Wouldn’t it be amazing if open discussions on a few blog entries resulted in a consensus that solved most of the judicial branch’s most serious problems….
The concept of managing AOC oversight is a challenge when you consider it is an administrative office of the judicial council. That sentiment seemed to be expressed in a recent poll where we described the relationship between the judicial council and the AOC and then asked where to break off the AOC appendage to achieve transparency, accountability and oversight.
Some insisted on separating the AOC from the judicial council itself and putting the regulations only on the AOC. I thought it to be a good question (where do you snap off to achieve transparency and accountability) to establish what I knew would be a substantial challenge to some.
The second idea I have heard floated around and I tossed on the table was breaking up the AOC. In this suggestion, the entire office of court construction and management and all courthouses are moved over to the department of general services. Instantly, that places all facilities and projects under public contract code and would likely lead to a significant decrease in AOC employment of approximately 400+ persons. While some positions would move to DGS others would be eliminated. Another move would take all court software technology programs and spin them off to the department of technology services. This would be a broad hit on AOC consultants and employees of about 150 people. Yet another move would abandon the HR department for the state department of personnel administration. Between all three moves, the AOC would be right-sized to less than half its current strength. The AOC and Judicial Council can focus on judge stuff and it would be out of the boondoggle business.
Note: Comments in polls are not showing up. “Other” as denoted in this poll is…. um…. best described as an incomplete offer of sex….
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
February 20, 2011
The Judicial Branch under Ron George advocated for increased state (rather than county) responsibility for the judicial branch– specifically, state funding of trial courts, and state ownership of trial court facilities. As such, the state clearly has a vested interest in and responsibility for ensuring proper, efficient and responsible management of state funds and assets.
Isn’t the Judicial Branch’s use of existing state services the next logical step? And why does it make any sense at all to exempt the judicial branch from state laws?
1. Re use of DGS to replace OCCM: this appears to make perfect sense. As I understand it, DGS is responsible for the Federal courthouses, correct?
The legislature passed the Trial Court Facilities bill in 2002, which provided for the transfer of ownership of the courthouses to the state. That process was complete in December 2009. A year ago, Ron George said:
“Certainly I consider our courthouses just as much a part of our state’s infrastructure as its highways and bridges.”
“We don’t want marble palaces, we just need facilities that are safe.”
Why pay to duplicate state services already available with a proven track record?
2. Re CCMS- The OCIO and BSA have reviewed aspects of CCMS and found the JC/AOC sorely lacking in implementation of basic and standard planning, budget, oversight, contracting, documentation and other general business practices for this massive IT project. Again, why reinvent the wheel (poorly), and pay extraordinary sums of money for duplicative services, if the Office of Technology Services can effectively service the judicial branch IT needs? To put this another way, why wouldn’t the Office of Technology Services be capable of effectively handling judicial branch IT needs?
3. Re Human Resources– I look forward to comments of past and current AOC employees– including lawyers– as to whether this is feasible. Certainly, there appears to be no logical reason to exclude the branch from compliance with state employment/labor laws. This idea is appealing because there appears to be no effective oversight of court employment practices at the moment, and a lot of questions. How is it that court executive officers are getting paid so much in certain counties? Why are some of those same CEOs getting away with horrific employment practices? How do court employees’ salaries and benefits compare statewide, and with other state employees performing similar jobs? How is it the already bloated AOC is apparently hiring and firing at will, without oversight, and its pet employees are getting hefty salaries, promotions and raises while state employees (and trial court employees) are being laid off, and basic court services are being curtailed?
I am looking forward to hearing from those with specific expertise in these three areas. This is an opportunity to let your voices be heard and ideas floated.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 20, 2011
DGS is the Department of General Services, the guys who operate buildings for about 25% less than the AOC does on a per square foot basis. DGS does state buildings, GSA does federal buildings. Prior to the recent AOC takeover, DGS had responsibility for state appellate and the supreme court buildings. They are currently refurbishing the old library and courts courthouse across the street from the state capitol.
JusticeCalifornia
February 20, 2011
Thank you for the information JCW.
It is so very interesting to be engaged in such a very important publicly accessible dialogue with so very few, about such profound subjects, read by so many.
This blog follows AOC watcher. Let’s revisit AOC watcher 8 months ago:
http://aocwatcher.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/aoc-spending-discussion-thread
antonatrail
February 21, 2011
Thanks for the aocwatcher link. I’m grateful it’s still accessible. I sorely miss Obi-Wan Kenobi, Omerta, Courtflea, Just Sayin’ and many others. Their input was invaluable and appreciated.
JusticeCalifornia
February 20, 2011
I do believe that those many out there in the judicial branch (particularly those in leadership positions, and/or those with personal knowledge) reading this blog, that have information relevant to issues currently facing the branch should, to the extent legally and ethically possible–speak/act now, so there is an open and honest dialogue. . . .
or be held responsible for not speaking/acting. . . .
SF Whistle
February 20, 2011
JC–
If I may. with all due respect submit that there are MANY within the branch with knowledge—
However, among this group are those that have willingly sampled the Koolaid and believe that the New Order of the branch truly will be a better place having no need to follow the law—or deal with silly concepts like accountability or transparency—
Those foolish enough to challenge the wisdom of the bench can easily be dispatched to the netherworld by being identified as “disgruntled litigants”–soon to be followed by “vexations litigant”
Any attorney who may take leave of their senses long enough to question a ruling can be brought into proper submission / compliance through sanctions—
The NEW ORDER is coming to a court near you—soon—-just take your koolaid and shut-up……
Michael Paul
February 20, 2011
The federal government and most states across the nation rely on entities outside of the judicial branch to provide construction and building management services. The federal government utilizes the General Services Administration to build, maintain and remodel every courthouse on a national level.
Most state governments utilize their equivalent of either the department of general services or county entities to maintain courthouses at a state or county level. With what I’ve witnessed is going on in some of these programs run by the office of court construction and management, moving all building responsibilities over to the department of general services is in the best interests of the courts as well as the people of the State of California.
I’ve worked with many DGS workers over the years, especially in the civic center complex. They take pride of ownership over their buildings and make every effort to ensure they are well managed and maintained. I’ve also worked with both Team Jacobs and AGS. Those relationships do not consist of pride of ownership because there is no ownership. It is a ‘coin detected in pocket’ mentality driven off a service work order system that issues the equivalent of a purchase order with every service call. Judicial Council Watcher has one thing wrong about the ‘first letter’. The first letter was to Fred Stetson, Jerry Pfab and Ken Kachold (heretofore referred to cryptically by others as the three unwise men) about a week after first seeing a post on AOC Watcher. That post referenced something to the effect of It takes 4 people and a call to sacramento to change a light bulb. I forwarded all three of these gentleman that post, informed them they were sitting in a P.R. disaster because their contractors were unlicensed and they proceeded to ignore it for months on end. I also forwarded a note to my whole IT team in the AOC when that post was circulated amongst the staff, mentioning that not only does it take 4 people and a call to sacramento, it costs two grand because at the time, that was the minimum value of a service work order. These are issues that hundreds of people across the entire judicial branch are aware of. Hundreds more in the AOC are also aware of them as well. They, just like me, will be fired for speaking out.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 21, 2011
The first step that would go along way is to move the AOC out of San Francisco. Put it in a location that is more in touch with the rest of California…I know, there should be some vacant space in Arizona where CCMS’ server is currently housed?
Jon Wintermeyer
February 21, 2011
I remember back to my first meeting in 2005 with the AOC FMU Management at our conference room at CC Court Admin when Fred Stetson told the CEO, CFO and me that they promised maintenance and remodel work service equal to or better than that currently being performed by the CC County. I was told that as the Facilities Director, I along with my peers from other Courts would be able to rate them and their maintenance team every six months on the prior period performances on the sevice work orders, which was something we did not have ever with the county. The idea being that a voice in the rating would advise the AOC FMU and their Vendor on the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction by those they were working for. I was one of the original or first Court representatives to these meetings and did attend every one, until the October 2009 meeting that I was not invited too. I found out from another Court Facilities Manager when the meeting was to be held and was asked to meet earlier for coffee, to discuss our most recent projects and to compare the results. When I called the AOC FMU to ask about my missing e-mail invite, I was infromed that I was not on the Regional Manager’s list of invited attendees. When I called Nick Cimino about this matter and then my DEO called him to ask why our review input based on the most recent problems we had had with the Team Jacobs’ performances was not going to be heard. We were both told the decision was not changing and if we felt more strongly about it to have our CEO talk to his Management at the AOC. We did talk with CEO Kiri Torre about it, in fact we had been meeting with her every week on our concerns and listing court staff complaints about Team Jacobs for the past six months. CEO Torre said she would talk with the AOC and get back to us the following week. The following week, the CEO Torre’s answer to us was that No, Jon will not attend the meeting and this is the end of discussion on the subject and I was to cease my conversations with the FMU. Within days, DEO Ridgeway was released by CEO Torre along with anther DEO from Operations and the HR Director, there is an article on this occurance elsewhere in the JCW site from December 2010. So CC Court was no longer allowed a voice to the AOC FMU and the poor performances continued unchecked. We had one Court building emptied two times in a single day because Team Jacobs set off the fire alarm and another time because they sprayed lubrication fluid into the HVAC system and it filled the building with fumes. It took them four months to replace an electrical transformer, the listed issues was double digits for both the FMU and Team Jacobs. I was the one getting the complaints reported to my office, because the Judges and Administrators thought I had some level of control over Team Jacobs and the FMU, but I was no longer allowed to speak out on the problems of waste and poor performances and represent the CC Court.
I understand that Fred and Nick and others have since retired from the AOC, but their promises made to the CC Court were hollow ones. So, one year later, Team Jacobs is still on the job for the AOC FMU and I was released by the CC Court for reporting on their poor performance to my CEO, after almost 7 years of dedicated and caring service and saving the CC Court over a million dollars with my projects and many of my ideas have become part of the AOC recommendations to other courts, like expanding the Centurion wireless duress alarms systems to include fire & smoke detection and door switch information to the Sheriff staff in the buildings. I saved the AOC monies when I was given MOU’s and allowed to perform work projects without the use of the FMU or Team Jacobs. I also gave them a full accounting of the costs for my projects. When I drive by the Walnut Creek Court every week, I look at the roof above the side entry and view the still incomplete FMU and Team Jacobs HVAC equipment repairs with flexible ductwork laying on the roof for the past 15 months. I’ll post more later for a complete article, from my list of issues with both FMU and Team Jacobs during the 2009 year.
Michael Paul
February 25, 2011
One thing that the average layperson probably lacks an understanding of is that the unlicensed contractors were being graded by the courts. The large bonuses associated with the work is dependent on rave reviews. You’ll note that here, you have a court that has an experienced building engineer that is well recognized and well respected throughout the AOC and many of the courts that is being excluded from the reviews that determine the service provider bonus. My associates in FMU, those known today as facilities maintenance administrators, would often express their frustrations of their own management forbidding the write-ups of the service providers, expecially those that were so serious that they should have resulted in contract termination.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 21, 2011
Thank you Michael and Jon for illustrating some of your experiences. You both mention “Team Jacobs” and not “Jacobs Facilities, Inc” or “Jacobs Project Management Company” or as Ms. Martindale even versioned, “Jacobs Engineering”
Maybe you’re not aware that the AOC has never heard of a company named “Team Jacobs” and disclaims their existence. Yet both of you are careful to refer to the organization as “Team Jacobs” and not any of the other versions. Can either or both of you explain the discrepancy?
Michael Paul
February 21, 2011
I was on an acid trip that lasted 8.5 years?
Seriously though, the AOC would not have ever been able to do business with “Team Jacobs” as I understand it, because ABM only had a janitorial contractors’ license. Any “Team Jacobs” would have been required to carry a joint venture license and in joint venture contractors’ licensing, one is entitled only to the lowest level license held between the joint venture members.
Had the AOC ever offered this explanation themselves, I would have been fine with this. They never offered any explanation. Then, they filed suit going only as far back as the expiration of the JFI license. They discounted the years of doing business in the courts as Team Jacobs without explanation. Then they circulated the word that “Team Jacobs” was to be referred to only as Jacobs going forward and if asked, you never even heard of “Team Jacobs”
SF Whistle
February 21, 2011
How was this message circulated?—-written memo?
Michael Paul
February 21, 2011
Via an “All hands conference call” of the Facilities Management Unit of the Office of Court Construction & Management. Two different individuals in FMU told me about this call, neither of whom currently work for the AOC. The date of that conference call can even be pinned down by re-reviewing AOC Watcher as I remember someone writing about the call there as well.
After these instructions were let, well you can imagine how spending many years discussing a vendor as one name would cause one to instinctually mention that same vendor by that same name. I would attend meetings where FMU’ers would be talking of jacobs and accidentally say “Team Jacobs, uh, I mean Jacobs” for months after the instructions were out there.
Jon Wintermeyer
February 21, 2011
The BANCRO AOC FMU Regional Manager Nick Cimino introduced them to me and the CC Court as “Team Jacobs” from the time they came into the court as a replacement for EMCOR and the tech staff assigned and housed in our buildings wore company blue shirts with Team Jacobs embroided on them over the pocket all the time I worked with them. I gave memos with my signature to the Perimeter Screening Sheriff Stations at the courts with copies of their photos, prior to the distribution of photo ID badges issued to them to carry on their person, along with keycards for building access. We were told that Team Jacobs had been serving theAOC Southern Region from 2005 to 2007 and had a great track record, which was why they were selected to replace EMCOR. I have copies of meeting minutes with their Team Jacobs printed in the header for all the 2009 meetings held between them, AOC FMU staff, CC County GSD staff and the Court Facilities. Not all of their designated Project Managers had TJ business cards like Michael Huie, Jim Graser and Tom Lighthouse, there was Tom Frankel with ABM and Pat Ortiz with VFMC. There were prior TJ staff that arrived in 2007 that were not still there when I left, but in my business card file folders (which were not returned to me by the court) there were cards for all of them. Some of these cards I have copies of, but not for all. There are numerous court and county staff that will acknowledge that Team Jacobs did exist in the CC Courts. All my files from the semi-annual AOC FMU & Emcor & Team Jacobs review meetings attended by me have probably been misplaced from my old office. I do have some other documents referencing Team Jacobs. I do not remember Michael’s acid trip though.
Michael Paul
February 21, 2011
I don’t remember that acid trip either. It just sounded like a plausible explanation for the discrepancy. Team Jacobs was all in my head and no one else had ever heard of them is what the AOC wishes people to believe. It is one of the reasons the AOC won’t let me do my last several thousand dollars worth of expense reports either, because they loathe to let me anywhere near my email account and calendar where I kept all the information.
SF Whistle
February 21, 2011
There is a time-honored tradition in this country of cover-ups being more problematic than the act itself—(President Nixon—ScooterLibby—on and on)–
A “successful” cover-up typically involves more glue-and-bandaids than are available and comes apart….
The AOC has too large an inventory of things that need to be hidden—
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 21, 2011
This particular cover up is like making the golden gate bridge disappear and convincing the people of Marin County it never existed.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 21, 2011
Here is a pingback to more about Jacobs supplied earlier to JCW. https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-10000-00-estimate-from-the-company-that-does-not-exist/
Stuart Michael
February 24, 2011
I’m retired from an executive-level position at a trial court and have no fear of retribution from my employer; but as a still-practicing attorney I wouldn’t like to have to deal with local judicial officers or court staff who might take umbrage with me, so I’m not using my real name.
I was involved in many AOC activities as a trial court representative in HR, Labor Relations, Health Insurance and Workers Comp programs; and was also on the receiving end of many AOC services and support. I also worked with other trial courts around the state who had similar experiences with the AOC.
Many good things have occured since the courts were removed from County fiscal, operational and personnel controls. Many AOC services were not previously available to the courts or were of poor quality, The smaller courts who lacked the resources to provide these services themselves have generally benefited. Larger courts also got some benefits, but paid dearly and lost local control.
I worked with good/bad/indifferent AOC employees in many fields, most of whom lacked trial court experience. The high turnover was a constant problem. The AOC’s SF location makes it financially difficult for trial court employees to move up to the Bay area, and unduly increases the cost of AOC operations there.
As another prime example of AOC failures (in addition to CCMS), there has been scandalous behavior at the AOC’s HR Division for years. The Paula Negley case is just the latest. Many other good HR employees have been hounded out or terminated without just cause. Others – not so good – have been promoted without justification or qualifications. It would be interesting to discover how much has been paid out to settle various legal claims. The survivors have learned to keep their mouths shut and curry favor with the powers.
Many trial courts did a better job with facilities management then either the County or the AOC. Shifting power to a distant entity resulted in reduced services at more expense. Even simple things like renewing leases became time-consuming and expensive. Construction projects costs increased dramatically, with lots of overhead for OCCM & FMU to grow fat on.
The AOC should be separated from the JC, and many of its functions moved to appropriate State agencies. AOC and trial court employees should be governed by an independent merit system, and all state laws should apply to all its activities. Its HQ should be moved to Sacramento, so that state and trial court employees can staff it.
The entire judiciary should be scared stiff of the proposed rule changes that remove what little authority remains to them and shifts it to CEO’s and the AOC. An audit of CEO and other high-level court employee salaries should be conducted. Why are CEO’s in courts with fewer judges/staff receive as much or more than much larger courts with greater responsibilities? Same thing for AOC salaries.
Although Ron George and Bill Vickry accomplished many things, the Chief wisely stepped down to rest on his accomplishments. Bill Vickry should do the same.
Too bad so many knowledgable insiders are afraid to speak out, but who can blame them.
Jon Wintermeyer
February 24, 2011
Stuart, as one of those trial court facilities directors who spoke out and reported this waste to my Management all it got me was a loss of my job after 7 years of service. She refused to report my complaints and reports which is in violation of CA Govt code 8547 also known as CWPA and her retaliation treatment of me is know to many at the CC Court staff, County staff and others that I worked with.
But in my claim for wrongful termination, the AOC legal team will represent her, wasting even more taxpayers dollars to cover up her actions and protect the AOC FMU and Team Jacobs that I was reporting on for waste and poor performance.
I had performed better and more cost effective remodels than the AOC for more than 6 years, only to be terminated by my CEO, after creating a hostile work environment at my unit and terminating the Deputy Executive officer that I had worked with for 6 years and reported to for the past 2 and backed me 100% in my complaints about the AOC and Team Jacobs.
If there is to be any justice for me and other whistleblowers like Michael Paul, it would have to be at more taxpayer expense for AOC legal use and more personal expense for those who reported the waste for wrongful termination claims and were terminated and a very long time before it even gets to a courtroom. Instead only those that covered up the waste and allowed it to occur, get to keep their jobs, get free legal council or retire without consequences or punishment, that’s the AOC version of fair and equal justice in the State of California.
Member of F, R & PFSW
February 26, 2011
I believe Jon’s comments on this site have been well-thought and well-written, and I absolutely do not think his writings sound like they come from “a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind,” and I personally know he is not just another disgruntled employee. Nevertheless, I would like to post some comments in support of Jon.
Of course, you don’t know me from Adam either, but I was a CC Superior Court manager who retired in good standing–and I’m as “disgruntled” over the treatment of my fellow colleagues as any of those who were fired (some under guise of budget; some, like Jon, fired without cause, but because CC Superior Court knew they could get away with it).
Jon was a dedicated, hard-working Facilities Director. If he had a fault, it was that he took his job so seriously. While Jon was the Director, we saw results. With Jon, the end-of-year judicial moves were conducted as smoothly as could be with many judges trading locations and chambers and staffing at the same time. I heard that this last end-of-year was not as smooth and that subordinates commented that things had always gone much smoother with Jon at the helm. Jon paid attention to the “little things” as well as the big picture. For example, I visited Richmond Branch Court recently (See unrelated note below) and as of December, the tent outside the entry was still not installed, meaning visitors and jurors end up standing in the rain in the morning, waiting for the Court to open. This was not the kind of thing Jon would have let slide (and also the kind of thing a good supervising judge and court administrator would demand for the safety and comfort of the public).
So when I heard that Jon was fired, on the tail of the “layoffs” of other hard-working directors and officers who apparently posed a threat to Kitty’s monarchy (yeah, I know it’s Kiri, but oh well), I was not surprised to learn that the charges against him were bunk, and just another guise for Kitty to clean house of anyone smarter than she.
My fervent hope is that Jon is successful in suing this deep pockets organization for wrongful termination, and those folks are exposed for what they are.
NOTE: Since Kitty’s regime began, court retirees are no longer welcome into the former offices they worked. Whereas it used to be acceptable for a retiree to pay a visit on occasion, Kitty has ruled that retirees may only enter the non-public areas of the court offices after getting approval from on high (Court Administration). It’s really not a big deal because even when I was working, there weren’t many retirees dropping in all that often; and I can even see where it could be a good business rule to limit access to employees only…but isn’t it interesting that it became such an issue for the new regime, after years and years and years of being a non-issue?
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 26, 2011
Regarding your note:
While we hear that while retirees are treated that way, those terminated from both the AOC and the courts are not even allowed in the public areas of public buildings.
We don’t know how that is even legal and we want this resolved by public announcement.
Member of F, R & PFSW
February 26, 2011
I can’t imagine that is legal…
SF Whistle
February 26, 2011
How can this be legal?—-absent a restraining order for cause?
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
Top leadership not following the law?
What else is new?
Thank goodness people are speaking out so everyone can get an idea of how bad it really, really is.
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
I’ll go have myself lunch at 455’s cafeteria next week and let you know how it goes. I’ve seen them notify the guards to not let certain people in the building before but it was because of threats or theft. I’ve done neither. I’ll let you know how it goes. Anyone want to do lunch with me at 455 Golden Gate? I am buying. 🙂
SF Whistle
February 26, 2011
I’d welcome joining you—I’ve had a salad or two there —-
JusticeCalifornia
February 26, 2011
I like that cafeteria.
When are you going?
Michael Paul
February 26, 2011
Are you free Tuesday, say at 11:45 or so? Meet just before the metal detectors just inside the bldg on the golden gate side? If another day of the week is better, name it. I’ll be there.
JusticeCalifornia
February 28, 2011
Hey Michael
Is Tuesday set? Or is Wednesday or Thursday possible?
antonatrail
February 28, 2011
Careful. Cornered rabid dogs are dangerous.