I

IMPLEMENTING AN AUTOMATED CASHIERING

SYSTEM IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY:

A CASE STUDY

____

Presented to:
THE INSTITUTE FOR C O U R T MANAGEMENT OF

THE N A T I O N A L C E N T E R FOR STATE C O U R T S

to satisfy r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e

COURT EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Robert J. S t e i n e r
C o u r t Administrator
Plalibu Municipal Court
June

1985
,

- 1 -

"Traffic ,Ticket 'Fix' In Clerk's Office Probed by County"

-_- Los Angeles Daily Journal - 7-16-82
"2 L.B.

court clerks charged with accepting bribes to fix tickets"

Independent-Press Telegram - 9-27-03

---

"Probe of Court Computer System Ordered in Bribe Case"

-..-Los Angeles Times - 10-12-83

"The Auditor-Controller and Director of Data Processing (are ordered) t o

review the system controls over the automated traffic citation controls
system, make any needed changes, and report back t o the Board in 30
days"
--- 'Board Order' from Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors
"Modular construction insuring that your MICROS Cash Management System
will fit your needs today and it will grow w i t h your business tomorrow,
You can even link MICROS to a central computer."
Sales brochure from cash register manufacturer
-&I

THE PROBLEM:

Could an automated cashiering system help the Municipal

Courts in Los Angeles County solve cash handling problems

that had caused negative publicity? What are the security
concerns of such a system?
savings from such a system?

Are there any potential for

What difficulties might be

involved in planning and implementing such a system?

can be learned from the implementation?

an attempt

to

What

This project is

provide the answers t o these questions and

to provide some suggestions f o r future projects of this

'

-2-

type.

The project is in actuality a case study of the

implementation of an automated cashiering system for the

municipal' courts in Los Angeles County.

The methodology

of the case study involved:

o
o

o
o
'

o
o

Introduction and background to the project and

the courts in Los Angeles County.
Documentation of the current system of handling
records and payments.
A case tracking study of 100 cases where fines
were paid, to document the need for the system..
Analysis of problems encountered with
implementing other major automated systems in
the courts in the county.
Post-Implementation audit of the Expanded
Traffic Records System.
Interview with principal manager involved
in implementing the Municipal Court ,
Information System.
Review and recreation o f the steps taken in t h e
implementation of an automated cashiering system
in the county.
Findings and conclusions.

THE SCOPE:
In'order to better understand the issues and complexity of
implementing any major system in Los Angeles County it is
first necessary to have some background on the California
court system; L o s Angeles County; the various Municipal
Court District in L o s Angeles County and how they relate

to one another.

It is a l s o important to understand the

complexity of the revenue distribution requirements and

h o w they are currently handled.

MUNICIPAL COURTS IN CALIFORNIA:

The Municipal Courts in California are courts of limited

jurisdiction.

Briefly they have exclusive jurisdiction

-3-

over all misdemeanor violations (maximum of one year in

county

jail

and/or

$1,000.00 f i n e )

and

al'l traffic

infractions (maximum $100.00 fine), except for juvenile

violations, that occur within the geographic boundaries of
the district.

They also conduct Preliminary Hearings' for

felony matters to determine i f probable cause exists f o r a

person to stand trial in the Superior Court (the general
jurisdiction court in California).

Municipal Courts also

exercise jurisdiction over civil lawsuits in which the

amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000.00.~andSmall
Claims Court which involve cases of $1,500.00 o y , l e s s .
SEE FIGURE I.

The Constitution of the State of California requires that

the S t a t e Legislature prescribe for the Municipal Courts,
and they have done so in prescribing jurisdiction; the
number of judges and staff; and the salaries and benefits
of

the

judges

prescribed

and

staff.

The

legislature has

that the local counties shall pay

expenses of the courts within each c o u n t y .

for

also

the

The Municipal

Courts are therefore a step-child of the State and often a

thorn in the side of the local Board of Supervisor's which
a c t as a combined legislative and executive branch to

administer county government.

The Courts of California are administered by the Judicial

Council (chaired by t h e Chief J u s t i c e of t h e S t a t e Supreme

- 4 -

I '

FIGURE
,

C A L I F O R N I A

,-

C O U R T

S T R U C T U R E

1 Chief Justice
6 k m c i a t e Juti.ces

COURTS OF APPEAL

5 Districts
I

FIRST
DISTRICT
san prancisco
16 Justices

SECOND
DISTRICT
L13s Angeles
28 Justices

FOURTH
DISTRICT
SUID i e g o
san Fkrnardino

THIRD
DISTRICT
sacrmento
7 Justices

FIFTH
DISTRICT

rresllo

aJUS~~C~S

14 Justices

G=l
TRIAL

SUPERIOR COURTS

8 in t h e s t a t e ( m e for ead
wunty) w i t h over 654 ydgc
JLmsnlcT10N

Civil-

mer

s15,ooo

CriminalFelonies
AppealsGo to D i s t r i c t Caurt of
~Q
a mE
icaZ
ble L
to the
I

district

MUNICIPAL

COURTS

COURTS

85 in the state
w i t h over 510 judges
~SDICTICBO
CivilOver $15,000 or lw
smdll Claims$1,500 or less

criminalPreliminary Hearings
Mkdemanors and
Infractions

ma-Sumnor

cuurt

J U S T I C E COURTS

09 in the state

JURZSDICTION
Civil-

S15,oOO or less
SmU ClaimsS l , 5 0 0 or less

criminalPreliminary Hearings
MiSdCESlOrS

Jrd Infraction

AppedLs-

SuDerior Court

' .-

-5

Court) and its staff known as the Administrative Office of

I-

the Courts (the A.O.C.).

the

Courts

organizes

The Administrative Director of

and

directs

the

The

A.O.C..

authority of the Judicial Council and the A.O.C. over the

Municipal Courts is largely in area of rule making. 'They
also provide some technical and statistical assistance t o
the

courts if

Council or

the

they

are asked.

A.O.C.

take any

Neither
active

the Judicial

part

the

in

administration of any of the trial courts in the state.

Judges of the Municipal Courts are elected by the ,voters

of the district for six-year texms, any vacancies in a
judicial office awe filled by the Governor to fulfill the
unexpired terms. They must have been admitted to the
California Bar for at least five years before election o r
appointment to office.
-

Many districts a l s o employ Court

Commissioners to perform many subordinate judicial duties.

These Commissioners must have the same qualifications the
law requires o f

a judge and can perform most o f

functions of a judge.

the

Commissioners are appointed by and

serve at t h e pleasure of the the judge or judges o f the

district .

Each Municipal Court has a Clerk of Court who in most

cases also acts a s the Court Administrator.

The Clerk or

Court Administrator is appointed by the judge or judges of

the district. The duties of the Clerk/Court Administrator

-6-

axe varied, they include:

Financial administration of the

court, including; budget preparation .and administration,

accounting and auditing.

Administration of the court

staff services, including; hiring, assignment, evaluation,

training

and

discipline of all non-judicial personnel

employed by the court.

Administration of requirements

concerning the ,court records, information systems and

. 4 ,

statistical compilations and

controls.

Management and

acquisition o f court facilities and equipment.

Assisting

the presiding judge with the court's calendar management.

And maintaining liaison with public and private 'agencies

..

and persons concerned with the court.

MUNICIPAL COURTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY:

The County of Los Angeles is a county of 7,781,109 people
and covers an area of 4,083.21 square miles.
,-

There are 8 4

incorporated cities in the county and some vast areas of

unincorporated land.

Out of these cities 83 are served by

the municipal court districts in Los Angeles County.

There are twenty-four municipal court districts in the

county,

holding court sessions in thirty-six different

buildings

throughout the county.

See Figure 11. Each

district is an independent and autonomous district, with

i t s o m judges and staffs.

The courts range in size from

small courts in the outlying areas w i t h one or two judges

to a large urban court (the Los Angeles Municipal Court

-8-

with

District.)

seventy-four

judges

and

Staffs of the v a r i o u s

commissioners.

twenty

court

courts 'vary from

in the smaller districts

approximately

twenty

to

over

eight hundred

in the Los Angeles Judicial District.

See

Table I f o r a comparison of the' courts.

TABLE I

DISTRICT

Alhambra
Antelope
Beverly H i l l s
Burbank
Citrus
Comp t on
Culver
Downey
East Los Angeles
Glendale
Inglewood
Long Beach
Lo3 Angeles
Lo6 Cerritos
Malibu
Newhall
Pasadena
Pomona
R i o Hondo
Santa Anita
Santa Monica
South Bay
South e a s t
Whittier

TOTAL

COMMIS S IONERS

STAFF

CITIES

29

21
36

2
2

2
7

0
1
i
2

22

1
7

1
1

JUDGES

3
3
3

48

REVENUE*
$

3.3
2.8
10.1
2.4

7.9
7.9

65
20
36
37

4
1
3
2

3.0

5.1
5.0

5
4

34

4.8

3
3

56
71
849

5.6
9.7.
95.9
6.1
2.4

- 6
9
74

20

3
1

2
1

30

3
4

21
32

4
1
3
7

5
3'
0

19

2
2
2
2
1

2
2

37
16

5
4
4

39
62

11

41

4.3

3.9
3.8
4.8
2.2
7.1
9.6
5.8

li

2
-

60
31

7
4

165

59

1,747

83

4.7
$218.3

In m i l l i o n s f o r year of 1984

These twenty-four courts process m o r e

criminal

and

civil

cases

million parking citations.

each

year,

than 2.5 million

plus

another

3.4

-9-

The combined annual budgets of the municipal courts in the

county is $86,250,632.

The courts .collect revenue for

city, county and state government that was approximately

1984.

$218,300,000 in the year of

Collection o f

amount o f revenue is an ever increasing problem.

is distributed to more

than

270

different

this

Revenue

funds and

receipting for and accounting for this revenue i s a time

consuming, l a b o r intensive effort.

Since the passage 'of

Proposition 13 (a property tax limitation initiative) by

the

of

voters

California

in

1978,

local

and

state

officials have realized that the courts provide a ,source

for

additional revenue

approval.

that

not

does

require

voter

In the ensuing years the legislature has added

various "assessments", "surcharges" and other types of

"user fees". -

Each and every fine o r forfeiture collected by the courts

must be allocated to some f u n d .

Which fund the money goes

to is determined by a number of factors such a s type of

violation
ordinance);

(e.&.

Vehicle

location

of

Code,

Penal

violation

Code,

(which

local

city

or

unincorporated area); and arresting agency (local Police,

etc.).
State Highway Patrol, County Sheriff, -

Depending on

the type of violation additional charges may b e added to

the base fine to be deposited into other funds.
additional

charges,

usually

referred

to

as

These
penalty

assessments or surcharges are specifically earmarked f o r

..

..

- 7-

-10-

,-

s p e c i a l 'programs.

See

Table

IT for an example of a

p o s s i b l e revenue distribution.

TABLE I1
Sample of revenue d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r minimum f i n e
f o r a d r i v i n g under t h e i n f l u e n c e charge.

Sample A: Arrest made i n t h e C i t y of Long Beach by t h e l o c a l

P o l i c e Department.
$390.00
BASIC FINE
$ 20.00
TO: R e s t i t u t i o n Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
50.00
Alcohol Program Fund
50.00
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
232.20
County General Fund
37.80
$2 74.00
ASSESSMENTS
1.00
TO : Night Court
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
To S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
195.00
$664.00
TOTAL DUE
'

Sample B: Arrest made i n t h e C i t y of Long Beach by t h e

C a l i f o r n i a Highway P a t r o l .
$390.00
BAS IC FINE
$ 20.00
TO : R e s t i t u t i o n Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
50.00
Alcohol Program Fund
50.00
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
135.00
Countv Road Fund
135.00
$274.00
ASSESSMENTS
1.00
TO : Night Court
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
Criminal J u s t i c e C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
To S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
195.00
$664.00
TOTAL DUE
Sample C: Arrest made in a n u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a r e a by the
County S h e r i f f .
$390.00
BAS I C FINE
$ 20.00
TO : R e s t i t u t i o n Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
50.00
Alcohol Program Fund
50.00
County Road Fund
270.00
$274.00
AS s ES SMENTSTO: Night Court
1.00
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
39.00
To S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
195.00
TOTAL DUE
$664.00

11

The amount of money that must be distributed to each city

differs from city to city, In Sample A the City of Long

Beach is'entitled to 86% and the County the remaining 1 4 % .

In order to make the accounting simpler for the clerk

collecting the fine the amounts f o r the Lab Services Fund;
Alcohol Program Fund; and the City and County shares are
collected

lump some.

together in one

The accounting

division makes the proper adjustments at the end of each

month;

The

amounts

collected

for

the

Courthouse

Construction Fund; Criminal Justice Construction Fund and

the amount that goes to the State are handled in the same
manner.

The amount that each city is entitled to is

primarily set out in section 1463 of the State Penal Code.

SEE APPENDIX A .

This section applies to the majority of

all revenue distributions including Vehicle Code, Penal

Code, and local ordinances.

There are various other miscellaneous codes and ordinances

that
11

their

have

exceptions"

unique

own

represent

some

of

distributions.
the

more

These

complicated

distributions and are areas where more mistakes are made

by cashiers.

More mistakes occur simply because some of

these distributions occur s o rarely that most cashiers may

not even be aware of them.
of

these

create

special

Some of the more interesting

distributions

for violations

involving the Prophylactics Law; Outdoor Advertising A c t ;

Rabies Control; Littering; Fish & Game Code; and Off-Road

Vehicles', just t o 'name a few.

12

These sections and others

are set o u t in t h e State Controller's .Manual of 'Accounting

f o r Municipal and Justice Courts. SEE APPENDIX B.

The defendant may a l s o be required to reimburse the County

for additional fees such as: Appointed Counsel; C o s t s of
Incarceration; or Costs of Probation.

These additional

fees compound the revenue distribution p r o b l e m ,

When a defendant does nor pay the entire fine in one . '
payment

most

judges

allow

the

fine

to

be

paid

installments, in amounts the defendant can afford;

in
Each

fund is credited on a priority basis established by the

State Controller.

Payments a r e credited t o

each fund

until the amount in that fund is equal to the amount due

that fund, additional payments then go to the next fund in
the priority. See Table 111.

13

.-

TABLE I11
I-

'

..

.Priority of revenue distribution, .using information

from Table I, Sample A, and assuming a monthly
payment of $50.00.

Payment

Amount

'

Fund
Restitution Fund
Night Court
Assessments
Assessments
Assessments
Assessments
Assessments
Assessments
Fine .
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine
Fine

$20.00
1.00

29.00
,

50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00

44.00
6.00

7
8
9
10

50.00

11
12

50.00
50.00
50.00
14.00

13
14

50.00
50.00

50.00

Fine

During the past session of the legislature the problem was'

further complicated by a bill requiring proration o f fines

..

where time payments were allowed.

The State Controller's

office was

devise

implementing

mandated
this

by

law.

law

to

SEE

APPENDIX

method

for

C.

Under

the

Controller's new method it is no longer possible to group

certain categories for later distribution.

See Table IV

f o r an example o f a possible revenue distribution under

*this requirement.

-14-

TABLE IV
P r o r a t i o n u s i n g same i n f o r m a t i o n as i n T a b l e I11

,-.
Payment

Amount

Fund

$20.00
1.00
9.09
10.80
9.11
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15
18.00
7.19
9.66
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15
18.00
6.64
10.21
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15
18.00
11.94
4.91
15.15
18.00
16.85
15.15

R e s t i t u t i o n Fund
Night Court
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Lab S e r v i c e s Fund
Alcohol Program Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
A l c o h o l Program Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Alcohol Program Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Alcohol Program Fund
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Courthouse C o n s t r u c t i o n Fund
Criminal J u s t i c e Construction
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Criminal J u s t i c e Construction
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Criminal J u s t i c e Construction
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
Criminal J u s t i c e Construction
County G e n e r a l Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
County G e n e r a l Fund
S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a
C i t y T r a f f i c S a f e t y Fund
County General Fund

10
11

18.00
12

13

14

16.85
15.15
18.00
-39
16.46
15.15
18.00
16.85
4.11
5.40
4.49

Fund

Fund
Fund
Fund

This

legislative change is typical of

changes that take place each year.

15 -

the number of

The j o b of educating

employees t o keep abreast of these changes is a continual

cycle.

Often the rules change every year and sometimes

even during the middle of the year.

_...

Two examples of these

changes have been the changes in the Assessment Fund and

'

the Alcohol Program Fund.

The

Assessment

Fund

(originally

called

Penalty

Assessments) is a state mandated fund that goes to pay for

various things, such as: Driver training in the public
schools; peace officer and correction officer training;
victim

and witness

courthouses

and

reimbursement; and construction of

criminal justice

facilities.

Penalty

Assessments originated in 1935 and originally provided for

an additional assessment o f $1.00 for each fine of $20.00

or fraction thereof.
$2.00,
$4.00

In 1962 the amount was increased to

it was increased again in 1 9 6 7 to $3.00 then to

in 1969 and then to $5.00 in 1974.

In 1 9 8 0 the

sections dealing with Penalty Assessments was rewritten

and completely reorganized. A s a result effective January
1, 1 9 8 1 the Assessment Fund was created and the amount of

the assessment was

$3.00

for each fine of $10.00

or

fraction thereof. On June 2 8 , 1 9 8 1 as a result of urgency

legislation the amount became

$4.00 for each $10.00.

Effective January 1 , 1 9 8 2 two additional increments of

$1.00

were

added

to

fund Courthouse Construction and

C r i m i n a l Justice Facilities.
,-

effect meant

that

16 -

A s a result the practical

the assessment

was now

$6.00.

On

January , .1984 the essential assessment became $7.00 for

each $10.00 of fine. All of these changes causes problems

for

training

and

of

supervision

personnel.

It

is

especially difficult to train people to remember all the

operative dates of the changes when they are handling o l d
cases.

Many times fines and assessments are collected on

cases that are years old and the clerks must know what are
the proper amount o f assessments to collect.

The second example is that o f the Alcohol Program Fund.

This is a $50.00 assessment for all violations of driving
under the influence. The funds go
county has

to

aid

those

with

to

finance programs the

alcohol problems.

The

difficulty with this fund has been the changes in the

manner

it is collected.

The original law effective in

1981 provided that the $ 5 0 . 0 0 was b a s e d on the CONVICTION

of

the

charge.

This

meant

that

record

of

all

convictions is kept then at the end of each month, $ 5 0 . 0 0

for each of these convictions would be deducted from each

cities share of fines.

This occurred in all cases even in

those where the defendant never paid a fine.

In 1984 the

method was changed to be only in those cases where a fine

was

collected.

Effective January 1985 the method

changed back to t h e original method.

was

This h a s caused much

confusion among cashiers in which cases to collect the

,-

17

fund and which cases the money i s accounted f o r on a

monthly b a s i s .

The above formulas and problems are admittedly complex and

difficult t o understand, but have been included for a
better

understanding

of the issues involved in

this

project.

CURRENT ACCOUNTING METHODS:

The courts currently handle this revenue by basically

All of the courts own electronic cash

manual methods.

registers, but in terms of their usage their application

is simply for control purposes and receipt issuance.
I
0

I -

only real memory these machines have is the ability to

accumulate totals.
are

.-

The

done

The rest of the accounting functions

entirely

by

manual

methods.

The

cashier

collecting a payment must examine each file and make an

intelligent and informed decision a b o u t how the revenue
should

be

distributed.

Some

of

the

things

to

be

considered are: where was the arrest made; what agency

made the arrest; what ordinance or code was v i o l a t e d ; have
any other payments previously been made and if s o how were

they distributed.

This situation often leads t o errors,

either due to the ability of the individual cashier; lack

of

attention;

inadequate training; or

other

"people"

related problems. At the end of each day totals are taken

from the cash register and transferred by t h e accounting

If errors in

section'to various spreadsheets and ledgers.

distributions are
accounting f o r

discovered

notice

are

18

forwarded to

the proper adjustments to be made. A s

adjustments are made to the various funds during the

month, they are credited or debited to these spreadsheets
and ledgers, A t the end of each month the bookkeeper then
totals each of the revenue categories ( p l u s or minus and
adjustments) f o r final distribution to each jurisdiction.
Each of

these

manual procedures invite a variety

of

possible errors.

sample of misdemeanor cases in the Malibu Municipal

Court resulted in the following findings.

Out:

of

one

hundred cases sampled there were a total of twenty-four

errors involving the initial revenue distribution. SEE

TABLE V.

Of these twenty-four errors thirteen in some way

involved the Alcohol Program Fund, either in collecting o r

failing t o collect it for appropriate cases.
the priority of distribution was incorrect.

In two cases
The other

nine cases involved incorrect distributions t o various

other funds with no particular pattern.

The cases were

sampled

docket

by

taking

random

groups

of

sheets

representing cases

where

fines were collected over

period of months.

Within each group of dockets every

fifth case was examined to determine if there were any

errors.

The types of c a s e s involved in this sample were

misdemeanor cases, admittedly the most complex.

Traffic

- -

r.

19

or parking citations would be less complicated with fewer

..

errors likely.

But i f this pattern o f errors was likely

to occur countywide the potential impact on the various

revenue

accounts could be

very

sizeable.

With

over

$200,000,000 in collections even a five percent error

factor involves over $10,000,000.

TABLE V
Errors i n revenue d i s t r i b u t i o n s a t Malibu Municipal Court
.

TOTAL CASES
Cases w i t h zero errors
Cases w i t h one error per case
Cases w i t h two errors per case

100
76
23
1

* .. . *
...

CURRENT AUTOMATION IN THE COUNTY:

The courts in the county currently have a fully automated
system for processing its traffic records.
the
II

"Expanded

online"

Traffic

Records

System"

This system,
(ETRS)

is

an

countywide data base which currently.holds more

than 3,000,000 records and has a monthly

transaction

volume of 1,100,000. The system provides for full case

tracking and disposition of all records.

In addition ETRS

calculates bail for each violation according to a built in

bail schedule, The Los Angeles County Auditor-Controllers
Office recently completed an audit of ETRS.

In their

audit they made some forty-three recommendations t o "clean

up'' or improve the system.
o

The major findings were:

C o n t r o l over access to the ETRS security

function is not adequate.

. .

. .

I '-

20

User ID and password security can be improved.

-Computer assisted audit trails for ETRS

transactions should be enhanced.

0
.

Procedures for t h e use of system output reports

are not adequate.

System edits improperly allow numerous types on

invalid transactions t o be accepted.

System interfaces w i t h Automated Want/Warrant

System and the State Department of Motor
Vehicles can be improved.

System and program documentation is not in

compliance with Data Processing Departnient
standards.

I n the opinion of the Auditor ETRS was.performing its

designed objectives but it still had some serious problems

or at least the potential for problems.
implemented in t h e
completed

in

1984

implementation.

ETRS was f i r s t

Spring of 1981 and

a

SEE

full

three

APPENDIX

D.

the audit was

years

after

Many

of

its

the

recommendations are planned to b e implemented with the

proposed automated accounting system.

Currently

under

development

is

another

system,

the

"Municipal Court Information System" (MCI) which will be

an "online" case tracking and docketing system, f o r a l l
misdemeanor and felony

cases.

MCI is currently being

tested in five " p i l o t " courts and should be expanded to

t h e r e s t of the county before t h e end of this year.

__ .

..

.. -

21

When a payment f o r a b a 1 o r f i n e i s t a k e n on a c a s e i n

ETRS o r t h o s e t h a t w i l l be i n M C I , t h e c l e r k must f i r s t
a c c e s s t h e p r o p e r d a t a b a s e t o determine t h e amount due.
The c l e r k t h e n r i n g s t h e p r o p e r amounts, d i s t r i b u t e d t o
t h e p r o p e r funds i n t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r .

A t some l a t e r t i m e

a n o t h e r c l e r k must a c c e s s t h e p r o p e r d a t a b a s e and u p d a t e
to file.

Because of t h e volume of c a s e s t h i s u p d a t i n g i s

o f t e n done l a t e o r i n c o r r e c t l y o r maybe even n o t at a l l .

If any of t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s o c c u r , an a r r e s t w a r r a n t may b e

issued i n e r r o r .
..

These c o u l d l e a d t o f a l s e a r r e s t s and

p o s s i b l e l i t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e c o u r t and t h e county.

SECURITY PROBLEMS:

During t h e p a s t few y e a r s many of t h e c o u r t s i n t h e county

have had a problem w i t h t h e f t of funds by employees.

The

c u r r e n t manual systems do l i t t l e t o d i s c o u r a g e t h e f t and

make t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of d e t e c t i o n remote.
vast

majority

of

court

employees

are

Fortunately the
honest

and

hard

working p e o p l e , b u t t h e r e are always e n t r e p r e n e u r s who

w i l l f i n d some a n g l e t o make t h e system work f o r them.
Most p e o p l e a r e o n l y c a u g h t because t h e y g o t c a r e l e s s o r
too greedy.

During t h e p a s t two t o t h r e e y e a r s t h e r e have

been documented c a s e s of t h e f t i n seven o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r

m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s : ALhambra, C i t r u s , Compton, Long Beach,
Los Angeles, Pasadena and S a n t a Monica. The p o s s i b i l i t y of
the same t y p e o f t h i n g s g o i n g on i n t h e o t h e r c o u r t s i s

very high.

22

LOCAL AUTONOMY :
Since each court is independent, each one has its own

presiding judge and I t s own court administrator.

While

all the courts attempt to work together on mutual problems

it is not always possible to obtain 100% cooperation from
a l l twenty-four districts,

This is due in some cases to

stubbornness and resistance to change and in other cases

due to real problems that may be unique to one district
and not to the others.

Given t h i s problem any countywide

policy or program must be flexible enough to meet the

*

.-

needs of all the various courts in the county,

*

' ..--... -

-.

23

..

"The IBM '4700 Finance Communication Syetem devices are small and
modular providing flexibility to design workstations tailored to s u i t
individual operator requirements and applications. Geared to t h e
continual expansion of the financial marketplace, Data Lfne has
chosen to offer a system of IBM products designed to grow right alona
with your operation."
Sales brochure from computer sales company

_-_

Financial
"It
appears after investigation, that
the IBM,
Communication System (4700) can be adapted to service this Court's
need for simple and controlled caeh handling. The 4700 can provide
compatibility with the current county IBM system."
'Policy Paper' from the Loa Angeles
Municipal Court

--

FINDING THE SOLUTION:

Beginning w i t h the obvious problems indicated above and

the mandates of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles
County, Court Administrators in t h e county began to
intensify their efforts t o improve the accounting systems

for the' municipal court districts in the county.

What

most Court Administrators wanted was a cashiering system

that would communicate directly to ETRS and eventually t o

MCI.

The system that was envisioned would determine the

amount

of

money

due,

determine how

it

.was

to be

distributed, and update the file all within the same

transaction. The system would also provide detailed audit
reports for security as well as reports for the accounting
section to simplify the operation at that end.

A small'group

24

of Court Administrators began a search for a

system to accomplish this task,

This "quest" first began

with the vendors of the electronic cash registers who had

stated.that their machines could be used to interface with
the county's

data base.

It soon became apparent that .

these statements were typical salesman type statements and

the expertise and ability of these companies to live up to
c

their billing, was not as advertised.

Since the county

systems are all run on I.B.M. equipment this seemed to be

0

the

next

logical

place

to

look

for

some

technical

-.

assistance as to what products they might offer that could .

begin to solve the problems the courts were having wi.tb.

their cash handling.

The

I.B.M.

salesmen from their

"Government" section were of little help, they knew of no

system

that. could handle the types

situations the courts faced.

of

cash handling

..

Through contacts with other

court districts in the state, it w a s discovered that two

courts in two neighboring counties (Riverside and San
Bernardino) did have an automated cashiering system.

But

after thorough investigation it was decided that because

of the operating system that these counties maintained and

the volumes of records in Los Angeles these other systems
were not feasible for Los Angelea County.

It was

finally suggested that the courts investigate a

product that I.B.M. marketed to its banking customers.

was thought that the I.B.M.

It

4700 Finance Communication

System supported by an L.B.M.

25

software package known as

Advanced.Branch Controller System (ABCS) might meet the

requirements of the courts.

SEE APPENDIX E.

This system

had never been installed in a court environment or any

governmental agency as far as the sales people knew.

demonstration was held for people from the courts and the
County

Department

of

Data

Processing.

After

the

demonstration it was decided t h a t this system would indeed

meet the needs of the courts and that implementation of
the system should proceed as quickly as possibie. This
then

WRS

(MCFS).

the birth of the Municipal Court Finance System

;r\

"This p r o j e c t ' s scope w i l l encompass e v e n t u a l l y a l l revenue r e c e i p t

p o i n t s w i t h i n t h e twenty-four Los Angeles County Municipal Court
districts..,.
( i t ) wi.11 i n t e r f a c e w i t h t h e Expanded Traffic Records
System t o accomplish i n i t i a l l y t h e r e c e i p t of moving b a i l f o r f e i t u r e
monies....
(It) w i l l e v e n t u a l l y expand t o i n c l u d e c o l l e c t i o n of a l l
f i n e s and fees.''
'Concept Paper' f o r Finance Communications
129-84
System

--

26

"The Finance Communications System w i l l be a b l e t o process eqme

Bail-By-Mail, t r a n s a c t i o n s by February 29, 1984."
' P r o j e c t Control Document' f o r Finance
Canrmunicatlons System
1-4-84

"Problems w i t h loading t h e IBM 4700 software are in the p r o c e s s of

being resolved."
e-Minutes of t h e S t e e r i n g Committee
1,-30-86

"In July 1984 t h e B a i l by Mail w i l l come up I n Loa Angelee Metro.

The Cashier f u n c t i o n w i l l come up August 1st. The c u r r e n t p l a n is t o
i n s t a l l prototype equipment i n Long Beach and Glendale on July 2 7 ,
They vi11 have t h e Los Angeles Metro t r a f f i c software t o
1984.
experiment with a t t h a t time.''
Minutes of t h e S t e e r i n g Committee
2-22-84

--

"I, t h e r e f o r e , move t h a t t h e newly formed Ad Hoc Committee (on

Municlpal Courts) atudy the need f o r t h e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and
computerization of t h e Municipal Courts' accounting system and r e p o r t
back t o t h l a Board w i t h i n 90 days."
Motion of Superviaor P e t e Schabarum of t h e
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

---

Coukte t o Supervisor Schabarum'e Motion

7-13-84

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

In order to implement the decision to proceed with the

p r o j e c t two committees were formed.

The first committee

27

was the- Municipal Court Finance System Ad-Hoc Steering

Comittee, this committee was initially made up of court
administrators

and

representatives

from

the

Data

Processing Department (a representative from the County

Auditor-Controllers
committee

was

Office

charged

was

with

later

the

planning and design of the system,

added).

overall

This

evaluation,

The second committee

was the Project Team, this was a committee composed 'of

hands

on

practitioners

who

would

assist

the

Data

Processing Department in the detail design of the system.

The initial meeting of the Ad-Hoc Steering Committee was

9, 1983 with

held on December

this writer named the

At this time the decision was made to

committee chairman.

approach the- problem with various phases.

The phases

were :
0

,...

PHASE I A prototype system at the Los Angeles

-a1
Court's Metro Traffic Divieion. This
prototype to handle only Bail-By-Mail functions
in the court's mail area.
PHASE 11 - Expansion of the prototype to the
public cashier windows at L.A. Metro Traffic.

PHASE I11
Implementation of full cashiering
functions in the Glendale and Long Beach
Municipal Courts on a pilot basis:

PHASE IV Expansion of the full tested system

to the other 21 courts.

Phase I was limited to Bail-By-Mail functions because

these were seen by all parties as the simplest and least
complicated of all functions.
4

They could also be done in

- 28 -

an area-away from the public counter without the pressure

of meeting and handling the public while attempting to

learn a 'new system.

The L.A.

Metro Traffic court was

selected because of its volume of cases where almost any

and all possible case situations were likely to happen.
Metro Traffic was also selected because the Lo8 Angeles
Judicial District serves only two cities thus limiting the

. '.

number

of

revenue

distributions

needed,

therefore

requiring less programing problems for the pilot court.

Phase I1 would take place in the same court with people

already familiar with

the system from Phase

I, thus

increasing the likelihood for success.

Phase

I11 as

planned

will

involve expansion

to

two

"outlying" courts Glendale and Long Beach, it was f e l t

that expansion to these two varied courts with Court
Administrators that were DEDICATED to the project would
a l s o help in the succe88 of the project.

At the first meeting the decision was also made to have

the Data

Processing Department

(DPD) handle

necessary programing responsibilities.

all

the

Since DPD did not

have anyone technically familiar with the ABCS software a

consultant was hired to modify the software to our needs.

- 29 It was also agreed to hire a consulting firm to perform a

I

.
I

systems analysis for all twenty-four judicial districts,

for identification of Phase 11 requirements.

.-.

By

the

of

time

the

second

meeting

of the Steering

Committee held on January 10, 1984 a preliminary Project

Control Document. and a Detail Work Plan had already been
prepared.

Both documents were approved by the committee

with same minor modifications.

PROBLEMS BEGIN:

Since Phase I involved only Bafl-By-Mail which are the

simplest and least complicated transactions, this phase
w a s perceived as requiring relatively little effort.

date of February 29, 1984 was established as the target

date

to be

able to process

Bail-By-Mail".

"at

least

of

one piece

The major issues of concern at this point

were: 1) making the "link" between ABCS and the County's

operating system IMS and 2) a major concern about the
system

being

delivered.

developed

before

the hardware

could be

Many people were concerned that the system

would be "up and running" before I.B.M. could deliver the

equipment

or

the

County

Mechanical

Department

could

perform the work at each site to install the equipment.

.-

Subsequent committee meetings were held on January 30 and

February

22, 1984.

By

the

February

22 meeting

the

- 30

complexity of the ABCS software was becoming evident.

...

It

was not just a few minor modifications to a simple system.

DPD could not even complete the link between ABCS and ETRS
(it would take until September 1984 for the communication

link to be established).

The implementation date for

Bail-By-Mail was now set for July 1, 1984 and Phase 11 was
"very tentatively" set for implementation on August 1,

1984.

By the March 21, 1984 Steering Committee meeting the DPD

Project Manager had received a promotion and moved ,on to
other areas and was replaced by another Project Manager.
The new manager

suffered a

serious

illness requiring

hospitalization soon thereafter and missed more than a

month on the project.

During this period the Project Team

continued to work very hard on the design of the system

.

and the plan for implementation.

DOCUMENTING REQUIREMENTS:
The requirements of Metro Traffic for Phase I were closely
identified by

the staff of the Los Angeles Municipal

Court, the Project Team and the Steering Committee.

requirements

were

reported

Specification document.

in

System

SEE APPENDIX F.

These
Design

The systems

requirements for the next phases were not as easy to

document.
verified

Information would have

from

each

court

to be gathered

district.

Much

of

and
this

31

verification could have been done by the committee o r it'6

staff, but to insure the "absolute" reliability of the
information it was decided that each court district must
be-contacted.

The decision to personally Involve each court in the

project was also made on another basis. By personally
involving each court, they would feel some involvement and
commitment

to

the project, thereby helping

to ensure

success.

questionnaire

with

was

developed

the

assistance of a consultant to gather each court's input.

SEE APPENDIX G.

The questionnaire was divided into the

following categories:
0
0

Description of Cashiering Functions

Description of Flow of Cash through the Court
Daily Reporting of:
Cashier Balancing
Bookkeeping
Revenue Distribution
Audit Reports
Management Control Reports
Internal Control
System Computational Requirements
Fee Distribution Tables

---

0
0
0

In

addition

to

the

questionnaire,

conducted at twelve of the courts.

Interviews

were

Five of these twelve

(Los Angelee, Long Beach, Glendale, Beverly Hills and

South Bay) were interviewed at each court site on a very
detailed b a s i s .

These interviews took at feast one day in

each location to complete, as the entire collection and

accounting function of each location was examined.

The

interviews covered all the material in the questionnaire

' -.

plus

specific

revenue
courts

details

distribution
(Alhambra,

Inglewood, Malibu

of each

were

Citrus,
and

courts

explored.
Compton,

Newhall)

accounting

The

and
seven

Los Angeles,

East

all

other

32

received

on

site

interviews that allowed for personal input and suggestions

by

the various Court Administrators

and staff.

These

interviews were less indepth than the first interviews and

lasted approximately two hours each.

Questionnaires weke

returned from twenty-two of the twenty-four courts.

From
!
I

the

questionnaires

and

interviews

repor$

was

prepared detailing the cashiering requirements for the

next

phases.

SEE

APPENDIX

H.

The

major

systems

requirements identified were:

Input requirements
Security
* Limiting access to the system to only
authorized employees
* Insuring system protected from unauthorized
access from external forces
* Providing for accountability of each
transaction to a specific employee on a
specific terminal

ProcessinR requirements
Pertorxntng automatic revenue distributions
based on tables for each district that could
be-quickly and accurately changed to
accommodate changes in legislation etc.
Accumulating of revenue d i s t r i b u t i o z t a for
Month-to-date or Year-to date reports

.
i

Output requirements
Providing reports to all the various courts
with the ability t o rovide specific reports
for some courts whic may vary from
court-to-court.

I F

33

.-

Cashiering system interface requirements

Interfacing wlth ETRS and MCI

This repdrt also included some specific recommendations,

the major recomnendations and conclusions of the report

.-

were :
0

Revenue distribution
Programming ot revenue distribution tables
should be done according to c o m o n
requirements, but consideration should be
given to individual needs of local courts,
Responsibility for maintaining and updating
tables should be responsibility of DPD and
courts responsible for insuring accuracy of
tables.

.)

Implementation of the IBM 4 7 0 0

Implementing the system in stages as outlined
previously

System communication with the host computer

Linking of ABCS to the County's IMS d ata base
is vital, with technical support the key
Issue. Programmers within DPD should
establish some expertise in ABCS to
facilitate initial programming and
maintenance

Data accumulation capability

Storing data for monthly, quarterly or yearly
reports should be done on the host computer,
then transferred to the 4 7 0 0 syetem when
required

Acceptability of the IBM 4700

System acceptable subject to establishing a
reliable communication "link" and the
continued availability of technical support

DATA PROCESSING SUPPORT:

All during this time period it became apparent that the
major

"stumbling

block"

with

the

project

was

the

complexity of the ABCS software.

Support for the software

seemed to be almost non-existent.

The consultant hired on

.-

a
t-

"time

and

material"

to

do

the

required

modifications for Phase I was doing the progranbing on a

This consultant also had a full time job

part-time' basis,
with
,-

basis

34

providing ABCS

company

During

institutions.

the

software for financial

course

of

the

Phase

programing his company transferred him to North Carolina

so at this point hi6 "expertise" became almost advisory
,-

only while
telephone.

h e worked

with

DPD programmers

over

the

The lack of expertise in the 4 7 0 0 equipment

and the ABCS software at DPD made the project dependant on

i
I C

In order t o ,begin

the work of this part time consultant.

to solve this problem, in May of 1984 a programer from

! -.

DPD was sent to New Jersey to attend an IBM training class

on the 4 7 0 0 .

Again in August 1984 the same programmer

along with a fellow programer went to New Jersey to

attend IBM training on ABCS.

Despite this training the

ability of DPD to establish local expertise in ABCS was

The ability of the DPD programmers to do

not forthcoming.
any
,-

48

sort

of

programming

slow-as-you-go"

developed

the

type

been

programs.

technical

programming j o b s ,

has

knowledge

limited

They

to

have

do

to
not
any

small
yet

major

By October 1984 DPD conceded that they

would be unlikely t o develop enough expertise in ABCS to

do

the programming

for Phase I1 and suggested that we

continue contracting for 4700 program support.

.'

35

Once the' communication link between ABCS and fMS was

eetabliehed (September 1984) actual testing of the system
began.

Two. different deliveries of equipment had been

made, one configuration was set up at the DPD computer

c

center in Downey.
programming

and

The equipment at DPD was used

purposes.

development

configuration of equipment was

Traffic.

Testing

by

during

this

conducted,
encountered.
c

court

set up

personnel

testing

several

The

second

at L.A.

could

for

Metro

now

problems

6e
were

The first and most serious problem was that

of the printers used in the project.

The printers are

required to issue receipts, journal tapes and reports.

There are

two

basic

printers

available

for the 4700

equipment, one printer is the model 4710, it fs a emall

limited use printer which can print a journal and endorse

.-

up to four lines of print of forty-eight characters each.

The second printer I s the model 4720, this 5s a larger
multiple use printer which can print f u l l size documents

with an unlimited number of lines of print of up t o

ninety-nine

characters

each.

The

initial

information

provided from IBM and the consultant indicated that the

4710 printer was not designed to produce reports.

Since

the project invisioned getting multiple audit reports for

security and since many cases might require more than the
four print lines available, the decision was made to go

with the 4720 printer.

During the Phase I system testing

- 36 it was discovered that that the time required for the 4720
printer to produce a receipt was approximately 24 minutes.

This was totally unacceptable to everyone involved because

of a potential time saving system we were now presented

with a system that took more time than the present system.

The Steering Committee directed its staff to reevaluate

the printers.

The staff made the following findings:

4720 Printers
More capable and flexible
Can print reports requirfng a full page
width
Inserting of documents very difficult
Requires-lengthly processing time

4710 Printers
Can produce reports (contrary to previous
information)
E86y to Use
Easy to insert documents
Very fast (reduces time to issue receipts
from minutes to seconds)
Uses less counter space
- Could handle the majority of cases even
with the four lines of print restriction

--

..

With the new information the Steering Committee directed

that f o r future orders, 4710 printers would be placed at
all public counter and all high volume areas.

Each court

would a l s o have at l e a s t one 4720 printer to handle the

cases that had transactions that required more than four
lines

of

print

and

to

handle

some

of

the

more

sophisticated reports that the 4710 might not be able to

handle.

Toward. the end of the year of 1984 the Steering Committee

became more and more frustrated over the slow progress of

the project

due t o what

they perceived

commitment t o t h e p r o j e c t by DPD.

37

as a lack of

The DPD p r o j e c t manager

assigned t o t h e - p r o j e c t was a l s o assigned t o numerous

other p r o j e c t s

for

other

county agencies.

Through a

series of meetings with t h e Director of Data Processing

t h e MCFS p r o j e c t was given a high v i s i b i l i t y and high

priority status.

The p r o j e c t manager was r e l i e v e d of a

majority of his o t h e r p r o j e c t s t o devote more time t o

MCFS ,
I

difficulties

Similar

municipal

court

data

have

been

processing

experienced
projects.

example of t h i s is t h e MCI p r o j e c t ,

i n *other
One

prime

This p r o j e c t f i r s t

began i n 1979 and has s t i l l not been f u l l y implemented

today.

In an interview w i t h Mr. Dominic Polimeni,

the

Court Administrator of t h e Alhambra Municipal Court and

Chairman of

t h e MCI Steering Committee,

issues

brought

were

up

in

relation

to

t h e following
the

delay

in

implementation of MCI:
o
o

o
0

The p r o j e c t was i n i t i a l l y being developed as

a prototype and f a i l e d t o g e t recognition as a
ma j o r sys tern soon enough
The shortage o f DPD programers meant t h a t most
of t h e programming had t o be contracted out t o
private parties.
The cumbersome procedures required f o r
contracting l e d t o delays i n h i r i n g t h e c o n t r a c t
programmers
S a l a r i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r contract p r o rammers were
not high enough t o a t t r a c t q u a l i t y6 programmers
Each c o n t r a c t could not be f o r more than s i x
months and because of t h e delay i n t h e c o n t r a c t
process this o f t e n l e d t o gaps i n t h e c o n t r a c t s .
I n some cases t h e programer had found another
job during t h i s gap.

30

Through January 1985 four different contract

programmers had worked on the project, each
-requiring three or four months to become totally
familiar with the project. More than once this
l e d to a "reinventing the wheel" situation

Mr. Polimeni concedes that if he had it to do over again

he would have put more pressure for better support, on DPD
sooner and stronger. He also stated that he would have
reduced the scale of the project, by implementing it $n
smaller incremental phases.

In February 1985 DPD assigned one person with the overall

responsibility to implement the MCFS and MCI projects.

Each of the projects also had its own project manager

assigned to these projects as a full time assignment.

The

development of both projects has benefited greatly from

this move and both projects have advanced faster than ever

before.

IMPLEMENTATION FINALLY?:
During this same time period another issue arose that led
t o a delay in the implementation

of MCFS Phase 1.

An

updated version of the ABCS software was released by IBK

that

could

take care of some of

discovered in testing.
making

changes

the minor problem8

The decision was made to hold o f f

until

implemented and modified,

the

newer

software

could

be

This new software was received

at the end of A p r i l 1985 and is now in place.

All of the

systems are now in place and as of this date testing is

- 39 I

going an at L.A.

Metro Traffic,

Actual changeover to

production for Phase I "Bail-By-Mail" is now scheduled f o r

July 1, '1985.

Programming support for development of Phases 11, IIX and

IV will be provided by a contract w i t h IBM.

The estimates

for implementation of the next Phases are:

Phase I1
approximately six months after
implementation of Phase I

Phase I11
approximately ten months after
implementation of Phase I1

Phase IV
approximately two months after
implementation of Phase 111
The following is a table for quick reference showing the

major milestones of the project.

TABLE V I
DATE

EVENT

DECISIONS/HIGHLIGHT

1 2 41-83

Planning Meeting

Committees established

12-09-83

let Steering Committee Meeting

Responeibllitieo defined
Implementation plan eetebliehed

01-04-84

Initial Project Control

Document prepared

1-10-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Phase I implementation date

set for 02-29-84

01-30-84

Steering Committee Meeting

DPD Project Hgr promoted 6

reassigned

02-09-84

Initial equipment ordered

by DPD

- 40' 02-22-84

03-21-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Steering Committee Meeting

Phase I implementation dace

now 07-01-84 6 Phase If 08-01-84
Plan discussed to have Phase 11
systems requirements done by an
outside consultant
New Project Mgr
Phase I date (07-01-84) still .
OK, but may need more time
for Phase 11

03-27-84

Design Review Document

prepared

April 84

Project Manager hospitalized

04-1 2-84

Prospective consultants
interviewed for Phase If epece.

04-1 8-84

Steering Committee Meeting

05-0 7-84

DPD programmer attendlng IBM

4700 training in New Jersey

05-08-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Papemork delay In equipment

orders concerns C o d t t e c

Project Mgr back to work

Outside consultant eelected
to do Phasa 11 specs.

05-17-84

Presentation of system given

to Court Administrators & DPD
staff at IBM seminar, San Joae, CA.

05-21-84

Phaee I System Deeign

Specification Document prepared

06-13-84

Specfalmeeting with upper Mgt

from DPD and Chair of Steering
Committee to get more support

06-20-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Addit ional equipment ordered

New Phase I date 09-01-81

07-09-84

2nd meeting with DPD Mgt

07- 18-84

Steering Committee Meeting

08-03-84

3rd Meeting with DPD Mgt

Contract for Phaee I

coneultant extended

nR-13-84
.

41

Two' DPD programmers attending

IBH training in New Jersey

08-15-84 Steering Committee Meeting

Phase 11 consultant gives

presentation RE: deliverablas

08-31-84 4th Meeting with DPD Mgt

09-19-84 Steering Committee Meeting

Communication link finally

established between ABCS 6
Deadline for completion of Phase
I programming, extended to
10-15-84

10-04-64 Meeting held with Director of

Data Processing

Statue of project changed from

prototype to major project
status
Project Mgr relieved of other
project to devote more time to
MCPS

10-17-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Responee t h e for 4720 printers

reported to be 24 minutes

10-30-84 Presentation of system gioen to

Court Administrator6 & staffe at
L.A. Metro Traffic
11-12-84

Phase 11 Project Control Document

prepared

11-21-84 Steering Committee Meeting

Teeting In progress, many "bage"

Phase I Consultant changes
companies, contract modified to
new company

12-19-84

Steering Committee Meeting

Phase X Consultant transferred

out of State, 8vailable by phone

01-14-85

Steering Committee Meeting

Problem with phone lines delay

eystem testing

01-23-85

Demonstration of 4710 printer

c apabilities

- 42
02-11-85

Steering Committee Meeting

DPD assigns an overall Manager

to assure implementation of HCFS
6 MCI projects. DPD staff to
meet weekly with Director of DPD
to keep him personally apprised
of projects progress
Decision made to change orders
to 4710 printers

02-26-85

I . B . H . proposal for Phase I1

System Design presented

03-08-85

Agreement with I.B.M.

programming support

03-11-84

Steering Cornittee Meeting

Testing suspended pending

receipt of new version of ABCS
sofw a r e

04-08-85

Steering Committee Meeting

I.B.M. Phase If propose1

approved

04-1 9-85

Nev Phase I. Project Control P l a n

prepared

05-01-85

Steering Committee Meeting

New ABCS software installed

05-20-85

Steering Committee Meeting

Phase I implementation date

07-01-85

for Phase I

In review the implementation of the project has been

I

delayed for many reasons, but at this point the project i s

on solid ground with what seems to be a very realistic
implementation schedule. The July 1, 1985 implementation
date for Bail-By-Mail appears to be holding f a s t with even
a

little optimism of improving the date "slightly".

It is

possible of course that the dates of the later phases may

"slip" somewhat, but unless something unforeseen happens,
a l l the courts should be online within eighteen months.

43

,nrganization~,which deal w i t h the collective efforts of men, are

dtvoted t o the proceesing of information and the generation of
-k.nwledge. Their a b i l i t y to test the envlronment so as to correct
cIror and reinforce truth makes them effective. Inability t o learn
j s fatal. Yet learning is more d i f f i c u l t because 60 many men must do
i t together.
from IMPLEMENTATION by Jeffrey Preeeman and
Aaron Wildavsky
1973

--

.... is

Delay
in t e rest

a function of resources, intensity and direction .of

--

from IMPLEMENTATION by Jeffrey Preesmsa and

Aaron Uildavsky
1973

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Over the course of the past year and one half of the MCFS

project there have been many p i t f a l l s and disappointments.

Many of these could and should have been foreseen while

others were unavoidable.

The Steering Committee made some

good decisions and some poor ones.

c

WHAT WENT WRONG?:

The first and most serious mistake made In this entire

project was one of impatience.

Because of the negative

publicity received by the courts, the Data Processing

Department,
f-

the Auditor-Controller and

the

County on

several issues this project sprang out of the air.

Some

more i n i t i a l analysis of the problems and issues involved

may have led to

44

smoother implementation.

Because of
this impatience and naivety about the system some rather

unrealistic targets fox implementation were set.

-4

A few of the decisions

made about the project were a

result of poor information.

Even IBM representatives had

little first hand knowledge of the 4700 equipment or the

ABCS software, this led on occasion to the wrong decisiohe
being

This

made.

was

most

obvious

in

the

initial

selection of the printers.

*
Another major problem with this project was the lack of
good programming support.

The ABCS software is complex

and not easily mastered even by experienced programmers

This led

US

t o rely on some sometimes undependable and

careless programers.

The last major

area of problems was

in the lack of

sufficient early support from the management of DPD.

It

was only after months of cajoling and finally screaming

that

the project

deserved.

received the status and

support

it

WHAT WENT RIGHT?;

While the goals and objectives of the project -were aLways

clearly in sight.

From the beginning there was little

disagreement

about

the goals and objectives,

45

everyone

agreed on what they saw the system doing for them.

The overall plan for implementing the system was good.

The decision to implement the project in phases was a wise

one and helped avoid some of the problems that plagued

MCI.

This way the project could be brought along piece by

pieceq, speeding up the process of getting some parts of in

automated system on board and also helping to ease the
training process.
,4.

If the cashiers could learn the system

one piece at time the initial learning curve would not be

as severe.

The involvement of all the other courts in the process was

a crucial step in the development of the project.

Also

the involvement of the people who would be actually using

the system was a very positive step.

This helped get a

commitment from all the players in the process.

Without

this involvement and cooperation the project would never

succeed.

WHAT ABOUT NEXT TIME? :

.
i

Before any major project such as MCFS will work in a place

like Los Angeles

resolved.

County

a number

- be

of things must

The issues that need to be dealt with include:

C .

46

.-

of the goals and

objectives of the project by everyone involved,
- t h e user, DPD, the budget people in the County
Administrative Office, and some commitment from
the Board of Supervisors for continued funding.

Each "major" project should have its own DPD

project manager. The policy of spreading these
managers to too many projects only delays the
implementation of all that managers projects.

Ideally DPD would have enough qualified

programming staff to develop any system.
Lacking this staff the method of contracting fo
private programmers must be reevaluated. The
process now is too long and complicated, often
resulting in the loss of good and qualified
programmers because of lapses in the process.

If the project involves an area that DPD has

little or no expertise, they should insist,that
the entire process be taken a little slower so
that more analysis can be done.

It should be clear to everyone involved that the

process of implementing these ty es of projects,
involves "people". People are t e most
important part of the project. And with people
in the project, problems will always occur. For
this reason all of the participants must expect
thin s to go wrong and expect things to take a
litt e longer. Based on this they should plan
for some delays.

.0

,-.

A clear understanding

Reviews must be built into the project. An

ongoing commitment for the project m u s t be
maintained after the project is up and running,
Ideally as we learned from the ETRS audit that
this commitment should involve all the same
people as involved in the initial project.
These are the people who have a stake in the
project, i f they move on to other projects and
someone else takes their place 6ome of the
dedication to and understanding of the project
is lost.

I hope that the next project of this type that L am

involved in, that I will have the persistence and tenacity
to insist on and get the things I know are needed.

APPENDIX A
I

(c'