morton. “We realized if we changed to a different vendor we could save money over time. We knew that was very, very important.”
About two weeks earlier, Orange County had also announced a deal with Tyler, also for $4.8 million.
The Orange County announcement represented an about-face because the court’s head clerk, Alan Carlson, has been a leading tout for the state-sponsored, Deloitte-developed software. Customized by the court’s big IT staff, its version of the software served as a showpiece for other trial courts and was often exhibited at CCMS demonstrations around the state.
Carlson also praised the software regularly, for example telling the judges and officials on California’s Judicial Council, “It works and we couldn’t do without it.”
But a change in the wind was felt about six months ago when the current head of the technology committee for California’s courts, Judge James Herman, sent a letter asking the few CCMS courts if they wanted to spend about $340,000 to “enhance” the software to include family and juvenile law.
Meanwhile, the staff in Orange County had asked Deloitte for the software’s source code, a request that was denied. The court’s leaders then came in hard against any further investment in CCMS.
The new deal with Tyler covers exactly the same cases the enhancement was supposed to handle, family and juvenile law.
The clerk’s office would not provide the financial terms of the new contract, recommending instead that a reporter make a public records request. So the maintenance costs and the per-document fee charged to lawyers are not yet known.
“I took a good degree of comfort from the fact that they were dealing with Tyler. I felt this should be a system that should work,” said Judge Andy Banks, a member of the court’s executive committee.
Banks said the $4.8 million contract includes an option to replace CCMS in all the court’s sections. He said that option would be taken up if the court’s future budget allows for it.
Jackpot
Two other courts made earlier deals for new software. The small coastal court of San Luis Obispo agreed late last year to pay Tyler $3.1 million for the Odyssey case management system. The Central Valley court of Kings followed, and will pay roughly $1.8 million to Tyler, depending on upkeep costs.
This summer, the court in the rural county of Merced became the only California court so far to sign a deal under the model agreement written by a committee of judges and tech staff from around California.
Merced will pay $2.2 million, including $1.2 million for installation and about $900,000 for the license, plus $193,000 per year for upkeep. The deal will cover software for case management, document storage, e-filing, billing and accounting, and public access.
“Our old Sustain system was very labor intensive,” said Linda Romero-Soles, the head clerk in Merced. “Odyssey will streamline all of the court’s processes.”
She said the court is paying with what she described as “a lot of creative finance.” “Every year we’ve been setting aside money,” she said. “We’ve had reserves set aside as well as civil assessment money and old security funding.”
Illustrating a central characteristic of fast-changing technology, Merced’s old Sustain software was not that old. It was installed four years ago.
Sustain Technologies is owned by the Daily Journal Corporation. It publishes the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper in Los Angeles, and owns a string of smaller legal publications in the western states. The chairman is Charles Munger, a prominent Los Angeles lawyer who is often described in financial news as Warren Buffet’s right hand man.
Significantly, Sustain software is also in place in the Los Angeles branch courts.
In an apparent effort to strengthen its position, the Daily Journal Corporation announced last month that it had bought another tech company, ISD Corporation, for $16 million.
ISD is one of the small outfits that were starved nearly out of existence by the massive undertaking between Deloitte and the Administrative Office of the Courts that absorbed almost every cent in the state’s court technology budget.
Even thus diminished, the company kept up contracts for case management systems in four substantial California courts, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Mateo and Contra Costa that together cover 6 million people.
It also handles electronic payment software for most of those courts plus Santa Cruz, Sacramento, El Dorado and Mono, and of potential significance, it has a small contract with the court in Los Angeles for resource projection.
The existing contracts would likely provide the company with a leg up as those courts move to new cases management systems and electronic filing. That advantage was demonstrated last year in Riverside when, without fanfare, the court agreed to an addendum to the ISD contract to cover electronic filing.
Riverside’s head clerk at the time, Sherri Carter, moved over this summer to the same position in the neighboring Los Angeles court system.
Los Angeles, where 10 million live and sometimes litigate, is the biggest court in the nation. It would represent the jackpot of all tech deals, but it has not yet moved to filing through the Internet.
The Holy Grail and The Public Record
The recent shifts in technology have come hand in hand with the politics of austerity.
In the last few years, California’s governor Jerry Brown has cut hundred-million-dollar chunks out of the courts’ allotment in the states budget. As a result, trial courts in a state with 38 million people have been under intense pressure to cut staff and generate some separate income.
With courts in that vulnerable position, technology entrepreneurs see the prospect of a wonderful marriage.
“Electronic court filing, document portals, case alerts, and calendaring features can all now be monetized in ways never envisioned before. Savvy court bench officers and executives are beginning to experiment with these new potential business models to fund their courts going forward,” said the industry executive.
From the court side, filing through the internet has been pitched by administrators as a sort of Holy Grail, able to produce little short of a miracle. It will, it is said, allow courts to fire a large number of court workers, save enormous amounts of money, make everything more efficient and even improve public access.
But those promises have proved illusory.
Where courts were able to fire low-paid clerical workers, they were also forced to hire extra highly paid IT professionals. Where old docket systems were cheap, the new software systems cost millions for the set up and drain hundreds of thousands per year for fixes. And public access often rolls backwards, as the ability to see public documents is delayed and, on regular occasions, cut off entirely.
A second source of damage to the public record has come from contracts that allow a software provider to control and exploit the public record. Most of the tech deals in California have sought to prevent that exploitation.
For example, Merced’s contract does not allow what in essence would be a second toll booth on the information road. It allows Tyler to charge lawyers who file into the court, but does not allow the company to charge lawyers, journalists and others who are taking information out of the court by looking at public records.
“Under the terms of this e-File Agreement,” says Merced’s contract where the court is called the client. “Tyler has no additional ownership rights, including any right to resell, recombine, reconfigure or retain the documents, information, information database or original documents transmitted to or from the Client.”
But, the industry insider warned, the prohibition could be undone.
He argued that it is tied to California Rule of Court 10.500(e)(12), which forbids an exclusive franchise for distribution of court records. “A judicial branch entity must not allow a private entity to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure under this rule,” says the rule.
“The court is required under the California Rules of Court to be designated as the official record and not the vendor,” said the insider. “So, many of the contracts reflect that language. But that doesn’t mean the court won’t let you resell documents. There would just be a new agreement.”
But past efforts in other states to control the public record have led to the loss of a vendor’s franchise.
In Colorado, for example, Lexis Nexis, owned by Reed Elsevier, was given control of mandatory, statewide e-filing, a true cash cow. It charged for e-filing documents, for serving them and then turned around and sold the same documents and data back to lawyers, in addition to special reports based on data filtering. The public and press were in practical terms shut out.
The Colorado judiciary ultimately retook control of the public court record from the international publishing conglomerate after a close and bitterly-fought legislative battle two years ago.
A Better Yugo
Over the last two decades, software contracts have represented a constant drain on California court budgets.
In the early years of computer technology, courts adopted primitive versions of case management systems, some that still relied on the antiquated DOS programming language and only had space for a limited number of characters in fields such as those for party names.
The trial courts held back on replacing them as the central administrative office promoted the Deloitte-developed system and helped pay for its installation. Individual trial courts that did not go along were punished financially if they tried to buy something else. As a result, they were stuck in limbo, distrustful of the software pushed by the central office but unable to pay for another system.
The massive CCMS project was deep-sixed last year by the Judicial Council under pressure from the Legislature, after the Administrative Office of the Courts had spent $520 million in taxpayer money over ten years on a project that was nowhere near completion and carried a projected price tag of $1.9 billion.
“The failure of CCMS created a vacuum of opportunity for private sector vendors offering the likes of case management systems and document storage systems,” said the industry executive. “CCMS was so large and consuming, it created its own weather system that basically kept innovation in the local courts at bay for over a decade.”
“Vendors were continually told that it was only a matter of time before they wouldn’t be needed anymore, that in essence CCMS would put them out of business if they didn’t diversify elsewhere,” he added. “Smart money knew better because all the warning signs were there — they just needed time.”
For unfathomable reasons, software systems in California have often been compared to cars.
Depending on the viewpoint, CCMS is a hot Ferrari sitting in a garage, a new SUV waiting to be taken out for a spin, or a broken-down wreck from the Eastern Bloc.
“Instead of trying to take a 1995 Yugo that we’ve made better by customizing it and trying to bring it on for these new types that don’t have case management yet, it was a pretty intelligent and reasonable decision to go with someone who is building cars now,” said Judge Banks. “It’s always struck me as reasonable to go with Tyler. It’s a wise, good decision rather than try to do something with CCMS, which from my standpoint was a bad development all along.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/23/62302.htm
Not a Ferrari. Not a SUV. Not even a Yugo.
Clown car.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
October 24, 2013
Judge Banks is a smart man. My own peek into the various offerings says Tyler is the way to go. .The AOC’s own reports separated out a raft of development that was required to interconnect the systems (What was it…..138 different connectors would have needed to have been developed and integrated into an end of life application stack? ) for the system to work.
All the AOC and their overseers on the council did was to redefine what complete meant.
Today people aren’t getting unemployment checks and Deloitte claims their recently deployed code that’s the guts of the EDD system is working fine. Yet EDD isn’t processing checks or claim forms and some people have gone two months without benefits with no end in sight. One could only reflect back on a law that would have prevented both boondoggles that Child, George & Co. lobbied so fiercely against.
Richard Power
October 24, 2013
Michael,
The explanation for the EDD problems lies in the system architecture. These problems are immediately evident to an experienced software/systems designer upon reading the 893 page contract. Much of the problem actually lies with the state employees at the Office of Systems Integration. The contract prescribes a number of things that are either technologically impossible or wildly impractical. A similar situation was present in CCMS.
unionman575
October 24, 2013
The OBT
October 24, 2013
The legislature should defund the AOC. The local trial courts should then be free to work out any arrangement with whatever software provider they think can best help them. Justice Bruiners, Judge Herman and the overstaffed AOC and related consultants and temp workers can step off the stage saving the taxpayers significant dollars. By the way such an arrangement would comport with the California Constitution which never had any language in it providing said Bruiners and Herman to dictate software policy to the trial courts. Bruiners, Herman and all the rest at 455 Golden Gate have failed and failed completely.The fact that they are still in charge of technology speaks for itself. They are exhibit 1 in the argument to defund the Judicial Council and AOC and return power directly to the trial courts and the citizens the trial courts represent.
Lando
October 24, 2013
Awesome comments above by Wendy.Thanks also Wendy for posting Ms Dinzeo’s excellent article about the current state of technology in the California court system. The solution is easy. Strip the Judicial Council and AOC of their budget and give the trial courts the power they should have never lost to establish and implement effective case management systems. Adios, J Bruiners and related crystal palace hacks. My proposal guarantees no repeat of the half a billion dollar mess known as CCMS.
unionman575
October 24, 2013
Time for the AOC to shut down. Redirect all the AOC $$$ to trial courts now. There is no other way.
😉
unionman575
October 24, 2013
Another Taj Majal: http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/legal/9298-work-starts-on-new-hanford-courthouse
😉
unionman575
October 24, 2013
PUBLIC NOTICE
(Government Code §681 06)
Superior Court of California, County of Ventura
December 23,24,26, and 27, 2013 – Limited Operations
Click to access 68106-ventura-20131017.pdf
unionman575
October 24, 2013
It’s JC showtime:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23770.htm
😉
unionman575
October 24, 2013
Since we are talking tech gold rush today here are the task force humps for your review again: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Technology-Planning-Task-Force-Roster.pdf
Richard Power
October 24, 2013
An immediate and simple request to make of each of these persons is, “Please show us on your personal laptop computer all the modern, complex data management software you have personally written, all by yourself.” The answers will speak volumes.
unionman575
October 24, 2013
My, my, my a tech vision statement: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/TPTF-Vision-Statement.pdf
unionman575
October 24, 2013
And where will the tech $$ come from? These folks will “assist” the financial “process”:
Click to access TPTF-Funding-Track-Roster.pdf
Richard Power
October 24, 2013
You make a good point, Unionman575. The kicker is that modern software need not cost much at all and could run on computers you could buy at Costco, except perhaps for a few servers you might have to order from Dell on the phone at a few thousand apiece. The average person has no grasp at all of how far computer technology has advanced and how little it could cost to computerize court data or how quickly it could be done.
unionman575
October 24, 2013
They have a strategic plan too: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/TPTF-Strategic-Plan-Track-Roster.pdf
MaxRebo5
October 24, 2013
Great article. The line that caught my eye was this one:
Meanwhile, the staff in Orange County had asked Deloitte for the software’s source code, a request that was denied. The court’s leaders then came in hard against any further investment in CCMS.
As for the car debate lets say CCMS is a Ferrari for argument sake (just for fun). Even it if is this awesome machine, CA Courts don’t own the source code as Orange County found out and as the article said their court leaders then lost favor for investing in it. So if we have a Ferrari but can’t have our mechanics (IT Staff) work on it we’re gonna get gouged going to the dealer only for all repairs as long as we own it. We’d have to pay Deloitte for all of the parts, maintenence, enhancements, and ongoing costs with no market to turn in order to control costs. How was that ever gonna be a good deal for to the CA Courts?
The AOC leaders had set up the courts to be gouged for a decades maintaining and enhancing CCMS. Thank goodness the Legislature stepped in when they did ($500 million into it). Owning the code is everything to me and this whole car debate,Yugo, SUZ, Ferrari does not matter. Whatever type of vehicle the Judicial Councuil bought they had no right to work on it! So if it was a Yugo, as critics say, the Judicial Council would be getting charged by Deloitte the cost of maintaining a Ferrari to have it. How stupid is that?
For this boondoggle of not owning the code for CCMS alone all of Team George should have been fired for sheer incompetence. What a horrible deal for CA Courts. Tani still has not cleaned house over this. Vickrey resigned but Tani showered him with honors instead of speaking openly to the Legislature/Press about the horrible place the Judicial Council/AOC leaders put the state in to clean up this technology mess for the branch. Tani has kept the same folks running the show today at the AOC and very little has changed.
No wonder the Tech Industry sees it as the wild west. The trial court judges have allowed Tani to keep the same the same fools (AOC Leadership) to remain in charge guarding the bank (court budget/contracting) when they really really need a new sheriff in town. The vendors are circling waiting for an easy meal on the public’s dime. Thank goodness for the ACJ or it would just be the bad and the ugly in this western story.
Richard Power
October 24, 2013
MaxRebo5,
An end-user owning source code is very unusual and generally not worth much. And if the code has many errors in it, that makes it essentially worthless. Instead of owning error-ridden source code, what you want is good code with simply a perpetual license to use it. That is the norm for most code on your computer. Even if Microsoft opened up their Windows code for you so you could “fix” it, would you know what to do? If code is riddled with errors, it is rarely worth it to try to find and fix them. A “bug” is a functional error in the operation of the software that may be caused by one or more errors in the code. Code is often interdependent and thus a “bug” may have, as its source, more than one error. And one error may contribute to multiple bugs. Finding such errors after they have been buried under multiple layers of code is a task that can befuddle a whole roomful of geniuses. The answer is to not build on top of errors. Test each layer of code and don’t proceed ahead when there are any problems whatsoever. I have been through this process many times and I can tell you that not fixing any and all indications of functionality problems instantly upon discovery of same is often a fatal mistake.
The only sensible thing to do with the CCMS code is to throw it in the trash. Good software could be constructed in short order with no errors. That is the only sensible way to go.
MaxRebo5
October 24, 2013
I agree Richard that CCMS is trash and was not trying to advocate for it. I still think owning/controling the source code (intellectual property) for a enterprise wide case management system is very valuable. Utah State Courts has a statewide computer systems (CORIS) and they own the source code outright (since they developed it). If they want to make changes to their case management system they can and do. If they want to create a datawarehouse to mine information from it they can do it (and have). Controlling the system has allowed their IT Staff to extend the life of that system for many years.
With CCMS it was a piece of junk but even if it was good there apparently was no control over the code to make enhancements with it and extent it’s life. I believe that’s what Orange County was trying to do to make it function but Delloite would not give it to them. CCMS is total trash now but all of these other little vendors coming in are going to control their little systems too so CA Courts will for many years be at the mercy of vendors for enhancements. Not a cheap process but it certainly eliminates the need for a large IT shop at the AOC or at the trial courts if they can’t do much to these proprietary systems anyways.
Richard Power
October 25, 2013
You mentioned the key item in Utah – they wrote the software in-house.
Lando
October 25, 2013
People out there turning music into gold . Check out this great song complete with 93 KHJ legend Charlie Van Dyke’s intro on You Tube. John Stewart Gold. Now today People out there are turning the California courts into gold as vendors swirl around like vultures to pick up the mess known as CCMS. Thanks HRH-1, Vickrey, J. Bruinears , Tani and countless others at the crystal palace for sending us down this rathole with no relief in sight.
unionman575
October 25, 2013
😉
unionman575
October 26, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23927.htm
Budget Allocations for Trial Court Facility Modifications and Planning: The council approved the report and recommendation of the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee to allocate the $50 million appropriated by the Legislature for trial court facility modifications in the fiscal year 2013–2014 budget. The funding will allow the branch to address emergency and critical projects that arise every day in court facilities. However, current funding will not be enough to prevent further deterioration of aging courthouses in need of upgrades to such critical components as HVAC systems, elevators, and roofs.
😉
FOCUS ON THIS: “However, current funding will not be enough to prevent further deterioration of aging courthouses in need of upgrades to such critical components as HVAC systems, elevators, and roofs.”
Michael Paul
October 26, 2013
The branch’s crumbling infrastructure is a result of intentional negligence and choosing new courthouses over maintaining the ones already out there. Even the brand new courthouses are neglected and won’t last for their intended life span.
Brand new HVAC systems that can cost millions to install are virtually abandoned post-installation because they pull people off the street and give them maintenance jobs. They do not invest in service agreements to maintain systems, relying instead on kneejerk responses and band-aid approaches that end up costing them more money and occupant headache than it would to just maintain the systems.
Fully automated buildings degrade into manual mode operation and instead of smart devices controlling the building, dumb humans are put on the job to replace them. They don’t know what they’re doing and they tinker until the systems fail completely.
Then they turn around and pay big bucks to restore functionality and turn them back over to dumb humans who don’t know what they’re doing and the whole cycle repeats itself over and over and over again.
The AOC’s deferred maintenance is now in the billions and it is mostly a result of piss poor management, non-existent oversight and absolute zero accountability.
unionman575
October 26, 2013
What are they smoking?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23927.htm
Placer County Assistant Presiding Judge Charles Wachob, who chaired the SEC and is now an advisory member of the Judicial Council, was one of the first council members to respond after hearing a detailed report from Justice Douglas Miller, the chair of the Executive and Planning Committee. “From an SEC perspective, this is fabulous,” Judge Wachob said. “If you look at the whole picture, the mantra of the SEC was transparency, accountability, and efficiency. We’re seeing those components of evaluation of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Judicial Council, and the branch coming together as a whole. I think it’s exciting and I’m encouraged.”
Merced County Presiding Judge Brian McCabe, who also was a member of the SEC and is now an advisory member of the Judicial Council agreed. “I’ve talked to my counterparts from a number of states, and they are awed and frightened by the prospect of what our Chief Justice has done,” he said. “This self-assessment effort is extraordinary, unique, and unparalleled anywhere in the United States. We are very proud of what has been done so far and are very pleased with the process.”
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
October 26, 2013
R. Campomadera
October 26, 2013
More self-congratulatory B.S. I guess he thinks if the company line is broadcast enough times, everyone will forget that the SEC recommendations have been consigned to the “dust bin of history”. Where’s the Kool Aid? Will someone please pass it?
Michael Paul
October 26, 2013
Wackjob and McCabe sold out for JC positions.
Michael Paul
October 26, 2013
And if they didn’t sell out, they can prove it by having the AOC publish the Deloitte contract online. They’re all about transparency and accountability after all, aren’t they? This is the company line they’re parroting. Actions speak louder than your hollow words, gentlemen.
courtflea
October 28, 2013
what are they smoking unionman? whatever it is it contains paper! crimoney, 117 pages in the report?! What JC member has time to read all of this stuff and have a full time job? Maybe McCabe and Wacob didn’t read it either, hence their comments.
unionman575
October 26, 2013
http://www.cc-courts.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&pageId=5705
Due to the court budget cuts, the Contra Costa Superior Court no longer
has the staff available to handle the volume of calls as in the past.
The Automated Court Attendant was created to assist in guiding you
to the right division, with recorded information and ability for you to
speak to a clerk if necessary. The Superior Court thanks you
for your patience as they do their best to assist you.
Lando
October 27, 2013
Sorry J Wachob and J McKay. You have gone from hero status to now being absorbed by the body aka the crystal palace. Unless I became Rip Van Lando and missed about 7 years sleeping, I have no idea what these outstanding jurists are talking about. One of the key recommendations of the SEC was to save substantial taxpayer dollars and move the AOC to Sacramento.That hasn’t happened and never will. The AOC continues to hire new employees while the trial courts are required to lay off theirs at an alarming rate. Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted on new gaudy courthouse construction while viable operating courthouses that served a significant public need have been closed. Just last week, J Bruiners was reappointed to head the JC -AOC technology group despite his leadership role in promoting the half billion dollar fiasco known as CCMS including claims it was ready to be deployed and was fully operational . Finally there is J Hull who delays and obstructs legitimate requests for public information about the AOC. Hull’s role whether self appointed or at the direction of the CJ remains one of the most troubling aspects of the current Judicial Council leadership . Transparency, and change? Hardly. We need to defund the JC and AOC and restore the trial court budgets so they can fairly and effectively discharge their constitutional responsibilities.
unionman575
October 27, 2013
Choices, choices Lando…
Maintain existing courthouses or build Taj Majal’s…
Trial Court employees or AOC humps…
Ladies and gentlemen it is time to shut the AOC down.
😉
unionman575
October 27, 2013
http://thesaurus.com/browse/out+of+business
wearyant
October 28, 2013
It doth appear that Wachob and McCabe hath duly been assimilated after perhaps drinking the AOC Kool-Aid. A sad day for honesty and ethics indeed as we continue to watch the ongoing train wreck of our California judicial branch. The odious AOC blob continues rollin’ along … the scariest Hallowe’en saga I’ve ever heard told throughout the ages!
wearyant
October 28, 2013
Dan mentions new group formed to “gin up” cash. Nice expression.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/10/dan-walters-daily-california-courts-compete-in-clamor-for-cash.html
The beleaguered trial courts’ biggest competitor for any public funds is the bloated AOC.
wearyant
October 28, 2013
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/10/video-steinberg-talks-about-trip-to-switzerland.html
Oooo, a recent delegation to Switzerland led by Tani’s dog Spot. Wonder if they visited the AOC commuter there. Any-hoo, Tani may have gone along since she’s interested in educating the little tykes. Get ’em early with your propaganda and you’ll have ’em forever.
unionman575
October 28, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23914.htm
Pre-Qualification of General Contractors for Facility Modification and Tenant Improvement Projects
RFP#JBCP-2013-04-BR
The Judicial Branch Capital Program Office (JBCPO) of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) seeks the services of qualified general contractors with expertise in all phases of construction as required to perform a variety of facility modification projects and other construction projects in court facilities, usually in the $50,000 to $2,500,000 range. The general contractors will be evaluated and selected to provide services in one or more of the three regions of the Administrative Office of the Courts (Bay Area/North Coastal, Northern/Central, and Southern regions). A map of the three regions is included in this RFP as Attachment A.
General contractors (GCs) will be selected to enter into Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“ID/IQ”) contracts with the AOC for construction services on “facility modifications”. GCs may be awarded various projects and tasks as may arise, based on the location and nature of the services required and the qualifications and resources of the GCs and often in competition with other GCs who have also entered into ID/IQ contracts. Approximately 50-75 facility modification projects are anticipated and scheduled to begin construction per year. Additionally these ID/IQ contracts will be utilized for some new and remodel courtroom projects to provide space for new judgeships. The term of these ID/IQ contracts in support of the projects will be two years, with three one year option terms.
😉
Lando
October 29, 2013
At the last JC meeting the insiders acted to no longer allow the AOC Administrative Director ( J Jahr) to unilaterally allocate certain funds to courts or control some court construction projects. Hmm I thought those running 455 Golden Gate had repeatedly denied that Vickrey and Overholt were given those powers. Was someone misleading us about the unchecked powers of the AOC Administrative Director? If the JC is now going to set the record straight then they need to address a few more things. Did the past Administrative Director convert the Southern California regional case management system into the statewide fiasco CCMS ? Remember that no one can find the day and time that decision was made by the JC. Did the past Administrative Director push for the trailer bill to give the JC/AOC power to select local trail court Presiding Judges? To date no one in the crystal palace has addressed that or ever accepted responsibility for it. So once again the transparency and change at 455 Golden Gate is all just an illusion.
Wendy Darling
October 29, 2013
“Was someone misleading us about the unchecked powers of the AOC Administrative Director?”
Nah, that couldn’t be it, Lando. “Misleading” claims and statements from 455 Golden Gate Avenue? Those paragons of truth-telling?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
October 29, 2013
The problem here is the insular group that runs the branch appears to say whatever they want to suit their purposes. Vickrey claimed that bill to take away the power of constitutional officers to select their Presiding Judges came from the Department of Finance. J Bruiners said CCMS was ready to be deployed and was operational. The insiders at 455 Golden Gate denied Vickrey had control to allocate funds wherever he wanted . Now we are to buy into the notion that all of this has been reformed despite all of the above and much much more. I agree with Lando and many others here. I am not buying what the clique at 455 Golden Gate is selling until someone finally accepts responsibility for the absolute shambles they have made of the once proud and strong California judiciary.
Wendy Darling
October 31, 2013
The AOC is the worst thing to have ever happened to the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 29, 2013
Shut the AOC down and reallocate all AOC funds to trial courts.
unionman575
October 29, 2013
Click to access ctac-annual.pdf
The OBT
October 30, 2013
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Those great words from the classic Wizard of OZ , pretty much summarizes it all when it comes to Judicial Council and AOC claims that they are transparent, open and reforming the branch.
unionman575
October 31, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo
😉
unionman575
October 31, 2013
Click to access SP13-10.pdf
Submit Comments by December 20, 2013
unionman575
November 2, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-warner/civil-court-crunch_b_4181037.html
Civil Court Crunch Creates Winners, Losers
unionman575
November 2, 2013
Click to access sc13-Oct_31.pdf
😉
Shut the AOC down.
Now that we know the Supremes can conduct business in SAC, they need to move there now.
wearyant
November 2, 2013
It must have been a real blow to the Supremes psyche to travel there 😀 Let’s help them soften that blow by moving them there and as all human do — heh heh — they will adapt!! Sacto isn’t such a bad place so why do they continually resist moving where they really belong? The Supremes need to realize and be constantly reminded that they (really) exist at the pleasure of the taxpayers.
unionman575
November 2, 2013
http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2013-11-01/Front_Page/Moorpark_off_the_hook_to_pay_for_courthouse.html
wearyant
November 2, 2013
Wow! Impressive. Somebody’s been doin’ the two-step. What should really happen is the AOC be fired from the construction business.
wearyant
November 2, 2013
Here ya go, Humps. Feast your eyes on this. Your lovin’ taxpayers really want you safe, Humps, so move out of San Fran to Sacto for all our sakes. XXOO, WearyAnt
http://www.shorpy.com/node/16385?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+shorpy+%28Shorpy+-+The+100-Year-Old+Photo+Blog%29
disgusted
November 2, 2013
Learn a lesson from others’ mistakes, California!
http://www.kimt.com/news/special-report-a-looming-shortage-of-court-reporters#.UnQR4a9XqxZ.facebook
unionman575
November 4, 2013
http://www.sbsun.com/government-and-politics/20131103/lawyers-meet-with-presiding-judge-about-upcoming-courts-changes
Lawyers meet with presiding judge about upcoming courts changes
By Lori Fowler, The Sun
Posted: 11/03/13, 8:27 PM PST |
Attorneys spoke to executive staff at the San Bernardino County Superior Court last week about alternatives to a planned reorganization that will have some people traveling farther distances for court cases.
But some attorneys weren’t happy with the discussion.
“I asked of Judge (Marsha) Slough a point blank question: ‘If we assist you in helping you find cost savings and efficiencies, to reduce budget deficits, is there any chance we can change your mind about closing the civil and family law courts in Rancho Cucamonga?’ Her response was ‘No,’” said David H. Ricks, an attorney with the Inland Empire Law Group in Rancho Cucamonga and the president-elect of the Western San Bernardino County Bar Association.
“That really kind of takes the wind out of you,” Ricks said.
Slough, presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court, announced in October that significant changes would occur next year during the 2014 realignment, which would include moving countywide civil cases to the new San Bernardino Justice Center.
Other changes planned:
• • San Bernardino district criminal cases, both felonies and misdemeanors, will be heard in the new San Bernardino Justice Center.
• West Valley Superior Courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga will only hear West End criminal cases. Felony and misdemeanor cases in Fontana will be reviewed to determine which courthouse – San Bernardino or Rancho Cucamonga — is better equipped to hear them.
• The Rancho Cucamonga courthouse will also have temporary hearings on both civil and domestic violence restraining order matters.
• San Bernardino family law cases will stay in the historic San Bernardino building. Rancho Cucamonga family law cases will move to the historic courthouse in San Bernardino.
• Family law cases in Victorville will stay where they are.
• Cases of small claims, landlord tenants and traffic/nontraffic infractions from the San Bernardino, Fontana and Rancho Cucamonga districts will be heard in Fontana.
The restructuring, which is expected to take effect in May, will coincide with the opening of the new Justice Center in downtown San Bernardino.
At the meeting Friday, the group of lawyers expressed their desire to keep civil and family law matters in Rancho Cucamonga.
“Realignment is a lot about the court as a whole, not just Rancho Cucamonga,” Slough said in a phone interview after the meeting. “We are dealing with justice for the whole county not just one area.”
Slough also said the move was not entirely budget driven.
“It is also driven by years of depletion of resources,” she said. “I’m not just talking about dollars, I’m including people.”
The restructure is designed to be efficient, based on the workload of the largest county by area in the country, Slough said.
“We have to find the best use of the scarce resources we have,” she said.
Ricks said they pledge to keep fighting. He said they also plan to keep helping the courts with their budgetary and efficiency issues.
“We will continue to strive to do our best as representatives of the community to make access to justice a priority,” Ricks said.
“The State of California, through its courts, has the singular authority to regulate the disputes of its citizenry. Those same courts should have a duty not to turn around and make access to that justice too difficult and expensive to obtain.”
😉
And this one goes out to you, Steve Nash, as you head north to Contra Costa and say “goodbye” to the badlands in San Bernardino…
disgusted
November 4, 2013
http://www.kentucky.com/2013/07/31/2742656/judge-declares-mistrial-in-case.html