Let’s just be honest and call them the rubber stamp of approval committee…..

Posted on February 11, 2015


You probably just witnessed the birth of CCMS V5 in another thread. As always happens with knowingly controversial expenditures, judicial council staff brought before the accountability and efficiency committee a request for 5.6 million dollars to start developing some data exchange connectors, which coincidentally is one of the only remaining items that would have needed to be developed to port data out of existing case management systems and in to CCMS, as well as connect CCMS to a plethora of “justice partner” systems in a statewide data exchange. Previous action had these connectors removed from the project so that the former AOC could call the ccms system complete.

Without any business case, without even a ballpark figure of what completion of these data exchange connectors will ultimately cost, with only two courts having completed a migration to other case management systems the AOC sought and the committee approved a request to ask the other two branches of government for a 5.6 million dollar kickoff of what we all know will ultimately be CCMS V5. If you believe this will be the only monies sought for this project, I have this bridge that extends between San Francisco’s Presidio and the soon to be renamed Robin Williams tunnel that we’ll be happy to sell you.


After all of the heat that the state auditor gave the accountability and efficiency committee about their malformed oversight responsibilities you would think that this committee would be the last place that an incomplete request without any accompanying business case or even a finite scope and budget would land. Alas: it is and has been the first place that such a request would land because by clearing this committee, it is guaranteed to clear all other committees because it has the blessing of accountability and efficiency. So let’s just start calling the accountability and efficiency committee what it really is.,.,..

The Rubber Stamp of Approval Committee

Now that the request has cleared the committee, budget change proposals which represent a permanent change in the AOC’s budget are being drafted as we write this post to support this new request for years to come. After all, once the connectors are developed, staff will be needed to maintain and implement them. In our opinion, this project should be owned by the trial courts that put together an MSA for case management systems and should be a collaborative effort of all parties involved.

But that won’t be the case as the data exchange connectors will be the new angle to claw back money from each trial court to use the connectors, which likely won’t be located at the local trial courts as they are now but will be moved into the California Courts Technology Center where every court that wants to use them (and usage will be considered mandatory) will be paying the AOC maintenance fees forever thereby relinquishing control to the former AOC in an effort to engender continued patronage and continue their racket.

Maria Dinzeo’s story on the data exchange approval (link)

Bill Girdner’s story on the accountability & efficiency committee (Whitewash) (link)

*edited to reflect that the Judicial Council’s trial court technology committee was not the entity that developed the MSA for case management systems. by removing their name