State court deal nears $2 billion

An effort to create a centralized computer system for California's state courts, originally conceived as a modest upgrade in a few counties, now faces total costs approaching $2 billion and is years away from large-scale implementation, an investigation by The Bee has found.

The project has ballooned in scope and costs since its 2001 inception without the scrutiny other state computer systems face because the state Administrative Office of the Courts is not bound by the same project review requirements.

Amid California's budget crunch, which has closed state courts one day a month, the computer project jumped into the spotlight. A state Assembly committee will hold a hearing this week to review overall spending growth at the courts' administrative office. The governor's technology watchdog also is evaluating the computer project.

"We're shutting down courts so we can have a … computer system," said Dan Goldstein, a San Diego Superior Court judge. "There's no reason to build empty courthouses with vast new computer systems."

The man leading the push for the system is Ronald George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court since 1996. The computer project is integral to his decade-long effort to shift control of the courts from counties to the state.

"When I became chief justice it became apparent to me that we weren't really functioning as a judicial branch in anything but name," George said.

Allowing courts to interact online made perfect sense. But the technology upgrade stalled in the hands of a failing company and then lumbered along, while costs mounted, leaving George increasingly fielding questions about how sensible that plan really was.

Past computer woes

State government history is littered with computer projects that came in over budget and under expectation.

The Department of Education just launched a system to track student data, for instance, with a budget of at least $42.6 million, including some ongoing costs – more than triple its original $14.4 million estimate. Already, users are reporting problems.

Like other executive branch departments, the Education Department had to run its technology project past the governor's watchdog, the state's chief information officer, completing a feasibility study upfront and filing reports along the way.

Because the Administrative Office of the Courts is part of a separate, judicial branch, it has no such requirement. In fact, decisions ultimately lie largely with the Judicial Council, headed by the chief justice, who appoints 14 of 21 voting members.

Five years ago, the state Legislative Analyst's Office criticized the court administrators for moving forward with plans to expand the computer system statewide despite inadequate oversight and analysis.

Noting in its evaluation of the 2004-05 budget bill that the courts' administrative office was unable to provide cost estimates for various phases of the project, the legislative analyst said that "places the courts at greater risk for cost overruns, and delays for lack of adequate funding to complete the projects."

In response, the courts' administrative office provided a budget indicating that the system would cost $260.2 million through 2008-09.

By the end of 2008-09, however, $394 million already had been spent, an increase that court administrators attributed to added features.

For weeks, The Bee asked the Administrative Office of the Courts for cost estimates at junctures where critical decisions were made about the system. Spokesman Philip Carrizosa said none existed.

Now, the office estimates that the full state rollout will cost $1.3 billion more, including some ongoing costs. But even that figure doesn't include the full amount local courts and law enforcement agencies must pay for additional hardware and training.

The six courts currently running early versions of the system report spending about $36 million in local funds not included in the courts office's current figures.

With 58 counties' courts slated to install the system, plus law enforcement and other agencies, local spending could amount to hundreds of millions of additional dollars – pushing the final price tag over $2 billion.