28 Days – Judge Kevin McCormick’s reply to the SEC committee

Posted on August 19, 2011

49


Good Afternoon, California. Yesterday we were forwarded an e-mail that was sent from Judge Kevin McCormick to the Strategic Evaluation Committee. Judge McCormick was gracious enough to include in his email a string of emails between himself and the borg collective (known in some circles as the AOC) seeking simple answers to simple questions.

.

With 850+ people the AOC should have been able to produce this information in days. The attached email string and the amount of effort expended trying to get simple information from the bureaucratic juggernaut is what a judge (someone with clout) goes through. Imagine how difficult it is for media and others (those with no clout) to get the AOC to release information. Judge McCormick has it easy compared to the rest of us.

.

Keep this in mind when you wonder aloud why major media isn’t all over the Judicial Council and the AOC because they cannot get the information in this wear you down until you stop asking us process. Please note that we edited this document for format and to omit email addresses and phone numbers.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

.

Strategic Evaluation Committee Survey Regarding the Structure and Operations of the Administrative Office of the Courts
To all judicial officers other than presiding jurists.
.
The presiding judges and court executive officers of the 58 Superior Courts in California, the administrative presiding justices and clerk/administrators of the six districts of the Courts of Appeal, and the clerk/administrator of the Supreme Court, have received the following survey regarding the organizational structure and methods of operation of the Administrative Office of the Courts. In addition to obtaining their input, the Strategic Evaluation Committee invites you to provide the committee with your views on how the AOC affects you in your work.   Please recount only your personal experiences and views.  The more detailed your answers are, with specific explanations and examples where appropriate, the more helpful your input will be.
.
Judge Kevin McCormick’s response….
___________________________________________________________
Any effort to provide your committee with thoughtful and informed recommendations requires, at a minimum, a complete understanding and evaluation of the number of employees, consultants, advisors, independent contractors and others who derive their income providing services through the AOC.  Once that information is understood, an appropriate cost benefit analysis of the functions of the AOC, and their importance to the administration of justice in light of the budgetary situation, can be performed.  Only when it is understood what services are critical can one evaluate what staff size is required to perform those tasks deemed necessary.
.
Although I have sought information for over a month about the true number of AOC employees, consultants, advisors, independent contractors and others who derive their income providing services through the AOC, AOC staff, at the highest levels, have failed to supply the requested information.  Below as Attachment 1 is the e-mail string which supports their failure to provide me the documentation I requested. It was made clear from the very beginning that I sought this information for inclusion in my recommendations to your committee and the deadline of August 9, 2011, was made clear.  I suppose it is not surprising that the bureaucracy that risks careful analysis of itself is reluctant or unwilling to provide documentation which might demonstrate much of its staff is not necessary to provide core administrative services to the judiciary.
.
Our courts are facing a crisis.  The SEC must assume its charge by recognizing the crisis.  The survey sent out by the SEC asks judges to describe the services their courts receive from the AOC and evaluate how effective those services are. The survey also asks what requirements and burdens are placed on them by the AOC. While the SEC is to be complimented for broadly seeking input, it is unfortunate that no questions are asked about how effective they feel the branch’s governance structure is as a whole. In a sense the entire survey is a so-called “push” survey, in that it assumes that a centralized AOC should continue to exist and “provide services” and impose requirements on local courts in the current fashion.
.
While attempts to improve “customer service” are laudable, incrementally improving the operations of an out of control central bureaucracy will not solve the governance or financial problems of the judiciary. The essential problem of branch governance is not that the AOC is not efficient or user friendly. The essential problem of branch governance is the very existence of the AOC as structured; the existence of a large centralized bureaucracy with the power to manage local courts ensures that the desires and funding needs of the central power will always take precedence over those of local courts.
.
A few areas of obvious and potential significant waste within the AOC are:
.
1.      The top 30 executives of the AOC do not pay anything out of their salaries for a retirement benefit that is very generous by any standard, public or private. The taxpayer, through the AOC, contributes 22.5% on top of the court executive’s salary.  This unjustifiable and unwarranted “gift” to employees making salaries approaching and exceeding $200,000 per year should cease immediately.
.
2.      The Education Division/CJER serves as the council’s education resource for the judicial branch, offering educational curricula for judges, court staff members, and AOC staff members. Over 100 people to provide judicial training for 1700 judges would appear to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.  California District Attorneys Association performs the task of continuing education for 5200 prosecutors throughout California with a staff of nine.  Several of those nine have primary job responsibilities unrelated to the training department.  The ABA appellate judicial section has two part time staffers who coordinate the education for about 1200 appellate judges nationwide.  (The staffers are SMU employees who have day jobs in the law school.) There is simply no justification for a staff the size of what the AOC has amassed.
.
3.      The Office of Governmental Affairs in Sacramento promotes and maintains positive relations with the legislative and executive branches and advocates for the council on legislative and budget matters.  The dedication of twelve people to track legislation at a pay rate (excluding benefits) between $77,000 and $161,000 is irresponsible.  In many instances the legislative influence the AOC sought to promote was contrary to the best interests of the local courts.
.
4.      The AOC uses Apple One Temps for at least part of their “temporary employees” workforce.  One hundred and twelve employees are part of the AOC through this temp service.  Unlike what most people envision when you think of a temporary worker, the majority of these are very highly paid positions.  Sixty three of them (56%) make over $100,000 per year based on their reported hourly wage.   That is just salary.  The highest paid temporary worker is paid at an annual rate converting to $213,220, assuming a 40 hour work week.   Justification for these temporary employees should be required on a case by case basis and anyone not deemed critical to the administration of justice should be eliminated.
.
5.      The Office of Court Construction and Management is the department that provides management services for California’s court facilities, and performs design, construction, and renovation of California courthouses.  The staff in that division is an astonishing 141 employees when you include the 31 employed as “temporary employees” through Apple One Temps.  Over 85% of the employees in this division make more than $80,000 per year in salary alone.  With the fiscal crisis it is unrealistic to continue planning, designing and building construction projects as originally contemplated.  Serious depletion, if not elimination of this division, should be considered.  Consideration of staff reduction should include an analysis of the cost per square foot of many projects designed by this division in comparison to construction experts’ estimates for reasonable and anticipated costs associated with such construction.  (I have attached as Attachment 2 information related to this item.)
.
6.      A thorough analysis of the fiscal advisability of completely eliminating the Construction and Maintenance Division and having the Department of General Services assume those responsibilities should be performed.  Duplicate bureaucracies performing virtually identical functions are certainly wasteful.  The performance of the Construction and Maintenance division when it comes to cost per square foot of courthouse construction, wasteful planning and construction of courthouses unconnected to the needs and size of the local community, and maintenance services delivered at exorbitant costs or through bundling cause even greater concerns about the wastefulness of this division (See Attachment 2).
.
7.      The CCMS project originally estimated to be $260 million dollars has ballooned to somewhere between $1.9 to 3 billion dollars in just six years.  The project is unjustified in the current economic climate facing the judiciary.  The Bureau of State Audits report revealed the magnitude of financial waste, lack of oversight, inadequate or non-existent planning, failure to develop accurate cost estimates, and failure of the AOC to structure the contact with the vendor (Deloitte Consulting LLP) in a manner to protect the judiciary’s financial interests.  These failures, among others listed in the 138 page audit, have caused the cost projections to skyrocket.  The necessity of AOC staff (employees, temporary staff, independent contractors, or others paid with dollars that could be used to keep courts open) who provide services to support the CCMS system should be carefully scrutinized.  Not a single dollar should be spent on this system until it is certain the expenditure will not cause court closures, reduced hours or layoffs of courtroom staff. Expending any money, directly or indirectly, on a computer system with such a flawed financial history is unjustified.
.
8.      The Information Services Division coordinates court technology statewide, and supports coordination throughout the judicial branch; manages centralized statewide technology projects; and optimizes the scope and accessibility of accurate statewide judicial information.  This division is directly linked to the CCMS project.  In all, the combined staff associated with “Information Services” or statewide technology is an astounding 164 employees.  One hundred seventeen categorized as “Information Services,” employees, another 20 labeled CCMS employees and 27 more listed as “temporary” workers through Apple One Temps.  Over half of the “permanent” employees are paid salary in excess of $100,00 per year.  Even more astounding, 24 of the 27 “temporary employees” make in excess of $100,000 per year.
.
9.      The Office of the General Counsel provides high-quality, timely, and ethical legal advice and services to the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and its committees and task forces, the AOC, and the courts. The office has two major functions: (1) house counsel and (2) “rules and projects”—development of rules of court and legal forms. There are sixty six people assigned to the Office of General Counsel.  This number would seem to be far greater than what should be required to perform the “core functions” of that department.  This is especially troubling when one considers that 53 of the 66 make over $100,000 in salary alone, with the highest earning over $173,000.
.
10. Three regional offices provide services and improve communication between the AOC at the state level and the courts at the local level. The primary focus is on operations, especially in the areas of technology, finance, legal matters, and human resources.  The AOC has 26 employees assigned to these three regional offices (11 in the South Office, 8 in the Northern Office and 7 in the Bay Area Office).  The regional offices by there very definitions are unnecessary and should be eliminated.  There is no need, with the availability of communication technology, for the AOC to have satellite offices across the state. It is particularly odd that with the AOC based in San Francisco that a Northern Regional Office and a Bay Area Regional Office exist.  Likewise any satellite offices connected to building construction should also be eliminated.
.
11. The Center for Families, Children & the Courts works to improve the quality of justice for—as well as services to meet the needs of—families, youth, children, and self-represented litigants in the California courts.  While I am certain this is an honorable endeavor, the AOC lists 94 permanent employees in this department.  Thirty two of these employees make over $100,000 a year in salary while over half take home more than $80,000 per year.  The true issue is what core number of competent employees is necessary to perform the legitimate functions of the CFCC and what are those legitimate core functions.  Any honest evaluation would have to question full time employment of nearly 100 people to perform those core functions.
.
12.  The Finance Division provides budget planning, asset management, accounting, procurement, and contract management for the judicial branch and the trial courts.  The department has 93 permanent full time employees.  Again the number seems completely unconnected to the nature and significance of the functions this division is called upon to perform.  In the current economy the concept of procurement as it relates to any significant purchase is obsolete.  It is also of significance that the division is responsible for contract management (one of the most heavily criticized parts of the state auditors report) and budget planning (which was severely lacking in light of the obvious world, national, state and local financial situation).  The planning for the crisis was non-existent even though obvious signs of fiscal disaster were apparent, far in advance of the state budget being signed, to anyone who chose to pay attention.
.
13. The Executive Office Programs Division performs a variety of logistical, analytical, and management services for the Judicial Council, the AOC, and the courts related to planning, research, communications, jury service, grant administration programs statewide, and staff support for the council and key internal and advisory committees.  Seventy three full time staff members are assigned to this division.  I am unclear with all the other divisions what planning, research, communication and jury services this division can be handling.  With the Executive Office, Office of General Counsel, Education Division, Office of Governmental Affairs, Finance Division, Information Services Division, and Trial Court Administrative Services Division, it is hard to believe another 73 employees are needed to provide staff support for the Judicial Council and their advisory committees.
.
14. The Trial Court Administrative Services Division manages a statewide technology initiative known as the Phoenix Program, which provides transition assistance to the courts moving from county stewardship to the judicial branch’s financial and human resources systems as a result of state legislation.  Ninety six permanent employees are identified as being assigned to this department.  I am unclear why such a large number of employees would be necessary to service this program.  There is little doubt using the Phoenix Program has become convoluted, painstaking, and very expensive.  A complete cost benefit analysis and audit of the program should be completed to determine if this seemingly good idea has become an unwieldy and unworkable project.  In many respects this program seems similar to the CCMS project in terms of scope, mismanagement and insufficient oversight.  The lack of a statewide pay scale combined with 58 counties negotiating with various unions across the state makes the payroll system unworkable.  Also, the inequality in the amounts counties pay (or don’t pay) for the system likewise make the concept one which is inequitable.  An effort to determine whether the services the Phoenix system is intended to perform could be more efficiently and effectively delivered in an alternative fashion should be considered.  In any event, a glorified HR system which requires 96 full time employees to service is disgraceful.  This is especially true when one realizes the AOC employs an additional 41 full-time Human Resources employees.
.
15. Some consideration should be given to the necessity of having the AOC based in San Francisco.  San Francisco is undeniably one of the most expensive cities in the United States.  According to Kiplinger, San Francisco ranks third in the United States (behind only New York and Honolulu) among US cities with the most expensive cost of living.  The high cost  of commercial leases, hotels, parking, gas, and meals combine to unnecessarily deplete judicial resources.
.
16. The alleged use of construction funds for maintenance of buildings is also disconcerting.  There needs to be careful analysis as to whether that occurred and if so who authorized it.  A determination of how such a misuse of dedicated dollars could occur and go undetected by the Judicial Council should take place to prevent reoccurrence.
.
These are but a few of the areas where obvious cost savings are easily available.
.
It is important to recognize that because the AOC has failed to provide critical information regarding consultants, advisors, independent contractors and others who derive their income providing services through the AOC that no review of those areas could be done.  I am hopeful that if and when the AOC chooses to disclose that information it can be carefully scrutinized to determine what, if any, of those expenditures are necessary.  It will also permit an assessment of the relationship of those expenditures to the proper core functions of the AOC.
.
The Chief Justice publicly asserts her desire to keep the courthouse doors open and the judiciary available to the public we are sworn to serve.  One need only look to the responses to her own survey to find significant support among those in the judiciary to streamlining the AOC and altering the path of CCMS.
.
The Chief Justice’s survey responses were not made public.  Responses have been quoted in various newspapers, however, which illustrate the significant dissatisfaction with both the AOC and CCMS.
.
An Orange County reporter who read all the responses in that county stated, “The large majority of the answers are in the range of unhappy to hopping mad.”  The reporter also noted “the large majority of those answering the survey questions had plenty of suggestions for improvement on the way the courts in California are now run. Their central theme was to cut the power and size of the bureaucracy, put some democracy into the selection process for the Judicial Council, and give the trial judges more control of their courts.”
.
Replies to the Chief Justice’s survey from Sacramento and Los Angeles were also read by a different investigative reporter who revealed that in those answers, “Trial judges call on Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye to institute sweeping cuts to the staff of the bureaucracy, close its three regional offices and impose salary freezes on all its employees.”
.
If the SEC is to appropriately serve the interests of the public and the judiciary it needs to consider significant and structural change to the AOC.  Simply seeking to justify their existence will serve nobody but those in the bureaucracy. The AOC has enjoyed unrestrained growth for over ten years.  No evaluation of the necessity, reason, justification or motivation for their growth has ever been done.  No conscientious examination of the need for retention of employees originally hired for a specific task or function has ever been attempted.  No evaluation of the relationship of the AOC’s expanding bureaucracy to the core services they were originally created to serve has been performed.  The AOC is quite candidly comparable to our nation’s debt – the one thing that always grows and never shrinks.
.
There is not a single project, booklet, computer system, or service connected to the AOC that is more important or on equal footing with ensuring the public maintains full access to California’s courts.
I appreciate your committee’s consideration of my input.
.
Kevin J. McCormick
Sacramento Superior Court
.
.


Attachment 1
From: Kevin J. McCormick
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 3:32 PM
To: Vickrey, William
Subject: Re, Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Mr. Vickrey,
.
I am requesting you or a member of your staff provide me with a current list of every employee (temporary or permanent), consultant, independent contractor, and/or person paid directly or indirectly by or through the AOC.  I am also seeking information as to their department. (i.e. Appellate and Trial Court Judicial Services, CCMS Program Management, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Court Construction and Management, Education/CJER, Emergency Response and Security, Executive Office, Executive Office Programs, Finance, General Counsel, Governmental Affairs, Human Resources, Information Services, Regional Offices, Trial Court Administrative Services or any other department.).
.
I am seeking to provide an informed reply to Justice Scotland ’s survey on behalf of the SEC.  Before I can intelligently evaluate and recommend what might make appropriate fiscal sense, I need to know precisely what actually exists in terms of personnel support connected with or provided to the AOC.
.
I also would appreciate your providing the current pay and benefits information for each of the above individuals.
.
Your prompt reply is appreciated so the information may be appropriately and carefully reviewed and considered.
.
Very Truly,
Judge Kevin J. McCormick
Sacramento Superior Court
From: Vickrey, William
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:01 PM
Cc: Scotland, Arthur; Overholt, Ron
.
Subject: RE: Re, Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Judge  McCormick – I have forwarded your request to Jody Patel who is responsible for providing administrative support to the SEC.  She will respond to your request.  – Bill
.
From: Scotland, Arthur
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 9:07 AM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Cc: Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron
.
Subject: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Dear Kevin.
.
This morning, I read Bill Vickrey’s response to your request for information necessary for you to review and consider before responding to the survey that I sent to you on behalf of the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
.
The Strategic Evaluation Committee is independent of the Administrative Office of the Courts and not in any way under its direction or control.  Jody Patel does not provide “administrative support to the SEC.”  Her assistance to the SEC is limited and solely in response to direction from the Committee and its chair.
.
By this e-mail, with a cc to Bill, I am informing Bill that it is his responsibility, or the responsibility of the Human Resources Division at Bill’s direction, to provide you with the public information you seek.
Thus, I am directing Bill to have the AOC promptly comply with your request.
.
Art
Arthur G. Scotland, Chair
Strategic Evaluation Committee
From: Kevin J. McCormick
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 02:47 PM
To: Scotland, Arthur
Cc: Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron
.
Subject: RE: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
I have returned from our family vacation but have yet to receive any reply to my request or the directive of Justice Scotland to have the AOC “promptly comply” with my request.  The un-redacted payroll of the AOC and the names and pay rates of those employees (temporary or permanent), consultants, independent contractors, and/or persons paid directly or indirectly by or through the AOC certainly must exist somewhere so it can be easily accessed by a computer program.
.
Our branch is facing unprecedented financial difficulties and carefully and responsibly examining the actual numbers of personnel assigned to various departments, their pay and benefits packages, and the significance of the services they perform will assist in prioritizing potential recommendations for the difficult task before Justice Scotland .  The AOC revealed 946 state civil service employees for the 2010 report to Controller John Chiang.
.
Although my request is much broader and seeks more current information than that provided to the Controller, gathering and providing such information should be quickly and easily accomplished.
.
I am additionally requesting the identical employee information for June 1, 2007, June 1, 2004, and June 1, 2001.
.
In order to “conduct an in-depth review of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and its organizational structure to promote transparency, accountability, efficiency in providing services to the courts” this historical data is critical.  For a complete and thorough review of “all aspects of the AOC to help reset goals and focus on core services to the courts” one must evaluate their growth and what are truly “core services.”  The requested information will provide a framework to understand and evaluate the manner and timing of the growth of the AOC.
.
Please let me know when I can anticipate receiving this information.
.
Very Truly,
Judge Kevin J McCormick
Sacramento County Superior Court
(916) xxx-xxxx
From: Kann, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:10 PM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Cc: Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron
Subject: FW: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Judge McCormick,
.
I am contacting you on behalf of Bill Vickrey, who is out of town this week and has asked me to address your information request attached below. I am referring the request to the AOC’s process for responding to public information requests, which is administered by the AOC division that I direct. They will contact you with an official acknowledgement of receipt of the request, and we will provide a response as quickly as possible.
.
Ken Kann
Kenneth L. Kann
Director
Executive Office Programs Division
Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
415-865-xxxx Fax 415-865-xxxx
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California , 1961-2011”
From: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:10 PM
To: ‘Kann, Kenneth’
Cc: ‘Vickrey, William’; ‘Overholt, Ron’; ‘ Scotland , Arthur’
Subject: RE: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Mr. Kann,
.
As the requests for information are specifically designed to assist in providing thoughtful input into the survey by the SEC and the deadline for completing and submitting that input is “no later than August 9, 2011,” your reply is completely unacceptable.
.
My original request date for information was Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM.  The “directive” from Justice Scotland to Mr. Vickrey to “promptly comply” with my request was sent Friday, July 22, 2011 at 9:07 AM.  Now, August 3 at 4:10 pm you tell me the information has not even been passed on to anyone in the 1000 member bureaucracy of the AOC for compliance.  It appears the AOC has no intention of providing the information in a timely fashion that would permit a careful review of the size, growth, cost, or necessity of their organization. I am not even sure what it means to get “an official acknowledgement of receipt of the request” since I thought Mr. Vickrey’s reply on Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:01 PM stated “I have forwarded your request to Jody Patel who is responsible for providing administrative support to the SEC.  She will respond to your request.”
.
I am including Justice Scotland on this reply as I noted he was conspicuously absent from your reply to me.
.
Very Truly,
.
Judge Kevin J McCormick
Sacramento Superior Court
From: Kevin J. McCormick
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:42 AM
To: Kann, Kenneth
Cc: Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron; Scotland, Arthur
Subject: FW: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Mr. Kann,
.
I find it remarkable that you failed to provide any response (or even an “official acknowledgment of receipt of request”) to my e-mail of August 3.  I have still received no information from anyone in the AOC in compliance with my request and the subsequent directive from Justice Scotland , the Chair of the Strategic Evaluation Committee to provide the requested information.  The request and directive were both made nearly 3 weeks ago, with Justice Scotland stating on July 21, “I am directing Bill (Vickrey) to have the AOC promptly comply with your request.”
.
The AOC’s refusal to provide ANY information in compliance with the request, its failure to adequately communicate (internally and with me), the apparent reluctance to divulge specifics of the AOC’s actual size and growth rate, and the dismissive language used in your previous reply (indicating you will refer it to the “public information” department who will provide me with “an official acknowledgment of receipt of the request”) are all classic examples of why many judges throughout the state perceive the AOC to be bloated, overly bureaucratic and inefficient.  No bureaucracy has a motive to assist in an evaluation of its operations when a likely result is a determination that it is overstaffed, inefficient, or has assumed duties unconnected to the core services it was designed to perform.  It is similar to asking staff of the AOC to assist in developing a “strategy” for absorbing significant budget cuts and expecting them to look critically at the size and need for their own bureaucracy before considering any other alternatives.  Perhaps we would all have been better served by having a truly independent audit of the entire AOC and an independent financial assessment of how to best absorb the budget cuts.
.
I am truly at a loss as to how to secure the requested information in order to generate a thoughtful, well-reasoned and informed reply to Justice Scotland ’s survey.  The Chief Justice indicated that the SEC was created to “conduct an in-depth review of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and its organizational structure to promote transparency, accountability, efficiency in providing services to the courts.”  She further noted that the SEC would perform a complete and thorough review of “all aspects of the AOC to help reset goals and focus on core services to the courts.”   The AOC’s failure to provide the requested information directly frustrates the accomplishment of the stated goals of the Chief Justice.
.
Very Truly,
Judge Kevin J McCormick
Sacramento Superior Court
(916) xxx-xxxx
________________________________________________________________________
—–Original Message—–
From: Cage, Ayanna
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:27 PM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Subject: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick.
Judge McCormick,
.
Your email inquiry to William Vickrey, included below, was directed to the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC) process for responding to requests for information. AOC staff have reviewed your requests and provide you with the following information and response.
.
The AOC pays employee salaries through funding allocated by the California Legislature. AOC employees are directly issued pay checks by the California State Controller’s Office (SCO) on a monthly basis. The AOC does not write or otherwise issue pay checks. Funds allocated to the AOC by the Legislature are held and disbursed by the State Controller’s Office. All payments must be approved by the SCO.
.
To that end, the SCO administers and maintains a master payroll database. The SCO only provides the AOC with access to the database for the current fiscal year and the prior fiscal year. All other data is archived by the SCO and must be requested directly of the SCO.
.
Therefore, the AOC can provide you with employee information for July 1, 2011, but cannot provide you with information for June 1, 2007, June 1, 2004 or June 1, 2001. You may request this information from the SCO online athttp://www.sco.ca.gov/eo_about_records.html. A fax number, address and contact information is provided thereon.
.
Salary of Employees
.
Attached for your use are two documents. One is dated as of August 5, 2011, and lists the names, monthly base salary paid at the current/ongoing furlough rate, and associated divisions of the following classes of individuals: AOC regular full-time employees, AOC regular part-time employees, AOC temporary employees (retired annuitants and temporary).
.
The second document is dated as of August 8, 2011, and lists the names, monthly base salary paid at the current rate, and associated divisions of the following classes of individuals: Employment Agency temporary workers contracted through a company called Apple One, Inc. (you may find the company online at http://www.appleone.com/default.aspx).
.
You may also find information related to the number, names and salaries of AOC employees in databases posted online at the Sacramento Bee website (http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/) and at the Bay Area News Group website (http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area).
.
Regarding your request for the names, monthly base salary paid at the current/ongoing furlough rate, and associated divisions of the following classes of individuals: consultants, contractors, etc.—staff is reviewing AOC records to determine whether we have and with what information we can provide you. Staff estimates being able to forward this information to you by August 22, 2011 but will let you know as soon as possible.
.
Number of Employees
Number of AOC regular employees:
•       Fiscal Year 2005-2006: 667
•       Fiscal Year 2009-2010: 873
•       Fiscal Year 2010-2011: 852 (as of 12/31/2010)
Number of AOC temporary employees:
•       Fiscal Year 2005-2006: 19
•       Fiscal Year 2009-2010: 34
•       Fiscal Year 2010-2011: 31 (as of 12/31/2010)
.
The increase in employees from FY 2005-2006 to FY 2009-2010 was largely due to the demands imposed on the AOC by the Trial Court Facilities Act as the AOC hired people to manage the construction, renovation and maintenance of over 450 courthouses and other court facilities throughout the state. The decrease in number of AOC employees and temporary hires from FY 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 fell over that last year because of the hiring freeze imposed by AOC leadership. Please note that the hiring freeze did not include positions critical to agency operation.
.
Benefits of Employees
.
The Chief Justice of California is permitted to authorize pay and benefits for judicial branch employees who are exempt from civil service under Article VII, section 4(b) of the California Constitution. Benefits received by employees of the AOC, Courts of Appeal, Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, Commission on Judicial Performance and Trial Court Judges are categorized as one unit within the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and are eligible for benefits under the “State Miscellaneous” category. The employee share of benefits is determined by CalPERS and the Department of Personnel Administration and approved by the Chief Justice.
.
For more information on available benefits you may visit the CalPERS website at: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xWxUcc3nClC5Q_health%20benefit%20summary.pdf and https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/x9qL2vrRD3Sks_pub-43-2010.9.1.pdf. The AOC is prohibited under HIPPA regulations from providing or releasing information about individual employees’ health plan coverage. Only summaries of available benefits can be provided; please see attached summary of rates for calendar year 2011.
We will do our best work to provide you with the most comprehensive information as soon as possible. Please reply to this email with questions or for additional information. Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
Ayanna Cage
Executive Office Programs Division–Public Access to Records Project Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California, 1961–2011”
_________________________________________________________________________
From: Kann, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Kevin J. McCormick
Cc: Vickrey, William; Overholt, Ron
Subject: FW: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Judge McCormick,
.
I am contacting you on behalf of Bill Vickrey, who is out of town this week and has asked me to address your information request attached below. I am referring the request to the AOC’s process for responding to public information requests, which is administered by the AOC division that I direct. They will contact you with an official acknowledgement of receipt of the request, and we will provide a response as quickly as possible.
.
Ken Kann
Kenneth L. Kann
Director
Executive Office Programs Division
Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
415-865-xxxx Fax 415-865-xxxx, kenneth.kann
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California, 1961-2011”
______________________________________________________________
—–Original Message—–
From: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:49 PM
To: ‘Cage, Ayanna’
Subject: RE: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick
.
Ms. Cage,
.
I appreciate the information provided.  As you acknowledge in your e-mail, information related to “consultants, independent contractors, and/or persons paid directly or indirectly by or through the AOC” is not included in the disclosures thus far.  When do you anticipate being able to secure this important part of the request?
I greatly appreciate what has been provided thus far but need the additional information to adequately evaluate the true population of the AOC.
.
Very Truly,
Judge Kevin J McCormick
Sacramento County Superior Court
(916) xxx-xxxx
.
_______________________________________________________________________
From: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:56 PM
To: Kann, Kenneth
Subject: FW: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick
Mr. Kann,
.
As I received the following message when I sent the below inquiry to Ms. Cage, I forward my e-mail (highlighted below) for your reply.
.
Very Truly,
Kevin McCormick
.
Greetings:
I will be out of the office on Thursday, August 11 and Friday August 12. I will respond to all emails when I return on Monday August 15. Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
Ayanna Cage
.
—–Original Message—–
From: McCormick, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:49 PM
To: ‘Cage, Ayanna’
Subject: RE: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick
.
Ms. Cage,
.
I appreciate the information provided.  As you acknowledge in your e-mail, information related to “consultants, independent contractors, and/or persons paid directly or indirectly by or through the AOC” is not included in the disclosures thus far.  When do you anticipate being able to secure the information called for in this part of the request?
.
I greatly appreciate what has been provided thus far but need the additional information to adequately evaluate the true population of the AOC.
.
Very Truly,
Judge Kevin J McCormick
Sacramento County Superior Court
(916) xxx-xxxx
________________________________________________________________
From: Kann, Kenneth
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Kevin J McCormick
Cc:
Subject: FW: Re Strategic Evaluation Committee survey
.
Judge McCormick, regarding your question below  as to when we anticipate providing information related to “consultants, independent contractors, and/or persons paid directly or indirectly by or through the AOC,” the answer is by August 22 we will know whether we have responsive information and, if so, what responsive information. This was addressed in our August 9, 2011 response to you, also attached to your e-mail below, from which I quote as follows:
.
Regarding your request for the names, monthly base salary paid at the current/ongoing furlough rate, and associated divisions of the following classes of individuals: consultants, contractors, etc.—staff is reviewing AOC records to determine whether we have and with what information we can provide you. Staff estimates being able to forward this information to you by August 22, 2011 but will let you know as soon as possible.
I will separately respond to the subsequent e-mail that you sent me today.
.
Ken Kann
Kenneth L. Kann
Director
Executive Office Programs Division
Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
415-865-xxxx Fax 415-865-xxxx
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California , 1961-2011”
________________________________________________________________________
From:Kevin J McCormick
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:51 PM
To: Kann, Kenneth
Cc: Vickrey, William; Scotland, Arthur; Overholt, Ron
Subject: RE: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick
.
Mr. Kann,
The problem I have with your reply is it is far after the survey information is due to the SEC.  Since my very first request for this information July 21, 2011 I stressed the importance of getting the information in a timely fashion.  I noted the information was sought to provide meaningful, thoughtful, informed and intelligent recommendations to the survey for Ret. Justice Arthur Scotland and the SEC committee he chairs.  His original deadline for reply was “no later than August 9, 2011.”   Had that date not been extended to August 16, the time for input would have already passed – and I still do not have the necessary information.  The date to reply has been extended to August 16, so the “estimate” that the information I requested can be sent to me byAugust 22, 2011 is of little help.
.
It is worth noting that by August 22, more than a month will have passed since I requested the information.  More than a month will have passed since Bill Vickrey said “I have forwarded your request to Jody Patel who is responsible for providing administrative support to the SEC.  She will respond to your request.  – Bill.”    Finally, exactly a month will have passed since Justice Scotland directed AOC compliance stating “By this e-mail, with a cc to Bill, I am informing Bill that it is his responsibility, or the responsibility of the Human Resources Division at Bill’s direction, to provide you with the public information you seek.  Thus, I am directing Bill to have the AOC promptly comply with your request.”
.
Are you seriously telling me that the AOC has grown to be so expansive and unwieldy that in order to provide information identifying who works for your agency it takes over a month?  If that is actually true, perhaps that speaks volumes about whether the bureaucracy intended to provide administrative support to the courts has expanded beyond any concept of reasonableness.
.
Very Truly,
Kevin McCormick
____________________________________________________________________
From: Kann, Kenneth
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:34 PM
To: McCormick, Kevin
Cc: Vickrey, William; Scotland, Arthur; Overholt, Ron
Subject: RE: Response to Inquiry about AOC employees (temporary, permanent, contract) > Judge Kevin McCormick
.
Judge McCormick, on Tuesday of this week we provided responsive information and clarification as to what we do not have for some of your information requests. At the moment, as we advised you in the Tuesday response, August 22 is the best estimate for when we can provide  a further response to your remaining requests.
.
Ken Kann
Kenneth L. Kann
Director
Executive Office Programs Division
Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
415-865-xxxx Fax 415-865-xxxx
“AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California , 1961-2011”
.
.
.
Attachment 2
The cost per square foot of courthouses designed and built through the AOC’s Office of Construction and Maintenance has been the subject of numerous allegations of failure to responsibly design and build courthouses with the needs of the community in mind.  Assertions of excessive spending, exorbitant and unnecessary features, square feet and numbers of courtroom disproportionate to the counties population and a general lack of apparent concern for taxpayer dollars have all surfaced.
.
The below article dated April 11, 2011, regarding what it should cost to build a courthouse in the United States, together with examples of Federal Courts being built at half the cost would seem to provide support to these assertions.  Below the article you will find the cost per square foot the AOC has spent or anticipates spending to build a variety of courthouses.  The figures the AOC quotes far exceed what one would anticipate spending or consider reasonable in any economic circumstance, especially the one we are currently experiencing.
.
.
Construction Cost per Square Foot for a Courthouse
Posted by Dean Dalvit • April 21, 2011 • Printer-friendly
.
In an ongoing series to maintain the most updated construction cost information available to us from RSMeans, the leader in construction cost estimating, new data has come out for the construction cost per square foot for Courthouses and similar facilities.
.
.
Construction Cost per square foot Courthouse March 2011
.
As you can see, the highest cost per square foot is in New York City at $269.00 per square foot while the low end in Winston-Salem is at $154.41 with a median of $208 per square foot. These costs are higher than ordinary market rate office buildings because of the security requirements in their programs.
.
Programming and designing facilities of all kinds is a unique versatility that EVstudio has among it’s multiple offices working on commercial projects across the United States, so if you would like more information about your project, please contact us and we will be happy to help.
.
Los Angeles County, New L.A. Mental Health Courthouse
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 43,445
Estimated total cost: $82,549,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $637
Expected completion: 3Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,900
Cost per courtroom $ 27,516,333
.
Placer County, New Tahoe Area Courthouse
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 15,000
Estimated total cost: $27,489,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $747
Expected completion: 2 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,833
Cost per courtroom $ $27,489,000
.
Alpine Courthouse
In Alpine County the AOC is planning to pay over $26 million for a new courthouse designed to serve a county of about 1,200 people.
$21,666 per resident
Facts
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 14,841
Estimated total cost: $26,372,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $699
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,776
Cost per courtroom $ $26,372,000
.
Sierra County, New Downieville Courthouse
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 14,950
Estimated total cost: $23,145,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $721
Expected completion: 4 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,548
Cost per courtroom $ 23,145,000
.
Los Angeles County, New Eastlake Juvenile Courthouse
Courtrooms: 5
Square footage: 65,513
Estimated total cost: $99,836,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $554
Expected completion: 3 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,524
Cost per courtroom $ 19,967,200
.
Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara Criminal Courthouse
Courtrooms: 8
Square footage: 97, 266
Estimated total cost: $151,988,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $565
Expected completion: 4 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,563
Cost per courtroom $ 18,998,500
.
Nevada County, New Nevada City Courthouse
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 83,782
Estimated total cost: $107,933,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $567
Expected completion: 3Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,288
Cost per courtroom $ 17,988,833
.
Plumas County, New Quincy Courthouse
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 38,283
Estimated total cost: $51,767,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $644
Expected completion: 1 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,352
Cost per courtroom $ 17,255,666
.
Merced County, New Los Banos Courthouse
Courtrooms: 2
Square footage: 29,511
Estimated total cost: $32,597,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $640
Expected completion: 1Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,105
Cost per courtroom $ 16,298,500
.
Monterey County, New South County Courthouse
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 47,223
Estimated total cost: $48,448,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $620
Expected completion: 2 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $1,025
Cost per courtroom $ 16,149,333
.
Inyo County Courthouse
Courtrooms: 2
Square footage: 28,774
Estimated total cost: $32,286,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $652
Current status: Site selection
Expected completion: 2 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,122
Cost per courtroom $ 16,143,000
.
Siskiyou County, New Yreka Courthouse
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 86,163
Estimated total cost: $96,501,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $585
Expected completion: 4 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,120
Cost per courtroom $ 16,083,500
.
Los Angeles County, New Glendale Courthouse
Courtrooms: 8
Square footage: 99,552
Estimated total cost: $123,948,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $561
Expected completion: 2 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,245
Cost per courtroom $ 15,493,500
.
Imperial County, New El Centro Family Courthouse
Courtrooms: 4
Square footage: 53,983
Estimated total cost: $58,746,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $645
Expected completion: 3 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,088
Cost per courtroom $ 15,410,000
.
Butte County, Chico Courthouse
Courtrooms: 5
Square footage: 67,443
Estimated total cost: $76,065,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $634
Current status: Architectural design: preliminary plans
Expected completion: 1 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,128
Cost per courtroom $ $ 15,213,000
.
El Dorado County, New Placerville Courthouse
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 87,642
Estimated total cost: $89,426,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $587
Expected completion: 4Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,020
Cost per courtroom $ 14,904,333
.
Los Angeles County, New Santa Clarita Courthouse
Courtrooms: 4
Square footage: 54,750
Estimated total cost: $58,131,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $621
Expected completion: 4 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,062
Cost per courtroom $ 14,532,750
.
Tehama County, Red Bluff Courthouse
Courtrooms: 5
Square footage: 62,033
Estimated total cost: $71,479,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $642
Expected completion: 2 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,152
Cost per courtroom $ 14,295,800
.
Tuolomne County, New Sonora Courthouse
Facts
Courtrooms: 5
Square footage: 66,724
Estimated total cost: $70,076,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $610
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,050
Cost per courtroom $ 14,015,200
.
Kern County, New Delano Courthouse
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 39,780
Estimated total cost: $41,924,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $607
Expected completion: 4Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,397
Cost per courtroom $ 13,974,667
.
Los Angeles County, New Southeast L.A. Courthouse
Courtrooms: 9
Square footage: 99,518
Estimated total cost: $120,741,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $599
Expected completion: 1 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,213
Cost per courtroom $ 13,415,666
.
Lake County, New Lakeport Courthouse
Courtrooms: 4
Square footage: 50,158
Estimated total cost: $53,235,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $632
Expected completion: 3 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,061
Cost per courtroom $ 13,308,750
.
Mendocino County, New Ukiah Courthouse
Courtrooms: 9
Square footage: 113,757
Estimated total cost: $119,914,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $589
Expected completion: 2Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,054
Cost per courtroom $ 13,232,778
.
Riverside County, New Indio Juvenile and Family Courthouse
Courtrooms: 5
Square footage: 67,933
Estimated total cost: $65,791,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $542
Expected completion: 4 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 968
Cost per courtroom $ 13,158,200
.
Riverside County, New Hemet Courthouse
Courtrooms: 9
Square footage: 116,303
Estimated total cost: $118,413,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $542
Expected completion: 1 Q 2016
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,018
Cost per courtroom $ 13,157,000
.
Lassen County, Susanville Courthouse
Facts
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 42,320
Estimated total cost: $38,937,000
Current status: Construction
Expected completion: 1Q 2012
Cost per square foot:  $ 920
Cost per courtroom $ 12,979,000
.
San Benito County, Hollister Courthouse
Courtrooms: 3
Square footage: 41,500
Estimated total project cost: $37,378,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 3 Q 2012
Cost per square foot:  $ 901
Cost per courtroom $ 12,459,333
.
Santa Clara County, New Santa Clara Family Justice Center
Courtrooms: 20
Square footage: 233,906
Estimated total cost: $240,727,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $625
Expected completion: 2 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,029
Cost per courtroom $ 12,036,350
.
Shasta County, New Redding Courthouse
Courtrooms: 14
Square footage: 173,351
Estimated total cost: $168,417,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $567
Expected completion: 4 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 972
Cost per courtroom $ 12,029,785
.
Sonoma County, New Santa Rosa Criminal Courthouse
Courtrooms: 15
Square footage: 173,500
Estimated total cost: $178,689,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $579
Expected completion: 1 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,030
Cost per courtroom $ 11,912,600
.
Kings County, New Hanford Courthouse
Courtrooms: 12
Square footage: 144,460
Estimated total cost: $142,449,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $547
Expected completion: 3Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 986
Cost per courtroom $ 11,870,000
.
Yolo County, New Woodland Courthouse
Courtrooms: 14
Square footage: 163,066
Estimated total cost: $165,337,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $605
Expected completion: 1 Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,014
Cost per courtroom $ 11,809,785
.
Calaveras County, San Andreas Courthouse
Courtrooms: 4
Square footage: 44,600
Estimated total project cost: $45,364,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 3Q 2012
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,017
Cost per courtroom $ 11,341,000
.
Mono County, Mammoth Lakes Courthouse
Courtrooms: 2
Square footage: 20,000
Estimated total cost: $21,522,000
Current status: Construction
Expected completion: 2Q 2011
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,076
Cost per courtroom $ 10,761,000
.
Stanislaus County, New Modesto Courthouse
Courtrooms: 26
Square footage: 301,464
Estimated total cost: $278,276,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $500
Expected completion: 2 Q 2016
Cost per square foot:  $ 923
Cost per courtroom $ 10,702,923
.
Riverside County, Banning Justice Center
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 68,399
Estimated total cost: $63,261,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 1 Q 2013
Cost per square foot:  $ 925
Cost per courtroom $ $10,543,500
.
Sutter County, New Yuba City Courthouse
Courtrooms: 7
Square footage: 78,701
Estimated total cost: $72,757,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $582
Expected completion: 2 Q 2014
Cost per square foot:  $ 924
Cost per courtroom $ 10,393,857
.
Tulare County, Porterville Courthouse
Courtrooms: 9
Square footage: 100,299
Estimated total cost: $93,364,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 1 Q 2013
Cost per square foot:  $ 931
Cost per courtroom $ 10,373,778
.
Madera County Courthouse
Courtrooms: 10
Square footage: 110,824
Estimated total cost: $100,208,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 2 Q 2013
Cost per square foot:  $ 904
Cost per courtroom $ 10,020,800
.
Sacramento County, New Sacramento Criminal Courthouse
Courtrooms: 44
Square footage: 405,500
Estimated total cost: $439,118,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $563
Expected completion: 1Q 2015
Cost per square foot:  $ 1,083
Cost per courtroom $ 9,979,955
.
San Bernardino County Courthouse
Courtrooms: 36
Square footage: 383,745
Estimated total cost: $339,822,000
Current status: Working drawings
Expected completion: 3 Q 2013
Cost per square foot:  $ 886
Cost per courtroom $ 9,439,500
.
San Joaquin County, Stockton Courthouse
Courtrooms: 30
Square footage: 306,443
Estimated total cost: $272,939,000
Current status: Preliminary plans
Expected completion: 3 Q 2013
Cost per square foot:  $ 891
Cost per courtroom $ 9,097967
.
San Diego County, Central Courthouse
Courtrooms: 71
Square footage: 704,000
Estimated total cost: $633,934,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $517
Expected completion: 1 Q 2016
Cost per square foot:  $ 900
Cost per courtroom $ 8,928,647
Completed Projects
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 52,000
Total cost: $27,688,000
Start date: 4 Q 2003
Completion date: 3 Q 2009
Cost per square foot:  $ 532
Cost per courtroom $ 27,688,000
.
California Court of Appeal, Fifth District
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 61,000
Total cost: $20,300,000
Project manager: California Department of General Services
Completed: 3Q 2007
Cost per square foot:  $ 333
Cost per courtroom $ 20,300,000
.
Fresno County, Juvenile Delinquency Court
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 61,936 of court space
Total cost: $57,900,000
Start date: 1 Q 2003
Completion date: 3 Q 2009
Cost per square foot:  $ 935
Cost per courtroom $ 9,650,000
.
Contra Costa County, Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Pittsburg
Courtrooms: 7
Square footage: 73,500
Estimated total cost: $64,729,000
Current status: Court took occupancy in Nov 2010, completing final construction and commissioning
Cost per square foot:  $ 881
Cost per courtroom $ 9,247,000
.
Plumas/Sierra Counties, Plumas/Sierra Courthouse
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 6,500
Total project cost: $6,496,000
Start date: 1 Q 2006
Completion date: 4 Q 2009
Cost per square foot:  $1,000
Cost per courtroom $ 6,496,000
.
Merced County Courthouse
Courtrooms: 6
Square footage: 57,600
Total cost: $19,700,000
Project manager: County of Merced
Completed: 2Q 2007
Cost per square foot:  $ 342
Cost per courtroom $ 3,283,333