SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The ghost of fiascos past was awakened when a justice reported in late summer that California's court bureaucracy in a time of great financial hardship had spent $156 million on information technology contracts. This week the head information officer for the courts tried to lay that ghost back down, saying the figures had been "misunderstood."
The controversy stems from a report presented in August to the full Judicial Council by Justice Richard Huffman, chair of the council's Accountability and Efficiency Committee. The report showed with tables and charts that the bureaucracy, formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, has spent $146 million for information systems consultants and roughly $10 million for IT consultants in the last fiscal year.
At a meeting of the Judicial Council's Technology Committee, Chief Information Officer Mark Dusman dismissed the report as news that "drew a lot of oohs and ahs." He then made a cursory bullet point presentation, claiming that the true number spent on tech contracts last year was only $12.6 million, less than one tenth of what Justice Huffman had reported.
Dusman said the biggest share of the $12.6 million was spent for work on the now-defunct Court Case Management System, a software described by judges as a "fiasco" and a "boondoggle" which cost the state a half-billion dollars and which at its peak was running through $200,000 a day.
The current Technology Committee was formerly called the CCMS Internal Committee, and many committee members carried over, including its chair, Judge James Herman.
Justice Huffman, who in August reported the $156 million expense, is on the accountability committee. He was not present at Monday's tech committee meeting.
"It is sad but predictable that the committee has chosen to ignore the findings of Justice Huffman, a man who was the longest serving Council member in history, and a person we all know to be intimately and completely knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Council and their staff," said Judge Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento.
Gilliard is a director of the 500-member Alliance of California Judges. The group has attacked the court bureaucracy's obfuscation over staffing figures and expenses, saying the agency has in the past hidden its contract figures to make it look like they employ fewer people and spend less on wages than they actually do.
In past years, the bureaucracy has stonewalled judges' requests for information on technology contractors and the work they are hired to do. That criticism from fellow judges led Huffman's committee to examine those contracts and conclude that the bureaucracy, now called the Judicial Council staff, had spent $156 million on technology contracts last year.
"Even a longterm insider of the Judicial Council can't get a solid number," said Gilliard. "Committees disagree with committees, all populated by handpicked members. This is a why an outside audit is absolutely essential. It was the only way the truth about CCMS finally came out."
Earlier this year, at the urging of the Alliance, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an audit of the Judicial Council and its staff, an audit resisted by council staff director Steve Jahr who has since retired. The audit is due to completed in January.
Follow @MariaDinzeo
