As explained by other posts, the Court Case Management System Version 4 (herein referred to as V4) can only be deployed statewide if either a) The AOC pays for the installation and migration, maintenance and operations of more than half of the county courts in this state or b) that the courts with the resources will overpay the AOC subsidize the courts without resources.
When it comes to the telecommunications infrastructure required to support the application, these costs will be borne entirely by the local court without any subsidies from anyone. These connections will cost somewhere north of ten grand per month to leave a court’s entire operations hanging on by the thread of the singular connection to the California Courts Technology Center. (herein referred to as the CCTC)
While carrier diversity (running two telecom lines from every court, one on one telecom carrier like AT&T and another with a second telecom carrier like Verizon) would increase the reliability of the connections to the CCTC, the LATA carve-up (Local Access Toll Area supported by a single telecom carrier) serves to ensure that only the largest carriers with the most customers to gain will deploy a separate telecommunications infrastructure in any given area. This means that the areas without high population densities will be served by only one telecommunications carrier. Even if two carriers exist in any given area, what court would be willing to invest somewhere north of twenty grand per month to ensure their entire court operations are not at risk of hanging on by the thread of a singular connection? As illustrated by Sacramento, these connections drop and when they do, you are out of business. Sometimes for as long as a full day.
Enter the recently announced, sobering budget cuts.
Some court out there, likely one of the first of the so-called ‘early adopter’ courts and probably the largest of early adopter courts can no longer ignore the issue of costs. While the AOC could care less if you lay off half of your staff to bring their pipe dream to fruition in this austere fiscal year, prudence dictates that a local business unit conduct a proper business analysis of how much damage migration to V4 will cost the local court. In plain english, how many people must lose their jobs to migrate to a platform that takes more man-hours to operate when they will have less man-hours available to do so?
Enter San Diego.
San Diego is the largest of the so-called early adopter courts. San Diego also happens to have the most to lose by migrating to V4. We’re not sure how Michael Roddy will ever accomplish making this business case without misrepresenting both the challenges and the risks. Indeed, the thought that the AOC would be spending 125 million dollars on CCMS this fiscal year should spell out that there remains serious unresolved issues with V4. Just the thought that the AOC must pour truckloads of cash into in the current fiscal year should serve to put the San Diego bench on notice that the AOC is again misrepresenting the completeness and integrity of the V4 application. While we’re already aware that Mr. Roddy is a fool and has earned his spot in digital purgatory, (and we could list a host of other reasons why he exists on the wall of shame) will the San Diego courts be willing to risk their entire business operation on the word of someone with nothing to lose?
From our perspective, the San Diego courts would have better odds taking that migration money out to Barona (an indian casino in the local area) than it would to invest it into the AOC’s pipe dream. Add to this all of the budget cuts coming San Diego way that haven’t yet hit their doorstep and we here at Judicial Council Watcher cannot fathom that the bench would be willing to take that kind of foolish risk. Not too long ago, the San Diego courts also issued an RFP for deployment and integration of a file management system based on V3 and we strongly suspect that the writing is on the wall, yet the ink has not yet dried. It is as if Mr. Roddy is playing both sides of the fence to avoid coming under fire from either side. We believe that the intelligent life down in San Diego will be forced to make Mr. Roddy get off the fence for good. Exactly what does that mean to the rest of the early adopter courts? Does San Luis Obispo have deep pockets or will these budget cuts place them in a similar situation? How about Ventura?
If there is intelligent life on the San Diego bench we’re betting on hearing any day now that V4 is dead to the San Diego courts and that they will utilize what scarce funding they have to deploy a file management system onto their existing V3 platform and call it a day, leaving a half billion dollar application serving enough judges to count on all of your fingers and toes, if even that happens. We expect that courts will be forced to drift away from V4.
We’re just patiently waiting for the other shoe to drop, spelling the death of CCMS from a court perspective, while Mr. Moore blows 125 million on V4 in an attempt to cover his ass for accepting a defective application. 125 million dollars that could be better spent elsewhere and will earn Mark Moore his own special place in Digital Purgatory.
Produced by Judicial Council Watcher with the assistance of Yen Interactive Media.
Related articles
- The devastating results of CCMS in Sacramento (Part 1) (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The devastating results of CCMS in Sacramento (Part 2) (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- CCMS in Sacramento (Part 3) Facing reality, taking action (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
sharonkramer
July 2, 2011
JCW, I am aware of another “glich” in the San Diego court computer system. Did you know there are actually two different versions of the Register of Action (RoA) in the system? One can be viewed and printed by the public (“Public RoA”). The other RoA is what judges see when they look at the history of a case in the computer system, (“Judicial RoA”). The Public RoA contains only those entries that are numbered. The Judicial RoA contains both numbered and unnumbered entries.
So, for example, say there was a purported Entry of Amended Judgment in a case on 10.10.10 in the Judicial RoA that is not found in the court record file, not evidenced to have been noticed to the parties and not found in the Public RoA. It could still appear as an unnumbered entry in the Judicial RoA that other judges depend on when making further rulings that are contigent upon prior judge’s purportedly legal Entry of Amended Judgment (that only exists in the Judicial RoA).
I am told that the Judicial RoA is not able to be printed in its entirety because the system allows for only numbered RoA entries can be printed. The question would be: Why would there be a purported Entry of an Amended Judgment not found in the case file, not evidenced to be noticed, not numbered (so it would show in the Public RoA) – but this phantom entry is in the computer system’s Judicial RoA that the courts rely on?
Here is another glich: I am told that the system does not track the actual date an entry was made to the RoA. Meaning one could go into a system on 12.10.10 and put a date of Entry Amended Judgment of 1o.10.10; and it is not noted that the computer entry was actually made on 12.10.10 not 10.10.10. BUT it would be an unnumberer entry and therefore only in the Judicial RoA, as I understand it.
So, if someone wanted to go into the system at a later date and CYA for prior error, it cannot be determined on what date they made the CYA correction, I am told. Because so much depends on actually dates of entries of judgments impacting future actions, that is a colosal opportunity for someone to game the computer system to cover for their litigant life impacting errors without being able to establish when, exactly, they did the CYA maneuver.
Its a huge glich. CCP 664 states, “In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered.” The court may be relying on a puported Entry of Amended Judgment that does not exist anywhere except in the Judicial RoA; that the public cannot even access or print as evidence of court error. And why would judges need to see writings/entries of other judges that the impacted litigants don’t have access to, anyway?
antonatrail
July 2, 2011
I happened upon the following around June 17 this year. It appears that the San Diego district attorney’s office has splintered off from the CCMS Kool-Aid drinkers and is doing their own thing? Or perhaps this public access to case info is some sort of bastardization of CCMS in the courts. I suspect the former. I doubt the AOC would share its toys on the playground.
“San Diego News
“Case Info Now Available On County DA Website
“Public Now Has Access To Basic Case Information
“San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis Friday announced a new web page for the public to access basic information on open criminal cases, as well as receive email notification of court dates for specific cases.”
http://www.10news.com/news/28277467/detail.html
mrs.kramer
July 2, 2011
DA Dumanis just announced her candadicy for Mayor of SD. I suspect the later, that Dumanis is one that the AOC may be inclined to share their toys. The trial courts themselves would probably not be inclined to share much with Dumanis, but the AOC/JC/CJP crowd might.
Dumanis boycotts judges, Sign On San Diego
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/28/boycotting-of-judges-is-nothing-new-to-da/
There are quite a bit more cases where judges have been bullied by Bonnie or made to deal with frivilous litigation she has pursured. (like the indigent man who used a descriptive word with a similar meaning and rhyming with “wussie” at a city council meeting.) Conversely, a police officer who had a complaint filed against him for sexual harassment, was not followed up on. He his now charged with 10 additional felony counts. I could write a dissertation on Bonnie’s role in the SWOV gang, but I won’t because it is off topic from JCW.
antonatrail
July 2, 2011
Thanks for the filler info on San Diego that helps me understand why the district attorney would be providing services to the public that I assume the AOC wants to dominate. San Diego is an interesting county! I’m too far up north to know much about its machinations.
Chuck Horan
July 2, 2011
Ask yourself how many so-called “stakeholders” (one of my least favorite euphemisms, right up there alongside “branch leaders”) are lining up begging to be signed on to CCMS as soon as possible. How many of the state’s hundreds of law enforcement agencies, public defender’s officer, probation departments, etc. are eagerly awaiting the arrival of CCMS? How many have editorialized for it’s continuation? How many are willing to contribute their scarce resources? A big, fat, zilch.
Wendy Darling
July 2, 2011
Anyone with an ounce of managerial sense should be running as fast as they can in the opposite direction of CCMS, and of all of those at 455 Golden Gate Avenue still advocating for it. As fast as they possibly can.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 3, 2011
As a member of the general public, I can tell you that the cracks are really starting to show. If you even mention that you are aware the new computer system has been hard on the court employees, they will start to talk about just how hard. I have had more than one write down the name of a particular blog so they would not forget it!
Chuck Horan
July 3, 2011
They have moved into stealth mode, don’t you thing, Wendy? When is the last time we heard any proud public pronouncements about the project from those in the many “oversight” committees? They are hoping they can quickly squeeze another $125 million into the project without anyone calling them on it. That’s the amount they have indicated in their report to the legislature that they will spend this fiscal year. With the judiciary in the hole $350 million, on top of earlier cuts, (not to mention certain of the construction funds) one more cent spend on the project is a penny too many. For you crapshooters out there, they are putting the kid’s college fund on the hard eight and blowing on the dice. In the 35 years since I graduated from USC law school in 1976, I have never seen the judiciary in greater disarray, and in greater peril. (For those UCLA fans, I also attended there for a couple of undergraduate years. lol) For the first time in a decade, there will be no “state of the judiciary” speech.
(Not that I will particularly miss it–it always seemed a bit pompous and meaningless to me, but its absence speaks volumes about the adroitness of those supposedly at the helm). Our leaders are apparently “Shocked! Shocked!” at the cuts we are facing, though they were told six months ago, almost to the penny, the amount we would be docked. No plans have been made other than to wish the trial courts “Best of luck”, while CCMS pulls us deeper into the quicksand. Oh, these are truly wretched times for everyone. Well, not for everyone, I guess: The council did manage to find the time to bestow yet ANOTHER award (jointly this time) upon Mr. Vickrey and Justice Huffman. I wonder how many that is for Mr. V–200? 300? I once perused the judicial council minutes for a ten year period and was struck by the seeming insatiable need for passing these awards back and forth among the same folks. One would think that at SOME point humility would require someone to say “Please, no mas!”. Humility, however, is in short supply in some quarters, I suppose.
One of the saddest, but most telling things of all at the moment is the recycling of the “usual suspects”. Word is that another near-perpetual council member (no, not that one) has just returned to the fold and is back on board behind the scenes, attempting to cut deals with recalcitrant trial courts. Nothing has changed in the 455 mind set. But things will never be the same everywhere else
On the bright side of our calamitous financial situation is the undeniable truth that but for austerity, the true state of our “governance” would not be known. But for the judges from Sacramento and San Diego, and others, who first stood up and yelled “No!” when our courts were forced to close two years ago, there would be no ACJ, no “AOC Watcher”, no “Judicial Council Watcher”, no CCMS audit, no legislative attention, and no realization by many, if not most, of our judges, that things are simply broken.
It is the best of times, and the worst of times.
On a slightly different note, I was recently contacted by a judge from another state.
California is not the only state where judges are getting totally fed up with the mush they are being fed. Perhaps the days of administration for administration’s sake are coming to an end. Let us hope so, on this 4th of July Weekend! Long live the ACJ, and long live Wendy Darling!
P.S. I visited the Supreme Court website today on a tip from a friend. There are a whole new set of Judicial Canons out for public comment. Those of you interested in those sorts of things might want to visit and check out the proposed changes in the canons dealing with “political activity: by judges. I would love to hear your thoughts on the not-so-subtle message that I see therein. Might be worth a post or two.
Finally, my thanks to JCW, who has chosen to post at the head of this thread a song that is dear to me. Not my favorite R&B song ever (that honor goes to “This Old Heart of Mine” by the Isley Brothers), but darned close, in “Drift Away”.
Happy 4th, all.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 3, 2011
Last report we saw right after the CF committees were formed was a 29 page sales brochure that they called an oversight report.
If CCMS is not mothballed all overseers will be going into digital purgatory and mini-mimi moves to the non-redeemable portion. The intent is that everyone in an elected office overseeing this thing is tagged by the electorate in upcoming elections as enablers of fraud, waste and abuse.
Maybe one of these oversight committees can begin to explain how a completed application needs 125 million more in development money or they can explain to the voters in the next election why they didn’t fire the person in charge who lied to them.
Commercial IT
July 3, 2011
Judge Horan,
Is the problem in the other state a computer case management project? If so, ask that other judge to contact me.
Wendy Darling
July 3, 2011
Humility might be in short supply, but hubris certainly isn’t.
It’s not just time for the judges of this state to take back the California judicial branch, but for the common citizen to take it back as well. At a minimum, AB 1208 needs to be passed into law.
Long live the ACJ.
SF Whistle
July 3, 2011
AB 1208 passed into law —absolutely—
Better yet—-tell me why Minimimi (aka RB2) should not be given a true Rose Bird retirement party?—
WE can do it—-
Wendy Darling
July 3, 2011
I’m ready.
Long live the ACJ.
antonatrail
July 3, 2011
I hope the state’s law enforcement agencies — district attorneys, public defenders, probation — have the time apart from their heavy workloads to watch this incredible CCMS debacle continue to unfold. It’s so clear that the AOC, desperate for more avenues of revenue to support a continuing plush lifestyle, intends to forcefully slam CCMS into all the courts regardless whether it is viable or not in order to have the “only game in town,” then this mafioso group will charge an admission of whatever the market will bear to connect up. Very neat and thug-like. The forward thinkers foresaw other states perhaps subsequently being forced to join up also, producing more income streams. Oh, the joy of Chicago-like gangsters is heavy in the air! I hope California citizens can do more than stand by with their arms hanging limp at their sides and watch. My most despised phrase is “court officials.” Ugh.
Yeah, I’m angry. I’m ready to pledge half my miniscule retirement toward the TaniRecall. Where do I send my retirement and social security check?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 3, 2011
Hold onto it for now as we’re still communicating with possible stakeholders to assess the available resources to drive a whole package of initiatives – this includes court workers that are laid off or forced into retirement by this fiasco or any of the AOC’s borg executive officers.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com if you would be interested in participating in any capacity, be it as a signature gatherer, donor, legal counsel, initiative drafters and county leadership groups. Pick one or more interests and provide us with contact information that will remain strictly confidential for now.
Wendy Darling
July 3, 2011
How about including an initiative to democratize the Judicial Council?
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 3, 2011
That would be the main thrust of this process is to override article 6.
Jon Wintermeyer
July 3, 2011
Well it sure won’t be the CC Court. Not after all the investment and public face they have shown in support of CCMS. Do we all remember the video of PJ O’Malley and Justice Bruniers singing it’s praises and how they can’t wait to get it in their court to improve their efficiency.
How many other CC Court Judges posted their names to that letter in support of it. CEO Kiri Torre is on one of the many CCMS committees along wth other selected Kool-aid drinkers. They all whined about how the were lacking in efficiency and please let us have CCMS in our court.
If the CC Court efficiency was so bad, what caused the AOC to select Ken Torre as the CEO of the year if they were so inefficent, just the year before his retirement ? That was when his wife became the CEO and she fired senior managers and other senior mangers chose to retire.
They’ll just choose to cut staff that asks questions and force the remaining 50% left to all get a “CCMS I LOVE IT” tattoo.
JusticeCalifornia
July 3, 2011
Torre, Turner, Roddy.
It is comical that top leadership is depending upon them, with their down and dirty documented records.
But, oh well. The truth will out. Birds of a feather. Water seeks its level. Etc.
If rb2 and her hangers-on want to toss their robes and gavels nto the ring with these compromised characters, it is what it is. It makes it easier to prove our point. Go for it. Gotta love RB2 embracing Kim Turner and Verna Adams. It’s Lindsey Lohan-meltdown like theater.
Wendy Darling
July 4, 2011
Published today, Monday, July 4, from The Sacramento Bee and Dan Walters:
Dan Walters: Court bill stalls after Calderon gets personal with chief justice.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/04/3745758/dan-walters-court-bill-stalls.html#ixzz1R7TBK1CB
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 4, 2011
Who is that journalist? The Calderon statement is presented out of context in the Bee article. Calderon’s point was that just because our new JC has many fine attributes, that is not a reason to delay the reinstilling of balance in our judicial system; because she personally deserves a chance to lead the out of balance system, while remains out of balance.
The author neglected to mention that RB2 was “too classy” to mention she was offended by Calderon’s comments….until the day before AB1208 was to be voted up or down. Then she publicly did it in a media interview. No doubt that video tape interview was emailed to every Assembly staffer in Sacramento.
The writer acknowledges the serious problems at AOC. Yet used the dismissive label of “rebel” to denigrate the judiciaries who are exposing the fraud, waste and abuse within the judicial branch.
I am appalled that RB2 timely played the phoney, fake, offended faux feminist card and journalists like this gentleman continue to give her feigned indignation over a frivolous matter, weight — while the future of our judicial system hangs in the balance. As a female and mother of daughters, I am deeply offended that our newly elected CJ would willfully misapply the gender bias card to get what she wants. (JCW, may post the Hussle and Flo video again? RB2!)
Better yet, I will post a video of the importance of beauty being more than just appearance.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2115716/america_the_beautiful/
Happy Fourth of July!
sharonkramer
July 4, 2011
For some reason this just came up on a Google Alert. Timely and consistant with the SWOV disingenuousness of RB2; I happen to know and can evidence that this woman, when placed in a position of authority, has chosen to practice politics and bias. – Not Law – As such, she has done much harm to the health and safety of many women and children in California and throughout the United States while she feigns to be their champion.
unionman575
July 4, 2011
San Diego will probably throw in the towel first on V4.
Michael Paul
July 6, 2011
The smart money is that San Diego (and others) hold out for AOC paid conversion, integration and deployment locally and not via the CCTC. Nevada county’s interim system was a slippery slope. Who wants front end costs AND back end risks?