There is a major disconnect in the Crystal Palace. Even epic failures must be rolled out as resounding successes because this bunch of yahoo’s (Not to be confused with the far more competent Yahooligans of the Marissa Mayer variety..) does not want the appearance of losing face.
If we were to make a comparison to the AOC’s 10 year effort at CCMS to an automobile, we think a Yugo up on jack stands without an engine, wheels, doors, interior or glass is a far more accurate comparison than the Ferrari in the garage that we can’t afford the gas to, or the latest comparison, an SUV that does everything but we can’t afford to get it out on the road, even though we paid a hypercar price tag for it and canceled it six years after it was supposed to be delivered to the courts.
The fact of the matter is that CCMS V4 does not operate in one single courthouse in California. Zip. Zero. Zilch. When an epic failure like this is foisted upon the California taxpayers by so-called leadership as a resounding success if the state would only cough up a few billion more, yet it has not been deployed or is functional in at least one of the remaining 400+ courthouses left, it’s impossible to claim that the product is complete. What’s more is that this was performed by a terribly troubled IT vendor whose own epic delivery failures and bad publicity nationwide outnumber their successes.
So is everyone just supposed to believe that everyone else who contracted with Deloitte and ended up firing them or filing suit against them because of failed delivery and quality issues just simply suffering with resounding successes that they can’t handle?
Is this judicial administration incapable of making poor decisions? That’s the real message they want you to believe. Judges and justices simply can’t be second-guessed is the mantra that they want you to chant with them. After all, it was judges and justices that continue to speak of the legendary sports car or the Hummer H1 that they promised you but never delivered because they couldn’t burn enough public cash to deliver it.
How would Edmunds.com , Road & Track or Car & Driver review CCMS if it were a car? What would they compare it to? Well, first….. they would want to see it in production somewhere on earth and then they would want to test-drive it. It’s not in production anywhere you say? It cannot be test driven? How are we to take your word for it that it handles like a ferrari or can go anywhere and do anything like a hummer H1?
Would that be because you are a judge or a justice and your word is the gospel truth? (QUEUE: Justice Terrence Bruniers: “We own the code”) pffft.
He was right about that, wasn’t he?
You never heard any leadership say a thing about him being wrong. You didn’t hear it from his own lips. You heard an AOC staffer indicate that we don’t own the code. And there is so much more in that stealth bomber costing contract that we will never know because the AOC will only deliver a fully redacted copy that makes it appear to be an off budget black ops program and is strictly on a need to know basis.
The State Auditor needs to know.
The State Assembly needs to know.
The State Senate needs to know.
All 58 courts need to know.
The public needs to know how you wasted our money so we can all conduct a lessons learned and not repeat the failures.
Judicial Council Watcher 
TooBigToFail
October 7, 2013
I was a consultant to the AOC, 3-1/2 years into my second engagement, when my client, the Director of the Information Services Division (ISD), asked me to become involved in the CCMS project as a senior project manager. I resisted involvement until early 2005; I had successfully worked with several trial courts and their CMS vendor to implement new case types at the courts to reduce County processing fees and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these courts. While doing this work, I was aware of the CCMS project and, based on what I’d heard, I had hoped to stay clear of the project. Unfortunately, I was pressed to become involved; long story short, after 15 months on the CCMS project, I informed my client that when my contract was up for renewal in 3 months, I would not be again extending it. I was the only consultant who stopped riding the “gravy train” and left the project because I knew based on my experiences and skills in project management that CCMS would never be implemented as it was envisioned. There were several fatal flaws in the assumptions that defined the project -the most significant being that there was a single software solution for a state that has the largest and most diverse court system in the world. While it’s true that the CA trial courts perform similar functions (the what), the way in which the courts perform these functions varies significantly (the how). Also, there was no cost/benefit analysis performed, no industry-standard project management methodologies utilized, and many people in positions of influence who had no idea how to implement a major software development project. The CCMS project gave new meaning to the term “runaway project,” and I find it appalling that it took another 6 years to finally cancel the project after I left. As I understand the current situation, 3 national CMS vendors have been approved for use by CA trial courts. This approach makes much more sense – why continue to undertake the high risks associated with software development projects when companies like Tyler Technologies have robust CMS products successfully installed? It is unconscionable to consider pouring more “good money after bad” into the CCMS project. I believe $500+ million of taxpayer money spent on a product that does not meet its objectives is more than enough!
Richard Power
October 8, 2013
TooBigToFail,
You make some valid and interesting points. However, a single software solution can work in such a situation. Microsoft does it all the time. So do a number of other software companies. It’s the “options” approach. Numerous options may be available to you as a user. Use the option(s) you need. I have done it successfully in a number of data management systems I have created. Not all users of a particular system will use the software the same way and some may require larger or smaller versions of various components. Some need special components. Been there, done that. Components can be combined in various configurations. I do that all the time with software I sell. Experience is a great teacher.
Wendy Darling
October 7, 2013
“Yugo, Ferrari or an SUV that can do everything?”
How about a clown car that runs on foot power and can do nothing, except cost a bunch of wasted money and the integrity of the judicial branch?
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
October 7, 2013
“Clown car”! 😀
Tony Maino
October 7, 2013
“The system does work, we use it every day. We’re making some very significant improvements to that system as we speak.”
Mr. Mike Roddy in a CCMS Program Interview April 23, 2010.
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 8, 2013
Along with cheerleader Mike, remember that Mr. Bruin-ears was appointed to the Court of Appeals so that he could continue on from a higher platform with his statements that CCMS was, “almost operational”, “operational”, “working fine” In courts throughout California. Another example of a self-proclaimed technology expert. No true background, education, training or experience in the field, however having sat on numerous JC committees he became an “expert.” Just ask him…
Too bad we didn’t save the $560 Million spent on CCMS, I’ve got a few lights out in the bathroom…
unionman575
October 12, 2013
courtflea
October 7, 2013
Oh Mike Roddy, he drank the koolaide and went to the dark side long ago. Sad that the powers that be in San Diego allow his reign to continue. JUdge, he should have been fired for that statement alone.
unionman575
October 8, 2013
http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/240162344/deloitte-state-contracts-repeatedly-over-time-budget-report.htm
unionman575
October 8, 2013
Click to access Public%20Notice%20-%20Reserve%20a%20Court%20Date%20100713.pdf
and then you can reserve a helicopter ride to go 170 miles (or more) each way
😉
unionman575
October 8, 2013
The public needs to know how you wasted our money so we can all conduct a lessons learned and not repeat the failures.
😉
unionman575
October 8, 2013
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_24239620/clean-up-begins-at-courthouse-site
unionman575
October 8, 2013
Next big top circus: October 24 and 25
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
wearyant
October 9, 2013
Bring out the clown car powered by Fred Flintstone’s feet!!
sunlight
October 9, 2013
maybe we should all show up at the next JC meeting wearing clown noses!
unionman575
October 10, 2013
wearyant
October 10, 2013
Nice, U-man. Very apt.
unionman575
October 10, 2013
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24284129/contra-costa-superior-court-names-new-ceo
And Steve Nash the former AOC Money Man and San Bernardino Superior Court CEO is moving on again…to Contra Costa as CEO…
Contra Costa Superior Court names new CEO
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 10/10/2013 03:24:53 PM PDT
MARTINEZ — Stephen Nash will take over as court executive officer of Contra Costa Superior Court on Dec. 1, the court announced in a news release.
Nash will be responsible for the administrative functions of the Superior Court, replacing Kiri Torre, who retired June 30.
He currently serves in the same role for San Bernardino Superior Court.
Before moving to San Bernardino County, he was the director of finance of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He has also served as a budget analyst for the state Department of Finance and as deputy director of Administrative Services for the California Department of Youth Authority.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
October 11, 2013
Welcome back Steve, your family missed you. I know you had your sights set on Jahr’s position but that’s going to be a few years of the dust settling before they put you in the big dog chair.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 11, 2013
…..And now Yamasaki can apply for a position closer to his home. Is he still commuting to San Diego?
unionman575
October 10, 2013
http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33467:lake-county-superior-court-continues-to-face-budget-challenges-courthouse-project-still-in-the-works&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197
Lake County Superior Court continues to face budget challenges; courthouse project still in the works
WEDNESDAY, 09 OCTOBER 2013 23:49 ELIZABETH LARSON
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Courts across the state continue to weather budget cuts, and the Lake County Superior Court also is working with less resources as a result of the recession and California’s budget issues.
Krista LeVier, the court executive officer, said the Lake County Superior Court’s budget for the 2013-14 budget year is $3.6 million.
That’s about $1.7 million less than the court’s budget in 2008-09, LeVier said.
As this current budget year started, there was a small amount of new money for courts at the state level, she said.
However, LeVier that money didn’t help Lake County’s court, which actually ended up with about $20,000 less in funding than last fiscal year.
“In the big picture, this year we will probably be OK,” said LeVier.
One time money the superior court was able to save last year should help it in the coming year, she explained.
LeVier said the court doesn’t expect it will have to make any staff or service reductions this year.
However, going into the 2014-15 fiscal year, if there is no new money, more reductions may have to be made, she said.
Because of the deep budget cuts over the last five years, there already have been significant staff reductions, LeVier said.
In the 2008-09 fiscal year, the court had 43 employees, LeVier said. Today, the court has 29 employees, with the reductions coming mostly through attrition.
The reduction in funds also has prompted court officials to take measures like moving all of the criminal courts to Lakeport and rearranging other services.
Having all of the criminal calendar in Lakeport has made things more efficient, which is helpful in light of the reduced staff, said LeVier.
The court expects to have as much as 1,500 square feet of new space at its Clearlake court after the Lake County Sheriff’s Office moves it substation out of that building, LeVier said.
The state Administrative Office of the Courts wants the full footprint of the building, and arrangements have been ongoing to move the sheriff’s office substation into another space, according to the County Administrative Office.
LeVier said the court plans to use the space for its self-help center, which formerly had been located in a rented space off-site, which was closed due to budget cuts.
The self-help staff is now in the Clearlake location but spread out across the building, she said. There are two part-time attorneys and the equivalent of a third, full-time position to help people who don’t have attorneys file paperwork for certain types of cases.
At the same time, Lake County is still on the list of counties set to get a new Lakeport courthouse, she said
“The project is still moving forward as much as any of the others,” LeVier said.
She said the courthouse projects are on hold this year because the governor and the Legislature have shifted money from the courthouse construction fund to other operations.
A state committee is looking at the projects for ways to cut costs, said LeVier. “We’re going through that process now.”
If everything goes well, LeVier said the Lake County Superior Court’s project could be funded for working drawings next year.
Email Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 11, 2013
I’m sure that diverting megabucks for Long Beach rent payments had nothing to do with delays of the lake county courthouse…… nah….. It’s the other two branches that carry all the fault.
unionman575
October 10, 2013
Click to access PressRelease_NewContraCostaCEO.pdf
unionman575
October 10, 2013
Click to access PressRelease_FY-2013-2014_BudgetNotice.pdf
unionman575
October 11, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23715.htm
Judicial Council Watcher
October 11, 2013
The citizenry is deeply offended by penalty assessments being tacked on to their tickets, especially when they look up what they are charged with under the vehicle code and see that the fine is only a hundred bucks.
Then they get this notice from the courts telling them that their hundred dollar fine is actually $490.00 and they think the court is tacking on all these fees to rip them off. DMV uses pie charts in all of their literature and even signs posted at DMV offices that shows where your DMV fees go, Perhaps the courts should take the same approach if they want to improve their public image.
Instead, the legislature hides their own culpability by burying penalty assessments in places where the common citizens can never find them and where it takes a lawyer at the AOC whose sole function is to keep track of the ever bouncing ball.
Raise your hand if your court holds night court. Why are we collecting a $1.00 fee for a service that does not exist?
The task force recommendations will likely recommend that all tickets go out to ruthless collections agencies run by….. former judges who will get up to half of the fine. Privatization at its best.
Civil assessments imposed on top of fines for people who can’t afford a few days off to stand in a line that shuts down before they get to the counter – or – can’t afford a flight to their nearest courthouse are onerous and contribute vastly to everyone’s inability to pay them.
There should not be another amnesty program but a permanent way to cut the over 7 billion dollars in fees and fines owed so that some of our citizenry at least has a fleeting glimpse of hope that they might be able to pay their fines.
Instead, you will likely see a different tack taken…. one that defies logic in the form of additional fees and penalties to offset the privatization of collections activities. After all, this IS the judicial council. They’re accountable to no one. It’s a unique place where special interests always prevails over common sense.
Michael Paul
October 12, 2013
Click to access tr-07.pdf
This says it all. It’s not a 6 foot high sign in the courthouse like it should be but it does a swell job of explaining how you’re about to fund everything except the judicial branch.
Richard Power
October 13, 2013
The high fines due to penalty assessments and other add-ons are certainly most unfortunate but the problem could be turned around by making superior court operations more efficient to save on costs. That could be done and one can only hope that will be done soon before our state court system totally implodes.
Michael Paul
October 13, 2013
It appears that the other two branches of government want to let it implode because no one in judicial branch leadership is credible.
unionman575
October 11, 2013
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/article_982fabd0-3114-11e3-a57d-001a4bcf6878.html
As California Courts Absorb Budget Cuts, Monterey County Closes King City Courthouse, Reduces Hours
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:00 am
As California Courts Absorb Budget Cuts, Monterey County Closes King City Courthouse, Reduces Hours Sara Rubin
In photos, Felix Cuevas’ white Volkswagen bug doesn’t look like much, but he spent $2,850 on a paint job to spiff it up to a shiny blue. Dissatisfied with the work detailer Alfredo Garcia did, Cuevas filed a small-claims lawsuit trying to get his money back, and he told the story Oct. 7 in Monterey County Superior Court.
Cuevas spoke in Spanish, though language seemed to be the least of his barriers. A court interpreter translated, but even with photos, Judge Robert O’Farrell seemed confused about the work.
“Is that a gas cap?” O’Farrell said, pointing to a photo. “It’s where the radio used to be,” Cuevas responded.
The details of small-claims cases are often laid out in excruciating detail, giving plaintiffs a few minutes to explain why they think they’ve been ripped off.
With the closure of the King City courthouse on Sept. 23, the calendars of the three other county courthouses – in Salinas, Marina and Monterey – are under pressure to pack in more cases.
“With the same amount of filings, you have to do the same amount of work with fewer employees,” Monterey County Superior Court Presiding Judge Marla Anderson says.
Labor accounts for 79 percent of the county courts’ $21-million budget, which is now facing its sixth consecutive year of cuts. Countywide, the court system has reduced its workforce by 52 positions since 2008.
“When you have to cut, you’re cutting the ability to process the work,” Anderson adds. “It’s far more difficult for people to be heard in a timely fashion.”
Almost simultaneous to the King City closure, the civil division in Monterey reduced hours. The file-viewing room is now open only Monday to Wednesday, and it closes those days at 2pm.
State grants continue to fund interpreters for certain hearings, but many people – like Garcia, the car painter – bring a friend or relative to small claims.
“A friend is probably going to be biased,” court interpreter Daniel DeCamp says. “They may say what they thought their mother or father should’ve. They’ll edit, and they’re not supposed to.”
Carl Hall, of the local Pacific Media Workers Guild of the Communications Workers of America union, which represents 900 court interpreters in California, says budget cuts impact not only the interpreters (who are asking for pay raises), but the justice system, too.
“It’s difficult to maintain quality workforces when administrators are constantly attacking pay and benefits,” he says. “These are the people who make the judicial system function.”
MaxRebo5
October 11, 2013
Nice post Unionman. If the Judicial Council was democratic there could be pressure for funds to be redirected from the AOC back to the local level where cases actually takes place. Instead the Chief controls the JC and keeps 1,000 people in high paid positions in SF while communities like Salinas and other average man (no offense intended) communities go without the basic clerks/interpreters/ staff they need to process cases and have normal working hours for cases to be heard. This has to stop. Cut the AOC and redirect those funds to the trial courts. Then the branch will regain credibility with the Legislature and Governor as truly having taken it’s medicine.
Ron George’s empire of 1,000 AOC workers is simply a luxury CA communities and taxpayers can’t afford and it isn’t working well either. Most of the AOC staff have little to do with processing cases or adding to the branch budget. Trial court judges should know this by now and demand real reforms like they did when comments were opened for the SEC Report (which was shelved).
I think many of the judges of CA are silent for now as they want to get some of the court construction money. Once that pot is spent then there could be a chance for real reform of the branch’s top heavy admin in SF. Till then, too many courts have hopes of new courthouses to rock the boat.
Last comment, how come it is always the same people running the courts but they move around so much? Steve Nash was the AOC finance man, San Bernadino’s exec and now Contra Costa. I think by moving around they avoid having to live with the consequences of their failed policies.
unionman575
October 12, 2013
It’s who you know, who you blow.
😉
Guest
October 14, 2013
Nash is an old school “administrator” who bails an organization when the going gets tough. He left the AOC at the height of the fall. Now he leaves San Bernardino right before their fall because he didn’t know how to fix their problems. Nash is a typical CFO who knows how to count money and give advice. But has no clue how to actually lead an organization that has budget problems. Conveniently he finds another landing spot in Contra Costa. What they will find in San Bernardino in Hash’s wake is that he was liked by no one other than the judges. The line staff never saw him and his managers found out right away that if he wasn’t talking money he would nod off in meetings after telling them to handle it. Maybe the blindsided judges in San Bernardino will now see the real Stephen Nash. Good luck to their next CEO who will have to deal with what Nash didn’t do in his short time there. Buckle up Contra Costa.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 14, 2013
This says it all.
http://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2011/06/15/aoc-director-under-fire-takes-a-ceo-job-in-san-bernardino/
unionman575
October 11, 2013
http://www.modbee.com/2013/10/09/2967112/lots-of-debts-to-pay-as-modesto.html
Scroll down and read the part about courthouse parcels
“The city is planning to acquire all the land on that 10th Street block on the state’s behalf as part of a complicated deal to build the courthouse there.”
Judicial Council Watcher
October 11, 2013
Who will be enriched by the complicated deal? We’ve been whispered several unconfirmed reports via our private message window about this land transaction being a game of three card monty with the citizens of modesto as well as California taxpayers enriching a few insiders.Already the “realtor” consultant is off the job because they don’t have a real estate license and we’re told there is more.
unionman575
October 11, 2013
There is more.
😉
unionman575
October 11, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23785.htm
Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator, RFP # HR-2013-01-RB
The purpose of this RFP is to identify and retain a qualified Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator that can provide claims’ handling administration and expertise for the Judicial Branch Workers’ Compensation Program.
Questions should be directed to solicitations@jud.ca.gov by October 29, 2013.
Proposals must be received by no later than December 2, 2013, 1:00 P.M. (Pacific Time).
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden – RFP# HR-2013-01-RB
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Further details regarding the solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP and related documents provided, below:
unionman575
October 13, 2013
Long Beach on my mind again…
http://lbpost.com/place/design/2000002850-are-public-private-partnerships-becoming-false-advertisements
COMMENTARY COUNTY COURT
Are Public-Private Partnerships Becoming False Advertisements?
Amidst much brouhaha last week, the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse opened in Long Beach, formally replacing the dilapidated mid-mod 1958 courthouse on Ocean Boulevard.
People are—rightfully so to an extent—quite happy: it looks more like an art museum than a place to face criminal activity. And even more, the project was a much-touted public-private partnership (P3)—basically a single contract between a private firm and the government—for the cool cost of $395M. Then why would a nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor, the Legislative Analyst’s Office of California, release a report stating that the actual cost is $490M? And are P3s not as bright and shiny as they appear to be—and more importantly, pillage our wallets instead of saving us a little bit?
According to an article in The Recorder which referenced the report, “The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) used skewed assumptions to justify building the new Long Beach courthouse under an untested public-private financing scheme.”
Last I checked, “skewed assumptions” and “financing schemes” are not the best way to describe one of the state’s two largest P3 projects, with the other being San Francisco’s Presidio Parkway Transportation Project by Caltrans. And the report is no less minced in its wording: it indicates that AOC and Caltrans have not aligned their projects with the best P3 practices that research has indicated, including transparency and castigating other procurement options—such as a design-bid-build approach—in such a bad light that a P3 approach was perpetually favored.
As stated on the site of the Judicial Branch of California, the private company must “cover all risks related to design and construction–such as any additional work needed to pass building code agency reviews and receive permits, any costs related to construction delays, and even latent defects in the architectural or engineering design.”
Put simply: a private firm designs and builds it while receiving a yearly state fee to manage it. In direct numbers, that amounts to a 35-year lease to the private firm with the state handing over a staggering $2.3B in return over the course of the lease if inflation continues at the rate it is currently at. This isn’t to mention the cost that the City of Long Beach will be shouldering to transfer inmates via van since it will no longer have a tunnel connecting the Police Department to the new courthouse. That is going to cost $279,000 to start up and a current-day cost of $243,000 per year to operate. The additional costs for transferring inmates is nothing new: 5th District Councilmember Gerrie Schipske brought up the fact that a tunnel should have been put into the original bid back in autumn of 2011. On October 4 of that year, Councilmembers Gary DeLong, Robert Garcia, Patrick O’Donnell and Dee Andrews supported the city paying $1 million in start-up costs for the tunnel (which was estimated by the City to cost somewhere between $7M and $10M).
The report goes onto state a very basic point: California taxpayers have overpaid for two infrastructure projects—risks that Susan Fainstein pointed out in 2008 when she noted that P3s all have “a striking physical similarity among the schemes and also a convergence embodied in private-sector involvement and market orientation.” In more succinct terms: a market-led approach to city planning that has led to disaster is some places, most prominently the Ørestad project in Copenhagen.
So what are we to precisely do when we need massive, essential infrastructure upgrades—the new courthouse is expected to be able to handle tens of thousands of more people per month in addition to streamlining processes—but face dire economic constraints?
The LAO report suggests not abandoning the idea entirely but codifying four major alterations through the legislature: One, write into state law specific criteria surrounding P3 project selections; two, require comparisons to other procurement options; three, require the Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission to approve state P3 projects rather than entities like the AOC or Caltrans; and lastly, require the aforementioned commission to hire and use experts in P3, state finance and procurement, while continuing to develop research that would expand the best practices possible for P3 projects.
This not only seems logical, but essential. So only one question remains: Why aren’t we talking about this?
😉
R. Campomadera
October 14, 2013
Because if we talk about it, it will become patently clear just how incompetent the State’s judicial leaders were, and, since many of those same individuals are still in positions of power and calling the shots, still are.
We would then half to seek answers some very difficult questions. First and foremost of which being: shouldn’t those who crafted the projects, approved the projects, sponsored the projects, and continue to obfuscate on the true costs of such projects, be held accountable?
This and other relevant questions are ones that no one in the judicial branch wants to have to deal with. So, we hear nothing but silence.
After a short interval, the public will lose interest in these glaring examples of incompetence (or worse) at the highest level of our state judiciary and will move on to other things. Those responsible will then be able to breath a sigh of relief and have their sense of invulnerability and awesome power once again validated and strengthened.
And so it goes… .
R. Campomadera
October 14, 2013
Substitute “half” in the second paragraph with “have”. Lousy proofreading.