Dear Members and Others:

Here’s what the article had to say about the AOC’s incorrect but oft-repeated claim that the passage of AB 1208 would result in 58 “fiefdoms,” and harm the Council’s ability to pass uniform rules of practice and procedure:

Far from truly “decentralized,” the judiciary also wouldn’t return to
the days when there were 58 completely independent trial courts – called
“fiefdoms” by some. The “California Rules of Court” that create a
uniform system of paper forms and procedural policies will remain in
effect. Services like self-help centers and drug courts are unlikely to
go by the wayside. And the current scheme for determining how much money
each county receives would remain intact…

…One thing is certain: AB 1208 would sharply curtail the Judicial
Council’s ability to keep investing in the Court Case Management System,
a long-term, $2 billion project to link court dockets electronically that
some trial court judges say wastes money.

As for that case management system, Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News Service has completed a detailed examination of the recent claim by the AOC and members of the Judicial Council that “CCMS is finished and works.” Given the length of the article, we will keep our comments to a minimum. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/16/43967.htm

As independent constitutional officers, judges have a responsibility to examine the facts themselves before they accept representations as truthful. No matter how strongly one may feel obliged to support judicial leadership and “speak with one voice,” when that one voice attempts to pass off inaccurate information as “facts,” it reflects poorly on the entire branch. The following article, though disturbing, is one that every judge should read.

Sincerely,

Directors

Alliance of California Judges

Related Article

• Court Funding needs an overhaul ( McMaster & White / Sacbee.com )
• ‘Finished’ Court IT Project to Cost State 100s of Millions for Years 
  

In that meeting, they outlined the AOC’s priorities for the new year.

__________________________________________________________________

Priority number one – Back a dead horse and support Curtis Child in his effort to lobby for budget restoration for the AOC.

Priority number two – Plan for a fiscal year 2012/2013 budget reduction to the branch (say, doesn’t that conflict with priority number one?)

Priority number three – Continue to move forward on new court construction and CCMS deployment

Priority number four – Prepare for the results of the Strategic Evaluation Committee

Priority number five – Work on improving the morale of AOC employees.

__________________________________________________________________

The reason we bring this priorities list up is that we think that anyone (and everyone) in the trial courts would have a different priorities list.  Is this list serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians or is it serving themselves at the cost of the trial courts?

Further on in the meeting, the management discusses possible layoffs due to priorities number two (budget cut) and number four (SEC report).  The general direction of possible layoffs is to ensure that they preserve the resources in building and maintaining courthouses and those that support CCMS, defining these as protected programs. In essence, the general direction of the AOC seems to be to save the boondoggles at all costs.

What would your top 5 priorities list look like?

_____________________________________________________________________

The following are someones’ meeting notes that were scanned and sent to us anonymously. Due to the size of the scanned files and our limited space for such documents, we will leave them up for a very short time. Note that most documents were scanned upside down.

AOC meeting0001 AOC meeting0002 AOC meeting0003 AOC meeting0004 AOC meeting0005 AOC meeting0006

Hot off the press courtesy of one of our many insiders

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Report from meeting of Council members and AOC management

Posted: February 21, 2012
Contact: AOC Executive Office, ext. 5-4235

Interim Administrative Director Jody Patel convened a special meeting on Feb 16 in our SF office for AOC directors, assistant directors, managers, and supervisors to give them an update and a chance to ask questions about issues facing the AOC and the judicial branch.

Jody invited 4 Judicial Council members to the meeting: Justice Douglas Miller (Executive and Planning Committee chair), Justice Harry Hull, Jr. (Rules and Projects Committee chair), Judge David Rosenberg (Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee chair), and Alan Carlson (Court Executives Advisory Committee chair). These council members shared their thoughts and helped answer questions.

NOTE: Due to our increased work demands and limited budget, AOC managers and supervisors in our regional locations joined the meeting by teleconference. In addition, the AOC Executive Office encouraged those in attendance to relay information shared at the meeting with their staffs.

Following are highlights of what information was shared at the Feb 16 meeting.

Jody thanks AOC staff for dedication, sets priorities for next several months
In her opening remarks at the meeting, our Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel recognized our previous Administrative Directors Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt for their extraordinary vision, work, and dedication to the AOC and the judicial branch. She also recognized her fellow directors and all AOC staff for their commitment and help through these challenging and transitional times.

Jody acknowledged that 2012 promises to be a year of change. But she also noted that even with the scrutiny and challenges that we face, the AOC has a great opportunity to become a better and stronger organization.

Jody shared her 5 priorities for the AOC over the next few months until we find a permanent Administrative Director:

• Advocate for budget restoration for the judicial branch
• Plan for anticipated AOC budget reductions for FY 2012-2013 ($17.6 million reduction for the AOC according to the Governor’s latest state budget proposal–that could increase if trigger cuts are enacted)
• Align AOC priorities with Judicial Council priorities for statewide initiatives such as CCMS (Judicial Council expects to decide on a strategy for CCMS by its April meeting)
• Prepare to respond to the SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) report on the AOC that we expect in April;
• Keep up AOC staff morale and remind us of the important work we do

Justices on the council stress the need for the AOC
Justice Doug Miller and Justice Harry Hull acknowledged that it’s natural to be anxious about the scrutiny surrounding the AOC and changes to our organization. They also emphasized that the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC are in this together. They know that the AOC does great work, has accomplished a lot, and is needed to help strengthen and maintain our independent branch of government.

Justice Miller stressed that the Judicial Council and its members are different than in the past. Members are more vocal, more engaged, and want to be more out front and take more ownership of judicial branch issues. The council needs our help to carry out objectives and its members want to know what we do so they can defend us when they respond to their courts’ questions.

In addition to agreeing with Justice Miller’s comments, Justice Hull provided an update on behalf of the search committee for our new Administrative Director. The committee is finalizing the recruiting materials and expects to make a recommendation to the Chief Justice on a new director by the June Judicial Council meeting.

Council members from the trial courts acknowledge “centralized v. local control” friction
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg and Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson told meeting attendees that they have confidence in the Judicial Council and the AOC and that most court leaders value our work.

But they recognized that the governance of the judicial branch–that combines centralized statewide oversight with local control at the court level–creates a “push and pull” dynamic as we try to decide where the boundaries lie.

They added that these different voices get louder and more vocal in lean budget times.

Branch leaders field questions about AB 1208, the SEC and A&E committees, staff morale
During the last half of the meeting, Jody and the Judicial Council members invited questions from the AOC managers and supervisors in attendance. The Q&A portion of the meeting covered a variety of topics, including:

Q: How will the Judicial Council continue to confront intrusion into judicial branch governance (AB 1208)?

A. The council has taken an official position against AB 1208 and will continue to advocate against it because the bill is not in the best interests of the judicial branch. The Judicial Council feels that the judicial branch should be able to address its own issues without intrusion from the outside.

Q. What is the relationship between the SEC, A&E, and our own AOC reorganization efforts?

A. The SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) is independent from the council and the AOC. The SEC expects to present its report on the AOC to the council’s Executive and Planning Committee in April. Council members are not sure what the report will contain. Some recommendations might be able to be implemented right away, some may go out for public comment, or some may not be advisable at all. The Chief Justice and the council will know more once they receive the report.

The council’s A&E committee (Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch) allows the council to do its own review of the AOC, its staff and budget so it can become more familiar with our work. The committee plans to follow up the initial overall report on the AOC it completed with a more in-depth review of each AOC division.

With help from staff, the AOC Executive Team is conducting its own review of our structure and programs. We’ve already made some changes and this reengineering process will help us prepare for any recommendations stemming from the SEC report. The AOC Executive Team realizes that our cuts to staff and resources have not always resulted in cutting back on our programs and services, which often means we’re doing the same with less.

Q. Can you tell us more about the idea to have Judicial Council liaisons for each local court and AOC division?

A. Before the budget cuts to the judicial branch, AOC staff would help coordinate periodic in-person visits from Judicial Council members to local courts so they could talk with judges and court staff about their challenges, concerns, and services to the public. Cancelling this program has affected our communication with local courts.

To gain back some of this perspective, the council plans to designate council members to serve as liaisons for a particular court. Those liaisons would rotate each year.

The council also plans to extend this strategy to the AOC, designating a liaison for each AOC division so they can get a better idea of our work and be better prepared to respond to questions they receive.

Q. What is the role and makeup of the AOC Regional Office and its 3 office locations?

A. Several months ago we condensed the 3 Regional Administrative Director positions that oversaw each location (BACNRO, NCRO, and SRO) into one Regional Administrative Director for what we now refer to as the AOC Regional Office. That strategy will continue with Chris Patton taking on that director position in addition to her role with the AOC Executive Office. We feel that this strategy is cost-efficient and manageable as we’ve found that some of the larger courts don’t need or use our regional office services as much as the smaller or mid-size courts.

Other than this change in leadership, the AOC Regional Office, with its 3 locations in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Burbank will continue. Each of these locations has a core regional office staff in addition to other staff from AOC divisions that provide direct expert services to the courts on a regional basis.

Q. What is the plan to address AOC staff morale?

A. Jody stressed that one of the best ways to address staff morale or anxiety is to communicate truthfully, honestly, and regularly. She said that she expects to continue holding regular meetings with AOC managers and supervisors and to get information shared at those meetings to staff as well. She also plans to supplement that with e-mail updates.

In addition, she expects that we’ll hold the AOC All-Staff Regional Meetings (that were postponed this month) later this year.

Jody and the council members added their desire to keep improving communications among and between the council, the AOC, and the courts. And that this time of reflection and transition provides us the opportunity to improve the AOC and the judicial branch in the long run.

Judicial Council Watcher wishes to sincerely thank Maria Dinzeo & Courthouse News for distinguishing between the different releases of the CCMS application, thereby demonstrating that CCMS V4 1) Does not work anywhere and 2) Is still under development just like we’ve said (and proved) all along. 

This holy grail of an application will have an obsolete application stack when the software vendors end-of life the underlying software in the near future, returning the Judicial Council and the AOC back to square one.

While Judicial Council Watcher has been pointing most of this out since our inception, what we grossly underestimated was what was being spent on this boondoggle – enough money to keep over a thousand people employed in the trial courts.

Ask Why.

Why would so many people mislead us about this application? What does Justice Bruniers get out of lying to all of us about this application? What does TC-S get for lying to us about this application? Where did all of the money for CCMS go if the AOC indicates it spent a few hundred million dollars less than was actually spent? Is this all part and parcel of the largest fraud in the history of California? 

_______________________________________________________

This is the trial courts under AOC management…

Any Questions?

_________________________________________

Related articles

• “Finished” IT court project to cost hundreds of millions for years  (Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News)
• Now What? Continued delusions or some meaningful action? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Tani’s Civics Lesson: The responsibility of the legislature (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Vaporware, Wired Magazine and CCMS (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)

February 15, 2012
Dear Members:

The Sacramento Bee ran an editorial today entitled “Lawmakers and Courts Need to End Their Rift.”  We attach that editorial for your information. (JCW: Due to copyright restrictions, please follow the above link)

The Alliance of California Judges agrees that intemperate remarks made against legislators “diminishes the dignity” of the office of the Chief Justice.  We also agree that it is not a prudent strategy to “pick a fight with the body that controls” our budget.

Please know that before AB 1208 was introduced, the Alliance met with the incoming Chief Justice to discuss in part the need for statutory reform to give the trial courts a role in setting priorities and controls for spending.  While we were disappointed in the outcome of that meeting, we continued to hold out hope that a mutually agreeable solution to these growing problems would be addressed.  Sadly, those hopes were dashed by continued spending and public defense of CCMS, bungled construction and maintenance projects, and the continued growth of the AOC.  It is clear to all, including the Legislature and the media, that the spending priorities of our branch remain unchanged.

That is why the Alliance is committed to meeting in good faith with legislators, Judicial Council members and all those who have a stake in the administration of justice.  We understand the disappointment expressed by Judicial Council members over the passage of AB 1208 by the State Assembly, but we hope that in time cooler heads will prevail and a common sense solution will be arrived at that ensures that trial courts will remain open and accessible to the public.  That has been the singular priority of the Alliance and will continue to be the issue that guides us forward.

Finally, we attach a portion of an earlier member email that exposes the misconceptions concerning AB 1208.  Any fair reading of the bill should put to rest the notion that uniform rules of practice and procedure will be affected by AB 1208.  This patently false claim was manufactured to divert attention away from the text of the bill and its modest reforms. Article VI of the California Constitution, Section 6(d) provides as follows:

…(d)  To improve the administration of justice the (judicial) council may survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and perform other functions prescribed by statute.  The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute.

Obviously, the Council’s rule-making authority is constitutionally based. AB 1208 in no way purports to limit this constitutional power, nor indeed could it.  Any arguments to the contrary simply cannot be made in good faith.

It is time to focus on the merits of the bill.  We must devote all of our efforts to reaching a consensus for the good of the citizens we serve.  The Alliance of California Judges remains committed to that goal.

Sincerely,

Directors,
Alliance of California Judges

___________________________________________________

Misconception: AB 1208 invades separation of powers.

.

Actuality: AB 1208 has nothing to do with the separation of powers.  The statutes AB 1208 seeks to amend were, of course, themselves enacted by the legislature.   AB 1208 does not diminish judges– it empowers judges.  The Legislature already calls out the operating funds for the trial courts every year within the Judiciary budget. The Legislature already intends that this money is set aside for trial court operations. AB 1208 ensures that this money is fully delivered to the trial courts. It prevents the Judicial Council from taking trial court operating money, and using it for other purposes.

.
Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt access, because it will allow courts to divert money from programs such as Self Help Centers, or interpreters.

.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect any programs that are specifically and separately appropriated in the annual budget.Self Help Centers are separately appropriated by grant funds, and programs such as interpreters are separately appropriated.  This misconception also presumes that trial judges will ignore their constitutional duty to provide access.

.

Misconception:  AB 1208 will take away the Judicial Council’s ability to “run the branch.” 

.

Actuality: The Judicial Council is not a governing body.  AB 1208 does not take away the Judicial Council’s ability to supervise and manage the nearly $1.0 billion appropriated every year in the Judicial budget for the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Court Construction, Court Maintenance, Judicial Compensation, Assigned Judges, Court interpreters, Habeas Corpus, or Grants. AB 1208 does not change the Judicial Council’s authority to supervise budgeting, establish uniform accounting practices, and pursue audits.

.

Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent important statewide initiatives like CCMS.

.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not prevent any project, including CCMS.  Projects may still be funded and go forward provided that (1) they are funded other than with trial court operating funds, such as by the Improvement Fund, or the Modernization Fund, (2) separately appropriated by the Legislature, or (3) done with the consent of the trial courts.  In fact, Government Code 68085 already contains language mandating that the AOC first obtain the consent of the participating courts before using funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for statewide IT projects.  However, the AOC and their General Counsel take the position that silence equals consent, and that no court actually utilizing the system has a right to object, even though Trust Fund money belongs to all courts, not just those actually utilizing some portion of CCMS.  AB 1208 would make it clear that all courts in the state would have a voice in these decisions, and would end the non-democratic “rule by fiat” system now in place.

.

Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt small or rural courts and advantage large urban courts.

. 

Actuality: AB 1208 does not change the funding allocation percentages that have been in place for the last 14 years. Every court will receive the same percentage of the overall budget that it has always received.

.

Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent the Judicial Council from providing additional funding on an emergency basis to courts that need it.

.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect the Improvement Fund or Modernization Fund, except as those funds are directed to the trial courts within the budget. The Improvement Fund remains available to assist courts in need.  In fact, Government Code Section 77209(b) requires that at least ½ of 1% of the amount appropriated for trial court operations be set aside for the urgent needs of any court.  AB 1208 would in no way amend or repeal this section.

.

Misconception: AB 1208 will undo trial court unification and return to 58 “fiefdoms.” 

.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect unification.  Unification has occurred as a matter of constitutional law in all 58 counties. The bill does not alter the Judicial Council’s authority to ensure uniform practices. The bill does not change the Judicial Council’s rule-making authority.  The bill does not alter the uniform rules of practice and procedure.

.

Conclusion 

.

AB 1208 empowers every trial court and every trial judge of this state to have a fair and independent voice in the administration of trial court operations and in setting the priorities for the use of the money that judges need to do their jobs.  AB 1208 establishes a system that will be based upon consensus, not fiat.

.
Please contact us if you have any questions and we will respond.

.

AllianceOfCaliforniaJudges@gmail.com

Position:  Senior Network Consultant

Location: San Francisco, CA

Duration: 12 Months plus.

Client: AOC (Administrative office of the courts)

You probably recall the relationship between Dorothy and her dog Toto. In Jody’s case, her dog is named Curt Soderlund. She never goes anywhere without him.

_____________________________________________

From: Patel, Jody
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:06 PM
To: AOC Users-All
Subject: Executive Office Update

Colleagues:

I know that last week’s announcements raised questions about next steps for the AOC.  During this interim period, I will do my best to provide answers and keep everyone informed in a timely way.   Following meetings with Ron and Chris, the directors and I met this afternoon to discuss transition and continuity issues for the organization.  I want to advise you of two additional changes and a planned briefing session.

My appointment as interim director has created a service gap for the leadership of the regional office. This is a critical time for continuity of services and communication with local court leadership. I, therefore, feel fortunate that Chris Patton has agreed to step in as Regional Administrative Director (RAD), while continuing to have a role in assisting with Executive Office activities. Chris has been a fantastic partner for me as a fellow regional administrative director and for Ron as Interim Chief Deputy Director.  To have a leader and judicial administrator of her caliber willing to shift gears once again to meet this unexpected need is invaluable for me, the AOC, and the courts.

With this change for the RAD position, Curt Soderlund has agreed to take on the role of Interim Chief Deputy Director. Curt and I have worked together for more than 20 years.  He served with me as Assistant Regional Administrative Director for the Northern/Central Regional Office before his appointment as Director of the Trial Court Administrative Services (TCAS) Division in 2008. Like Chris, Curt’s trial court executive experience and his strong working relationships with court leaders will be extremely helpful during this time. I truly appreciate his support. Curt will continue to have executive oversight of TCAS, while three seasoned managers will maintain day-to-day operations for the administrative and fiscal operations services provided to the trial courts.

This Thursday, the executive team and managers and supervisors will come together, in person and by phone, for a briefing with me and several members of the Judicial Council, including the chairs of the Trial Court Presiding Judges and Court Executives Advisory Committees.  In addition to discussing priorities that include staying on track with budget issues for the branch as well as our reorganization process, we will address questions from the management team so that they can share more information with you in person. After April, we will also be rescheduling the all-staff meetings, where there will be further opportunity for in-person discussions.

Today I had the opportunity to walk around a little and talk with some staff at the San Francisco office.  I was able to share with them, and want to share with you, that I will be relocating to San Francisco during this interim period so that I can be available at our headquarters.  I also heard loud and clear that sharing whatever concrete information we can as soon as it’s available will go a long way toward alleviating anxiety.

I want to reiterate my commitment to supporting the vital work of the AOC, and working with the directors to address current challenges that will place our organization on a solid footing for when a permanent appointment is made to the administrative director position. I welcome everyone’s support for these efforts.

Thank you.

Jody

Jody Patel

Interim Administrative Director of the Courts

Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
916-263-1333, FAX 916-263-1966, jody.patel@jud.ca.gov
www.courts.ca.gov

“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians” 

_______________________________________________________

This is the trial courts under AOC management…

Any Questions?

_________________________________________

Related Articles:

• The Not So Civil War Between the Legislature and the Supreme Court (fox&hounds)
• Lawmakers and Courts need to end their rift (SacBee.com ) You all should weigh in on this little missive

February 10, 2012

Fellow Judges:

Now that Assembly Bill 1208 has passed the California Assembly, we ask that the judges of this state further consider the merits of this legislation. The time has come to end the effort to stop AB 1208, and to start a meaningful discussion among judges and legislators as to how best to implement this reform in a manner that avoids unintended consequences.

This issue must be resolved by legislation, because the problem was created by legislation enacted almost 15 years ago. We believe that angry attacks on the legislature by members of the Judicial Council and AOC staff, simply for supporting the bill, are counterproductive to a solution, and jeopardize judicial branch funding. Further, these attacks by Judicial Council members illustrate why many judges fear retaliation when taking a principled stand in opposition to branch spending decisions and policies. This underscores why we have not, and never will, publicly release our membership list.

We have heard many misconceptions about AB 1208, which is sponsored by the Alliance of California Judges and supported by hundreds of judges. We hope this letter helps dispel those misconceptions. We ask you to read the bill for yourself, and not rely upon representations from the AOC as to what the bill says, or does not say. We include a link to the bill. (Assembly Bill 1208 )

If you are a judge who reads this letter, and agrees with its conclusions, we ask you to not simply stand on the sideline. Join us. Contact a director or send us a responsive email to allianceofcaliforniajudges@gmail.com requesting to be enrolled as a member and we will do so immediately. All we need is an email address to use for communications. We do our utmost to keep our members advised of matters of interest from the perspective of judges, not bureaucrats. The recipients of member emails are confidential, even to other recipients.

Fundamental Purpose

There is a defect in the trial court funding statutes that creates an inherent conflict. This statutory error needs to be corrected, and it can only be corrected by the Legislature. As long as this error is codified by statute, there will be inherent tension within the judiciary. AB 1208 corrects this problem.

The trial courts of this state are independent constitutional courts, and the trial judges of this state are independent constitutional officers, presiding in each county. (Art. 6, § 4.) Each court and each judge of that court is charged with the fundamental duty to provide state adjudicative services to citizens within that court’s county boundaries or persons coming before the court under principles of venue.

The problem is that all of the trial court operating funds necessary to perform this duty were delivered by the 1997 funding statutes to another entity that has a complimentary, but different constitutional mission– the Judicial Council. Current law does not require that the Judicial Council fully deliver all of the money which the Legislature has appropriated to the trial courts. The Judicial Council is not a governing body. The Judicial Council’s constitutional mandate is simply to “survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and the Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice and procedure, not inconsistent with statute, and perform functions prescribed by statute.”

Because the voting judicial members of the Judicial Council are appointed, this puts all of the money necessary to operate the trial courts into the hands of judges who, while on the Judicial Council, are not performing the role of providing trial court services. Thus, the trial courts have no independent voice in how the spending priorities are established in the use of trial court operating funds. While the Constitution holds all judges equal in their office, this structure makes trial judges subservient to a another group of appointed favorites who, however well intended, and whatever their good faith, have no governing authority except that they control the money.

AB 1208 corrects this problem. AB 1208 amends current law to require that the Judicial Council or its designee allocate 100 percent of the funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature, according to each court’s share of statewide operational funding. AB 1208 does not affect any separately appropriated funds within the Judicial Budget. It only addresses trial court operating funds.

AB 1208 is an essential component of budget discussions. So long as the AOC and Judicial Council are empowered to divert money intended by the Legislature to be used for trial court operations, any budget increases for the trial courts may prove to be illusory. Until AOC spending of trial court funds is under control as provided by AB 1208, it is unlikely that the Legislature will increase funding. Given the AOC’s dismal track record, it is simply unrealistic to expect the Legislature to continue writing blank checks.

The balance of this letter deals with common misconceptions about AB 1208.

Misconception: AB 1208 invades separation of powers.

Actuality: AB 1208 has nothing to do with the separation of powers. The statutes AB 1208 seeks to amend were, of course, themselves enacted by the legislature. AB 1208 does not diminish judges– it empowers judges. The Legislature already calls out the operating funds for the trial courts every year within the Judiciary budget. The Legislature already intends that this money is set aside for trial court operations. AB 1208 ensures that this money is fully delivered to the trial courts. It prevents the Judicial Council from taking trial court operating money, and using it for other purposes.

Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt access, because it will allow courts to divert money from programs such as Self Help Centers, or interpreters.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect any programs that are specifically and separately appropriated in the annual budget. Self Help Centers are separately appropriated by grant funds, and programs such as interpreters are separately appropriated. This misconception also presumes that trial judges will ignore their constitutional duty to provide access.

Misconception: AB 1208 will take away the Judicial Council’s ability to “run the branch.”

Actuality: The Judicial Council is not a governing body. AB 1208 does not take away the Judicial Council’s ability to supervise and manage the nearly $1.0 billion appropriated every year in the Judicial budget for the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Court Construction, Court Maintenance, Judicial Compensation, Assigned Judges, Court interpreters, Habeas Corpus, or Grants. AB 1208 does not change the Judicial Council’s authority to supervise budgeting, establish uniform accounting practices, and pursue audits.

Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent important statewide initiatives like CCMS.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not prevent any project, including CCMS. Projects may still be funded and go forward provided that (1) they are funded other than with trial court operating funds, such as by the Improvement Fund, or the Modernization Fund, (2) separately appropriated by the Legislature, or (3) done with the consent of the trial courts. In fact, Government Code 68085 already contains language mandating that the AOC first obtain the consent of the participating courts before using funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for statewide IT projects. However, the AOC and their General Counsel take the position that silence equals consent, and that no court actually utilizing the system has a right to object, even though Trust Fund money belongs to all courts, not just those actually utilizing some portion of CCMS. AB 1208 would make it clear that all courts in the state would have a voice in these decisions, and would end the non-democratic “rule by fiat” system now in place.

Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt small or rural courts and advantage large urban courts.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not change the funding allocation percentages that have been in place for the last 14 years. Every court will receive the same percentage of the overall budget that it has always received.

Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent the Judicial Council from providing additional funding on an emergency basis to courts that need it.

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect the Improvement Fund or Modernization Fund, except as those funds are directed to the trial courts within the budget. The Improvement Fund remains available to assist courts in need. In fact, Government Code Section 77209(b) requires that at least ½ of 1% of the amount appropriated for trial court operations be set aside for the urgent needs of any court. AB 1208 would in no way amend or repeal this section.

Misconception: AB 1208 will undo trial court unification and return to 58 “fiefdoms.”

Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect unification. Unification has occurred as a matter of constitutional law in all 58 counties. The bill does not alter the Judicial Council’s authority to ensure uniform practices. The bill does not change the Judicial Council’s rule-making authority. The bill does not alter the uniform rules of practice and procedure.

Conclusion

AB 1208 empowers every trial court and every trial judge of this state to have a fair and independent voice in the administration of trial court operations and in setting the priorities for the use of the money that judges need to do their jobs. AB 1208 establishes a system that will be based upon consensus, not fiat.

Please contact us if you have any questions and we will respond. Please join us.

Very Truly Yours,

Hon. Andrew P. Banks (Orange)

Hon. E. Jeffrey Burke (San Luis Obispo)

Hon. Tia Fisher (Los Angeles)

Hon. Mark Forcum (San Mateo)

Hon. Maryanne Gilliard (Sacramento)

Hon. Daniel B. Goldstein (San Diego)

Hon. W. Kent Hamlin (Fresno)

Hon. W. Michael Hayes (Orange)

Hon. Thomas E. Hollenhorst (4th District Court of Appeal)

Hon. David R. Lampe (Kern)

Hon. Susan Lopez-Giss (Los Angeles)

Hon. Kevin McCormick (Sacramento)

Hon. John Somers (Kern)

Hon. Steve White (Sacramento)

Directors

Alliance of California Judges

__________________________________

Related articles

• The Need to Treat the Legislature with Respect & commentary from JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• The Rosenberg rebuttal – By Judge Robert Dukes (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Tani’s Civics Lesson: The responsibility of the legislature (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Yes on AB1208  (Scoop San Diego.com)

Now What?

After the reefer madness video that is chock full of body language that indicates that the woman doesn’t even believe in the snake oil she’s trying to sell to others, after Ron Overholt stepping down as the interim administrative director and a decision made to elevate Jody Patel to the new interim administrative director position, is this all leading to just another game of musical chairs or some meaningful change? Musical chairs seems to be the norm. Move the same players and insiders around and you get to declare “reform”, “game changer” and other descriptive titles of fallacy. By some accounts, Patel has been involved in a reorg for two years that hasn’t shed a single job, yet as we’ve pointed out before, 21% of the entire AOC’s workforce is responsible for managing people, creating a management to employee ratio of 3 employees to every one manager.

Trial courts have had to deal with real cuts that have resulted in real layoffs and real downsizing. They weren’t afforded the luxury of a strategic evaluation committee study or a two year reorg that does not shed a single job.

The chief now claims that she is focused on budget but how much do you really expect from her after her verbal carpet bombing of the state assembly or the AOC lobbyists like ‘elbow throwing’ Curt? Moreover, how do the trial courts have any assurance that they will see a dime of this money and that it won’t be hijacked to pay for more, new or different AOC boondoggles? iPads for everyone? More two thousand dollar light bulbs? More of a development pause for CCMS that wasn’t really a pause? More of a hiring freeze that only amounts to hiring more highly paid consultants?

What’s next, California? More ‘fact check’ fiction?

Related articles

• It’s time to restore balance (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• The Need to Treat the Legislature with Respect & commentary from JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• The Rosenberg rebuttal – By Judge Robert Dukes (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• ACJ – Chief calls out Lawmakers; Overholt steps down (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• “Company Confidential” – The new paradigm in the AOC’s continued hiring binge (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Judicial Council Appoints Jody Patel Interim Admin. Director of Courts (yubanet.com)

If you are a janitor or a justice or any job in between, feel free to help them out in the battle against free iPads, AOC paid lobbyists and other AOC influence peddling by making a sizable donation. Money makes the world go around. And if you’ve donated recently – please contemplate another donation to the Alliance of California Judges by going to their site. To get there, follow the link at the bottom of our left-hand navigation pane under “Put your money where your cause is”

Let’s also not forget the important voice of Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher who is running for Mayor of San Diego. He lent us a hand, let’s return the favor. http://nathanfletcher.com/

(A progressive organization such as JCW sponsoring Republican Nathan Fletcher for mayor? That’s right…. Being progressive is about having new ideas and in the case of Nathan Fletcher, strong ethical leadership is an added bonus.)

Thanks for your continued support,

Judicial Council Watcher

_____________________________________________________________________________________

February 9, 2012

Dear Members and Others:

By now most of you should have received a video link to a 19-minute speech delivered by the Chief Justice to a gathering of Presiding Judges and Court CEO’s in San Francisco last week.  For those who have not, we include the link.  A transcript of the Chief Justice’s remarks is attached to this email as a pdf.

The Alliance remains concerned that repeated and sustained attacks on the Legislative branch for supporting AB 1208 will further damage the courts’ ability to work cooperatively with the Legislature.  Many of our colleagues have pointed out that these attacks by Judicial Council members and AOC staff illustrate why many judges fear retaliation when taking a principled stand in opposition to branch spending decisions and policies.  The Alliance believes that a rational and measured approach must be taken in order to solve the financial crisis impacting our local courts.

We include for your information two articles related to the speech, one by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo and another by Daily Recorder reporter Cheryl Miller, who notes that a redacted version of the Chief’s speech is in circulation.

We also note today’s resignation of AOC interim Director, Ronald Overholt, and we provide a copy of his resignation letter.  His departure provides the Chief Justice an opportunity to engage in serious and systematic overhaul of the AOC.  We trust that his replacement will have a proven record of waste busting and downsizing organizations that have lost their way.

These are tough times for our branch.  A defect in the trial court funding statutes creates an inherent conflict.  This statutory error can only be corrected by the Legislature.  As long as this error is codified by statute, there will be inherent tension within the judiciary.  AB 1208 corrects this problem.  The time has come to end the effort to stop AB 1208 and to start a meaningful discussion among judges and legislators as to how best to implement this reform.

Again, we thank you for your support.

Directors,
Alliance of California Judges

_______________________

San Francisco–The Interim Administrative Director of the California Courts submitted his resignation to Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye on Wednesday, citing both personal reasons and the need for the judicial branch to keep its focus on restoration of the judicial branch budget.

“My decision is based on a number of factors,” said Mr. Ronald G. Overholt. “Among them is that the position of Administrative Director of the Courts has become a lightning rod for controversy, impacting the focus on budget discussions, Judicial Council governance of the judicial branch, and the AOC itself. By making this difficult choice, I hope that my decision will help refocus attention on the critical issues at hand—budget restoration, the future of the branch, and the stability of the AOC.”

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye called Mr. Overholt’s decision understandable but unfortunate. “Ron’s decision to leave the AOC is regrettable. His departure as Interim Administrative Director is a great loss not only for the AOC but also for the state judicial branch. But we respect his judgment that a transition is necessary at this time for him and for the court system he has served so well. Ron’s service in court administration over the past 30 years, including his outstanding service as Chief Deputy Director of the AOC, and especially over the last several months as Interim Director, has been exemplary and has served to enhance access to justice and public trust and confidence in our justice system. I join with judicial leaders around the state in thanking him and wishing him well in his future public service endeavors.”

“For the past three years, the economic environment we’ve been operating in has created unprecedented challenges for the state and prompted a reassessment of resources and priorities for all areas of government,” Mr. Overholt said. “For the AOC, this has included significant ongoing budget reductions and internal reorganization efforts. In the anxiety-generating climate of this fiscal crisis, the AOC’s role in serving the council to advance access to justice on a statewide basis has unfairly become an easy target. Every organization has room for improvement, and where merited, the AOC has taken corrective action and is continuing to do so. Where issues raised have been without merit, we have worked hard to correct misinformation. AOC directors, managers, and staff have devoted incredible time and effort on a daily basis to do more with less and to deliver critical services to the courts and the public.

“I will continue to work closely with the Chief Justice and the new interim director to ensure the best possible transition. I am proud to have served in a leadership role in the judicial branch¾as an administrator in superior courts, as a member of the Judicial Council, and as a chief executive of this outstanding public service organization. I am proud of all that the Judicial Council, the courts, and the AOC have accomplished together to benefit our justice system and the people we serve.”

Mr. Overholt has won a number of state and national awards for his court administration service; in 2010, he received the National Center for State Court’s Distinguished Service Award (see news release). Before his appointment as Interim Administrative Director of the Courts in September 2011, Mr. Overholt served for 11 years as Chief Deputy Director of the AOC.

At the trial court level, he served as Court Executive Officer of the Superior Court of Alameda County for nine years, and for three years as the Assistant Court Executive Officer, and previously held senior management positions with the Superior Court of San Diego County. In 1997, he also served as a negotiator on behalf of the Judicial Council for the passage of landmark legislation providing for state funding of the trial courts.

A special closed Judicial Council meeting has been called today to select a new Interim Administrative Director, who will serve for the next few months as the national search for a permanent director continues.

.

E-mail:

_______________________________________________________________________________

From: Cantil-Sakauye, Tani
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012
To:
Subject: Our New Interim Director

Dear AOC Staff Members,

I know that the news of Ron’s decision to resign as Interim Administrative Director has caused concern among many of you. So I am especially grateful to Justice Doug Miller as chair of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee and to all council members for their quick action on naming a new Interim Director. This afternoon the council appointed Jody Patel for that position.

Jody is the ideal executive for this temporary assignment as the council’s search committee begins the recruitment process. The primary focus of the Judicial Council and court leaders is now on budget restoration and keeping the courts open. Jody’s court management and practical experience will keep branch efforts on track, while her collaborative and leadership skills will be of great benefit at the AOC during this transition.

Ron has committed to do all that he can to ease the transition to new leadership, and I ask the same of each of you.

I realize this change has taken you by surprise, but I assure you that it doesn’t undermine the stability, the good work, and the commitment you bring to our cause of equal justice to all Californians.

s/

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Overholt, Ron
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:19 AM
To:
Subject: Announcement: Interim Administrative Director Position

Team,

I am writing to let you know that I am resigning as Interim Administrative Director of the Courts, effective immediately, with plans to retire later this spring. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and I have discussed my decision, and she and the chairs of the Judicial Council’s internal committees have expedited the process to appoint a new interim director.

As Chief Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts for more than 11 years and Interim Administrative Director of the Courts since September, it has been my privilege to lead and work with the outstanding professionals and committed public servants of the AOC and the judicial branch.

For the past three years, the economic environment we’ve been operating in has created unprecedented challenges for the state and prompted a reassessment of resources and priorities for all areas of government. For the AOC, this has included significant ongoing budget reductions and internal reorganization efforts. In the anxiety-generating climate of this fiscal crisis, the AOC’s role in serving the council to advance access to justice on a statewide basis has unfairly become an easy target.  Every organization has room for improvement, and where merited, the AOC has taken corrective action and is continuing to do so. Where issues raised have been without merit, we have worked hard to correct misinformation. AOC directors, managers, and staff have devoted incredible time and effort on a daily basis to do more with less and deliver critical services to the courts and the public.

My decision is based on a number of factors. Among them is that the position of Administrative Director of the Courts has become a lightning rod for controversy, impacting the focus on budget discussions, Judicial Council governance of the judicial branch, and the AOC itself.  By making this difficult choice, I hope that my decision will help refocus attention on the critical issues at hand—budget restoration, the future of the branch, and the stability of the AOC.

I will continue to work closely with the Chief Justice and the new interim director to ensure the best possible transition.  Your directors will continue to provide their leadership and strongest support to you in the valuable work that you each do to further the AOC’s mission to protect and improve access to justice.

I am proud to have worked with you. I am proud to have served in a leadership role in the judicial branch and in this outstanding public service organization. I am proud of all that we have accomplished together to benefit our court system and the people we serve, and I know that you will continue to demonstrate, through your great work, the unique value the AOC brings to the judicial branch.

Sincerely,

Ron

Ronald G. Overholt

Interim Administrative Director of the Courts

Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts

455 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA  94102-3688

415-865-4235, FAX 415-865-4244, ron.overholt@jud.ca.gov

www.courts.ca.gov

“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”

Related articles

• Letter from Michael Paul to the Judicial Council. Ouch. (Yen Interactive Media / Judicial Council Watcher)
• Questions about Overholt’s leadership and council spending (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• New Chief Tonto Feigns Leadership (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Overholt Quits as Top Court Admin (Courthouse News)
• AOC’s interim director leaves post ( Cheryl Miller, The Recorder / Law.com)
• You can’t make this stuff up. Overholt? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

Statement released by the Alliance of California Judges

….make damn sure JCW doesn’t get their grubby meat hooks on a video destined for court executives and presiding judges and broadcasts it to the public and the legislature.

Oopsie. Reefer Madness 2012 video

Let’s follow the bouncing ball, shall we? 

We think her speechwriter will face the firing squad at dawn tomorrow. Or already has…

…sometimes the best communications is to hear what isn’t being said. We’ll blend a little of both to come up with JCW’s john q public interpretation of this political faux pas.

1. Ignore everything that happened before me taking the helm. Approximately 900 million in funds that could have kept your courts open wasn’t really siphoned off to pay for CCMS or overpriced unlicensed contractors doing work on an exclusive basis from the Mexican border to the Oregon border and all points in between. We aren’t really building some of the worlds most expensive public buildings while others close down statewide. Think about what we did when we eliminated the most egregious examples of waste when we eliminated the Markleeville and Downieville courthouses (population of each city, about 200 and each slated to get 25 million dollar courthouses)

2. It took you all fifteen years to concentrate all judicial branch power into the hands of just one person and we did that by working together.

3. JudicialCouncilWatcher (and the rest of the media asking) wants to know where those form 700′s are and wants to know how much stock we own in all of the companies we steer work to. We’re trying to muddle our way around this pesky law.

4. We get no money, you get no honey California. We’ve mitigated cuts by taking only 86% of our typical bloated budget while you’ve suffered dearly at the trial court level.

5. I only want to talk about 2011. I want to mislead people about the changes made in the AOC. We can’t be flat-footed about the past and talk about it too much. Forget about 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006.

6. I’m glad that you presiding judges got together to rout the strong majority of the judges of this state that supported AB1208 by coming forward opposing AB1208.

7. I was surprised to hear all of the meritless, false claims about the Judicial Council and the AOC being made on the Assembly floor. Lies, I tell you, lies! They all read that yellow press over at judicialcouncilwatcher.com and give false merit to the Alliance of California Judges and their noise.

8. Speaker Perez seemed genuinely concerned about all of those meritless false claims about the judicial council and the AOC being repeated on the assembly floor before the vote and wanted to know what was false? I couldn’t answer until I got together Pravda and had them spin their propaganda machine into a backhand slam on a few legislators. It’s in your handout and was sent to 120 legislators. (We’ll make sure the rebuttals hit their hands too Tani.)

9. I also spoke to Speaker Perez about him conducting a morally corrupt act by making AB1208 a political issue and strong-arming legislators while the bill was out for call. That should have never happened that way, it was dirty politics I tell ya! I lost to dirty politics, meritless arguments and false claims! I was told that each legislator would vote their conscience and that disturbed me that he did that. All those claims were made about the past.

10. What is most troubling to me is that AB1208 pitted judges against judges and is a violation of the separation of powers. AB1208 takes away my power. Why should my discretion be limited? 2011 -12 is all about transition, transformation and triumph. Just ignore the past and the waste that is happening now!

11. No action or money was spent on CCMS not already authorized by the legislature (ie given to the trial courts and skimmed off by the AOC)

12. So now we move to the Senate with AB1208. Because I went to school with Steinberg, that’s the reason the bill will sit so we can talk about budget. I haven’t seen the proponents of AB1208 speak anything about budget (although AB1208 is all about budget… doh!) and those dogs over at JudicialCouncilWatcher only speak of sweeping my court construction funds to fund the branch. I’m shooting for a 300 million dollar budget increase, not the sweeping of a similar amount from court construction.

13. We’re misunderstood and falsely represented by others. It’s all lies! LIES I TELL YA!

14 We’re the only branch that performs checks and balances dammit! The power of the purse is a dangerous intrusion of the separation of powers.

________________________________________________

And your day wouldn’t be whole without this Pravda classic tossing Huffman et al under the bus. (and then putting him in charge of the accountability committee)

Related articles

• The AOC doesn’t represent me (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• The Need to Treat the Legislature with Respect & commentary from JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Questions about Overholt’s leadership and council spending (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Chief Justice Slams the State Assembly over the passage of AB1208 (courthouse news)

For the past couple of days JCW has been exchanging e-mail with one of our long time readers that doesn’t post. That reader who wishes to remain anonymous outlined a challenge that we all take for granted.

One of the big messages that the Judicial Council and AOC is promoting amongst legislators is more funding for the judicial branch. While that is a laudable goal and more funding is required to stave off layoffs, to catch up on filing backlogs that in some court cases are over a year old and to support our courtrooms statewide, what we universally don’t wish to see happen is the judicial council and AOC skim off tens of millions for their largesse and misguided boondoggles. They too should be funded directly by the legislature only after those with boots on the ground serving the public directly are fully funded.

If the trial court bill of financial rights or AB1208 were in effect today, we could have some degree of confidence that lobbying performed by the AOC in the legislature would be for funding local court operations.

Today that isn’t the case.

In the last judicial council meeting the council has determined already how it will spend the 50 million extra in judicial branch funding specified in Governor Brown’s proposed budget because they’re drawing up deployment plans for vaporware. Mind you that the funding might go towards deploying a single instance of CCMS V4 to some unwitting court that never had a computerized case management system and therefore doesn’t know any better. However, most of the money will be earmarked for further CCMS development because the program won’t be able to function in any court without it.

Some of the principal arguments of speak with one voice and attempting to rally all for more court funding is the misguided belief , as the council and AOC expresses is that if we don’t all speak with one voice about court funding that the legislature will take away funds from the trial courts and to a lesser degree, the judicial council and the AOC.

They argue that if we don’t overlook the problems at the AOC and give the chief justice more time (we’re now going on 14 months of window dressing and inaction) that the whole branch will continue to suffer.

We argue that the funding cuts were because of the AOC and Judicial Council inaction in overseeing their administrative offices and that this will be the reason to justify further budget cuts.

In doing nothing with regards to holding people responsible for things like embezzlement, the hiring of unlicensed contractors, some of the worlds most expensive public buildings being built while others are forced to shut down and multi-billion dollar cost overruns on software boondoggles, they demonstrate that they are a poor steward of public funds. However, it has NOT been the Judicial Council or the AOC that has had to pay for this mismanagement. It has been the trial courts that have paid dearly for this mismanagement and lack of oversight.

While the JC/AOC advocate speak with one voice, our long time reader suggested that we all make it perfectly clear to everyone that the AOC doesn’t represent me via a campaign of the same name.

Now, we can’t run campaigns like this where it was suggested that we do something like print buttons, flyers and T-Shirts with The AOC doesn’t represent me emblazoned on them nor do we know if court employees can even wear buttons or shirts or make available flyers at their front counters for such a campaign but it is logical that we would wish to distance ourselves from such reprehensible behavior in any way possible.

Why would I as a taxpaying citizen wish to fund an agency that demonstrates a marked lack of accountability and fails to hold people responsible for mismanagement? Why should the legislature fund these boondoggles either? Assemblymember Calderon was entirely correct when he indicated that the JC/AOC had 70 million dollars to use to keep the courts open but instead, they chose to use the money for their pet projects, to force layoffs and the curtailment of services to the public and to close the courts to create unwarranted political pressure.

In our minds, AB1208 is in part an attempt at disassociation from the AOC for the benefit of the trial courts. It is not the AOC that suffers when 650 million in cuts is foisted upon them when the legislature also offers 150 million in mitigation that the JC/AOC can undertake to preserve access to justice in local courts – and the council pushes those cuts down to the trial courts anyways. When the council only offers part of the mitigating funding and then only offers emergency loans when courts like San Francisco and San Joaquin virtually beg for it when a solution was available all along is fundamentally corrupt.

Our reader suggests that trial courts and their employees distancing themselves from the AOC would be the best course of action and education regarding the real issues regardless of whether or not AB1208 passes.

Under the circumstances, speak with one voice just makes it all seem like a larger conspiracy than it really is.

Is that the image that we wish to portray to the public and our legislators and face further budget cuts or do we want to clean house and chart a new course for the benefit of all?

Feel free to respond to the thread or drop our friends in the judicial council a public comment email @ judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov

Related articles

• AOC’s Curtis Child – We need to be throwing elbows at legislators (Further reason for distancing yourself from the AOC)
• The Need to Treat the Legislature with Respect & commentary from JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• The Rosenberg rebuttal – By Judge Robert Dukes (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Chutzpah. Time to make that change. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Judge Rosenberg takes the point and is picked off.. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• ab1208 in the news, editorial says CCMS is stuck (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
• Judges need to speak out (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)

Down towards the end of this thread we’ve sought to clarify the opaqueness surrounding CCMS. There are 3 different flavors of CCMS and we wish to correct our own slight bit of misinformation. Without a CCMS V1 one would never have a CCMS V2. We’re not sure about V1 and we invite you to educate us about V1. However the remaining information was gained by checking the other sources of public information, such as the office of the chief information officer, the AOC’s own records and the BSA report.

CCMS V2 – The first deployed phase product was scoped to include case management activities for traffic and criminal functions within the courts. The development of the V2 product was challenged and was ultimately only implemented in Fresno County in July of 2006.

CCMS V3 – The second deployed phase product was scoped to include case management activities for civil, probate, small claims, and mental health functions within the courts. Pieces of the the V3 product is currently deployed in six counties, including: Los Angeles; Orange; Sacramento; San Diego; San Joaquin; and Ventura.

CCMS V4 – The third yet to be deployed vaporware product was scoped to include:

• All of the functionality of V2 and V3;
• Family law and juvenile justice case management;
• A public/partner portal;
• A set of standard justice partner data exchanges (purported to be 121 that have been shifted out of the project itself so that the AOC could call the application complete) Now they are classified as external connectors that are no longer a part of the CCMS V4 project
• Integration with document management systems; (The AOC and the Santa Clara Courts who do not use CCMS are working on the integration of a DMS system for CCMS. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?) DMS is now classified as an external connector and is no longer a part of the CCMS V4 project yet CCMS can’t function without some form of a document management system.
• Court interpreter scheduling;
• Court reporter scheduling, and;
• E-Filing (The e-filing capability and the partner portal capability are the reasons that lawyers groups back CCMS, the Judicial Council and the AOC and why no one bats an eye at the thought of Joe Dunn coughing up 4.5 million in state bar funds for CCMS ) Our position has been consistent insofar as we look at the legal profession gaining the most benefits out of CCMS.
• Much like a Realtor must have a state license and be a subscriber to a local multiple listing service to sell or list houses and that MLS fees pay for the realtors’ MLS systems, we believe ALL of the states lawyers should pay for CCMS via the State Bar if they want it so bad.
• If we’ve gotten anything incorrect here, please contact us at https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher with those corrections so we can make them. 

If you want to clean up CCMS’s costs and development, tell a hundred thousand plus lawyers that they’re responsible for paying for it via user fees. It would still be cheaper to the average attorney than messengers running to the courthouse on their behalf or standing in line themselves.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please note that we’ve edited a number of media links to point directly towards Judicial Council and AOC news stories and will continue to develop our Judicial Council and AOC in the news page.

Thanks for your continued support,

JCW

Related articles

• Chutzpah. Time to make that change. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• The Rosenberg rebuttal – By Judge Robert Dukes (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Welcome to California’s Judicial Branch (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Will-the-aoc-be-accepting-a-defective-ccms-to-save-face/ JudicialCouncilWatcher.com
• Task-force-finds-court-underfunding-still-a-crisis-business-partnership-an-opportunity/ ABA Now – Note that Curtis Child advocates throwing elbows at legislators……

Image via Wikipedia

For quite awhile now all of us have been educating and lobbying the people of the state assembly. And we’ve been doing it successfully because each of us who has played a part brings to the table a different message that fits in to create individual pieces of a whole pie.

Meanwhile, Curtis Child and Donna Herskowitz are stuck on the message of  13 x 7 = 28

Now you know why the AOC feels it needs to hire another lobbyist. We’re going to try to track the pre-voting positions on AB1208 for all 40 senators with respect to AB1208. We encourage an intense lobby by each piece of the pie as everyone has something important to contribute to this argument as we all know 13 x 7 does not equal 28.

.

To make action easy, here is a link to California state senators.

Please consider the marginally extra costs and impact of writing each and every senator a snail mail letter and don’t forget that the senate has no committee like the assembly committee on accountability and administrative review.

You don’t need to produce a flashy message on a tablet computer and give it to the senator to make a point. In fact, the point is better made if you don’t do that. So what are you waiting for? Get to it already.  :)