On Febuary 27th, 2011 JCW posted an article titled “Another fine example of Bill Vickrey’s Gross Mismanagement” and that article seems to have created far more questions than it answered. Chief among them is how could the AOC spend all monies attached to a trial court without that trial court’s knowledge, consent or accounting when 25% of those funds were designated for local projects?
That commentary seems to have piqued lots of interest throughout the California Courts with both JCW and one of our media partners being contacted about different fact-finding missions different entities are pursuing. It seems that some of these courts had plans they couldn’t execute on due to a lack of available funds. Funds that should have been available under Government Code 70374 but were spent.
Government Code 70374(d)(1)
(d) (1) Except as provided in Section 70374.2 and paragraph (2) of
this subdivision, 25 percent of all moneys collected for the State
Court Facilities Construction Fund from any county shall be
designated for implementation of trial court projects in that county.
The Judicial Council shall determine the local projects after
consulting with the trial court in that county and based on the
locally approved trial court facilities master plan for that county.
Just a little digging working one single county discovered that the local court, more often than not, used its own money for projects because the 25% that was supposed to be set aside wasn’t. It’s speculated that these monies vaporized into automatic service work orders. It is this 25% set-aside that gives every trial court a vested interest in these facilities maintenance contracts, especially when the AOC steers the work to them on a no-bid basis at unconscionable pricing. How much money has the AOC collected and not set aside for trial courts in accordance with Government Code 70374(d)(1)? This post will be a build-a-post with updates that will be appended to as we get more information and other parties. What it appears though is that this costly adventure into building maintenance is leeching these funds dry long before the end of any fiscal year – and those funds appear to include the local project set-aside money.
_________________________________________________________
This weekend JCW received two curious anonymous messages in our private message window that makes the following claims:
The service area defined by the Southern Regional Office of the Office of Court Construction & Management’s facilities maintenance program is in shambles. Dozens of people have been laid off at both Jacobs and ABM and buildings being undermanned or unmanned. In one service area previously serviced by (undisclosed number over 12) maintenance people spread between a (undisclosed number under 6) buildings, there is only one person currently servicing all of these buildings. High-rise courts that were previously manned by crews are manned by just one person. The AOC is not approving any service work orders for preventive maintenance in any of these buildings due to the news stories about costs. In some cases, there are air filters that are supposed to be changed every sixty days that have not been changed in eight months. Lightbulb changes are only approved in groups of lightbulbs, not individual bulbs. The AOC has stopped issuing work orders in SRO.
The second message pertains to Riverside Hall of Justice and makes the following claims:
The AOC was screwed over on the Riverside HOJ. The winning bidder started out at $250,000.00 more than the low bidder for that job. By the time change orders were done, that added an additional $400,000.00 to the price tag and it still doesn’t work right. As an example, there is an after-hours button that is supposed to enable air in the building after hours. After spending $650,000.00 more than the lowest bidder this button does nothing.
We’ve chosen to post these two messages and let others verify their accuracy. If they are inaccurate statements then they should be clarified or corrected.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Mrs. Kramer
May 23, 2011
It is penny wise and pound foolish to ignore recommended HVAC air flow and filtration maintenance. “IAQ [indoor air quality] has been identified by the EPA as one of the top five most urgent environmental risks to public health”
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor OSHA 3430-04 2011 “Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings” http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3430indoor-air-quality-sm.pdf
“To resolve many IAQ problems, a preventive maintenance program should be established based on the system’s recommended maintenance schedule outlined by the architect or engineer, the manufacturer, or an HVAC professional. Regular preventive maintenance not only ensures that systems are operating properly, but also can result in cost savings, improved operating efficiency, and increased worker productivity (6).”
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2011
JCW– WOW
And so, as top leadership puts the screws to certain courts, (big or little) how much is the CJ/JC/AOC paying for CCMS right now, per week? How much is Deloitte receiving, per week?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 24, 2011
The amount currently being spent on CCMS as far as we can figure is indeterminate. The AOC has “accepted” the application. In the real world, that means the project is completed. However, the AOC placed a little observed disclaimer indicating external deliverables will be delivered in July, in effect, buying themselves another 90 days. The amount that has been tossed about as being “lost” if the project was stopped was a million dollars a week. One can only assume that most, if not all of that represents the AOC’s weekly investment into CCMS. We also heard from Pravda that Mr. Moore was going to do his best to deliver the application for under the 25 million referred to in a recent Judicial Council meeting.
In the real world, “acceptance” is contingent upon “delivery”. Regardless, with the additional deliverables it appears that the AOC is giving the vendor another 90 days without saying they are giving them another 90 days. This will give enough time for the mismanagers to vacate their offices before it all begins to hit the fan.
The AOC has yet to implement all of the CIO’s recommendations or the BSA recommendations. They have simply “adopted” them.
Mrs. Kramer
May 24, 2011
What ever happen to the days when there were consquences for misdeeds and derelections of duties? Where do you think Michael Paul would be right now if he had been caught by the JC sending a letter on faux letterhead while advocating for something he knew he was responsible for wasting multi-millions of tax dollars promoting; or if Michael was caught by the JC being responsible for hiring and overpaying unlicensed contractors with judicial branch funds?
Michael Paul
May 24, 2011
The letterhead issue would put me where I am today and if I had used the unlicensed contractors and just smiled and looked the other way instead of making a big deal out of some huge misappropriation of public funds – I would have been promoted, been given two raises already and would still be working there.
Isn’t that sweet irony?
JusticeCalifornia
May 24, 2011
I daresay those who have smiled and looked the other way in the past are, right now, wondering exactly where their past acts will ultimately take them. Legally and otherwise.
But one thing is for sure. Those on notice, who continue to play the “look the other way” game, cannot now say they did not know. So let the chips fall where they may.
Mrs. Kramer
May 24, 2011
“Uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence is generally accepted as true.” (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317-318 [90 Cal.Rptr. 355]; Keulen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1099.)
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2011
The names are different but it all sounds so familiar. . . .
1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110523/ap_on_re_us/us_philadelphia_mob_arrests
“They used violence and the threat of violence to exert control over others,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said at a news conference, noting that organized crime in Philadelphia had shown “a remarkable ability to reorganize and reinvent itself.”
“Ligambi, Massimino and another defendant tried to make the business appear legitimate to hide the money from the federal government, prosecutors said. Ligambi, Massimino and other defendants also “approved, supervised, and otherwise participated in extortions” to generate income for the enterprise and its members, the indictment said.’”
“The defendants also used express and implied threats of physical violence and economic harm to instill fear in their victims and to preserve and sustain the enterprise,” the indictment said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110523/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_cisco_falun_gong_suit
2. Cisco sued for helping China build Golden Shield by JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Mon May 23, 4:33 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement have filed a lawsuit against Cisco Systems Inc. accusing it of supplying the Chinese government with computer-networking equipment used to spy on and persecute dissidents.
In a lawsuit filed last week, a group of Falun Gong practitioners alleges that Cisco provided networking gear and technical assistance to build and operate an elaborate system of Internet controls used by the Chinese government to track the online behavior of its citizens and block content it does not like.
The lawsuit accuses Cisco of aggressively marketing and customizing its products for the system, known as the Golden Shield Project, with the understanding that the technology would be used for spying on dissident groups such as the Falun Gong. By using Cisco equipment, the lawsuit said, government officials were able to monitor dissidents’ activities, including online meetings of Falun Gong congregations. The lawsuit said some dissidents were detained, tortured and even killed as a result; others disappeared.
The lawsuit also names Cisco’s top executives, including CEO John Chambers.
In a statement, Cisco rejected the allegations.
“Cisco does not operate networks in China or elsewhere, nor does Cisco customize our products in any way that would facilitate censorship or repression,” the company said. “Cisco builds equipment to global standards which facilitate free exchange of information, and we sell the same equipment in China that we sell in other nations worldwide in strict compliance with U.S. government regulations.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction barring Cisco from engaging in “future unlawful activity.”
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., where Cisco has its headquarters. The law firm of Schwarcz, Rimberg, Boyd & Rader and the Human Rights Law Foundation, a nonprofit group in Washington, brought the case under a U.S. law that allows foreign nationals to sue in federal court over violations of international law.”
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2011
speaking of real estate, contractors, and interesting (non) bidding. . . .news from my favorite ethically challenged county, whose various illuminaries have been embraced and protected by top leadership . . . .
http://www.marinij.com/rosskentfieldgreenbrae/ci_18099442
http://www.marinij.com/sananselmo/ci_18098758