Letters to the AOC: Unlicensed activity sent to all OCCM-FMU management

Posted on December 23, 2010

0


Document sent to the senior management of the Office of Court Construction & Management’s facilities management unit. This is a list of who knew what and when they knew it and what they subsequently did about it.

______________________________________________________________

 

From: Paul, Michael
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Stetson, Fred; Pfab, Gerald; Kachold, Kenneth
Cc: Stephenson, Jim; Cimino, Nick; Turner, Nick
Subject: Heads up…
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential

 

This is being provided solely for your information…….I am providing this information simply because its in the best interests of the Judicial Branch. If I need not be concerned about it because you have different information, then please tell me what that different information might be so that I need not be concerned.

Googled: AOC Daily Journal after getting Bill Vickrey’s note this morning.

http://aocwatcher.wordpress.com/

Scroll down to your section. It takes 4 people to change a lightbulb at the AOC after getting permission from Sacramento.

More:

https://www2.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicense/LicenseDetail.asp?LicNum=449249

The courts of california are entrusted to make people whole after they have been fleeced by an unlicensed contractor. The question is: Who makes the courts whole? Under California law, unlicensed contractors work for free and are usually held responsible for all damages that can be assumed – because of their unlicensed activity. 

California code prohibits an unlicensed contractor from making any claim for compensation if the contractor is unlicensed or ineligible to engage in contracting activity at any time during construction of any project (Business and Professions Code Section 7031) so I am assuming you’re no longer getting any bills or paying any bills from Jacobs Engineering or ABM because although ABM is licensed for “construction cleanup” Jacobs has an inactive license, having no person eligible to apply for a license and no legal authority to engage in any contracting whatsoever. Someone engaged in construction cleanup is not authorized with the type of license that would make them eligible to do anything more than clean up a construction site.

Jacobs is also embroiled in the 35W controversy and a ton of litigation in Minnesota categorically disclaiming all responsibility, where a bridge they designed collapsed into the river killing 9 people two years ago. Google 35W collapse. If someone is injured or dies, by virtue of having no contractors license, I believe we and not them are liable.

http://www.martindale.com/labor-employment-law/article_Allen-Matkins-Leck-Gamble-Mallory_753878.htm

Now under this decision, again, I am no lawyer, but it appears when you willingly contract with an unlicensed contractor, you absorb responsibility for everything. Unpaid wages, claims, suits, workers comp, damages etc etc. You don’t have to pay them but you are responsible for paying everyone that works for them or has a valid contractors license and subcontracts from them. Wouldn’t it be less liability to just hire an employee or a licensed contractor? Would it be a windfall to get your buildings fixed by others with Jacobs paying due to their unqualified/unlicensed activity and subsequent damages?

 I have questioned your people about this in the past and got a polite “thanks for your concern” as a response. 

The judicial branch employs 3200 of the highest paid people in state government. We are a massive target because no other branch of government fared as well as we did. In fact, there are layoffs of rank-and-file workers in the courts that are likely contributing their anger to the blogspot article that OBVIOUSLY the media is latching on to and descriptions of your service providers that they “have to call Sacramento to get permission to change a light bulb” and (likely union) court workers saying “it takes 4 workers to get it done”.

 You are sitting on a public relations landmine and while I probably didn’t need to point this out to you, If my house was not in order, I would like to find out about it via one of my associates where I could plan an orderly transition vs. the media when I would suddenly be compelled to terminate and replace a service provider without notice and without the luxury of options. I am sincerely trying to do you a favor and its my hope that you understand, I give you this notification because it is in the best interests of the Judicial Branch. The unions are after us because of furloughs and layoffs at the trial court level and that is abundantly clear. Don’t give them any more ammunition.

I am on vacation for the next 9 days and available via email or cell. 510-684-8706

______________________________________________________________________________________
Oh. And who else was this document provided to? How about Information Services Management and the senior manager of the internal audits division, Mr. John Judnick. This document was also shared a couple of days later with all directors of the AOC.
______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Paul, Michael [mailto:Michael.Paul@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Derr, Michael; Albiento, Tino; Nishimura, Kyle; Gyzmo
Subject: FW: Heads up…

The previous message was sent via enterprise vault. Here is one of two of the actual messages.

—–Original Message—–
From: Stetson, Fred
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:05 PM
To: Paul, Michael; Stetson, Fred; Pfab, Gerald; Kachold, Kenneth
Cc: Stephenson, Jim; Cimino, Nick; Turner, Nick
Subject: RE: Heads up…

No one is to respond to this email until I have an opportunity to validate the quoted sources, and statements as they were laid out.

I appreciate frank and open candor, however I believe it is prudent to validate issues as serious as this.

Thank you.