Not too far back we covered a series of stories produced by 10 News San Diego and KCRA in a piece labeled “AOC’s pravda feebly attempts to regroup” .
.
.
After running that story we received a series of messages. A series of messages described that while there is a meal allowance for judicial branch employees of just 18.00 per dinner, there is special considerations given to AOC’s leadership and those sitting on the Judicial Council that submit expenses.
One of those special considerations is a mostly quiet policy that permits meals of up to $60.00 per person to be reimbursed for senior AOC executives and council members.
Another special consideration is lodging while attending council meetings or functions of any type in the city by the bay with allegations that suites that are well beyond the allowance are the norm. We were advised to pull the records and check out the digs that council members stay at when they’re in town.
We received a few more messages about Tonto’s stay in San Francisco, just a few blocks away from the AOC at taxpayer expense. Now the general rule is how far away from your office that you have to travel that might entitle you to a stay in any given locale, not how far you live away from your primary office.
The correction put forth by the office of communications sought to provide cover for Mr. Overholt by indicating that he was more than 25 miles away from his home, working late on AOC business and that he needed a hotel in the city, a few blocks from the AOC’s office so that he could be at work bright-eyed and bushy tailed in the morning and that the AOC additionally paid more than 50 bucks for Mr. Overholt to park his car in the parking garage while on his stay when he has a reserved parking place in the basement of 455 golden gate.
Parking is supposed to be an included element in the all-inclusive hotel rate, yet another exception is granted Tonto, who earns over two hundred grand per year to park his car 8 blocks from where he was working, for over 50.00 per night.
Cab fare to and from the office would have been less than 20 bucks including tips.
But the real reason for in- town the stay is being alleged as something else that has nothing to do with work. It is being rumored in JCW’s private message window that it has a great deal to do with sobriety.
We can’t verify this but we don’t believe it to be a coincidence when we hear it more than once from different anonymous sources, yet we can’t go out and declare that this was the case because we can’t prove it. However, no barrier exists to someone coming on JCW to clarify what was going down that evening that caused Mr. Overholt to stay eight blocks from the AOC.
We certainly believe he should be writing the state a check regardless because no other employee working in San Francisco on a regular basis would be permitted to a paid hotel stay eight blocks from the office and over 50.00 in parking. Especially when they are alleged to have a free reserved spot in the building parking garage.
_______________________________________________
Ron Overholt has been the Interim Executive Director of the AOC for about three months.
Our concern is that interim or temporary appointments at the AOC have always become permanent and that a nationwide search for a new executive director will have one of two results. Either there will be some bullshit declaration that there is no one better suited to the job than Mr. Overholt (when in fact there are probably a couple million better suited in this state alone) or that some crony appointment will be made from the stalwarts on the council. Wouldn’t Justice Huffman just make the perfect executive director of the AOC?
And lord knows that the executive director of the AOC and his Chief Deputy are paid better than the Guv himself or any judge or justice in the state.
It’s time for some new blood: Someone that will take a critical look at an agency under fire and not simply re-arrange the deck chairs but to clean house. And most of that housecleaning needs to start at the top, where 93% of our long term survey respondents indicate that the entire board of directors at the AOC needs to be replaced, including Mr. Overholt.
…maybe next time he’ll think before he cheats.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
December 23, 2011
Tonto exercised poor judgment again by drinking too much…that bastard needs to go out the door now with the entire AOC leadership.
Been There
December 26, 2011
It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that the AOC Executive Director is selected by the Chief Justice and serves at her pleasure, and therein lies the problem and the context of past years’ of mismanagement at the highest levels of the California Judicial System.
Who is there to save the courts from a flawed choice for Executive Director? The Judicial Council? Oh, please!! In my experience many JC members are seduced by the prestige, the potential for greater power, and the scores of AOC staffers who are instructed to pamper and protect. At some level every JC member knows the consequences of not supporting the Chief on the”big” votes.
Whatever addiction problems Tonto may or may not have, the problem of runaway reimburseable expenses lies with the unmitigated distain for fiscal responsibility coupled with a sense of entitlement of the occupiers of the AOC Executive Office. The Judicial Council members claiming reimbursement of up to $60 for dinners are unwittingly providing cover for Tonto and Co. (And BTW I live in S F and you most certainly can eat very well for a hell of a lot less than $60 if you are willing to forego Michael Mina or Boulevard).
antonatrail
December 26, 2011
”There are people who think that plunder loses all its immorality as soon as it becomes legal. Personally, I cannot imagine a more alarming situation.” – Frédéric Bastiat
Yes. And here we all are.
courtflea
December 26, 2011
Well, not a big suprise to hear this either the alleged drinking or the free digs or the big spending. I have been to many a meeting at the AOC where our lowly meeting lunch consisted of the usual sandwiches but in the dining area the JC was being served fab hot meals. Dinner, I can’t even imagine. However, I am sure the price for each meal would be considerably lower if you cut out the drinks 🙂 Also, if you keep digging I am sure that you will find that the AOC has housed more than one top employee in the city hotel or otherwise.
The one big thing that strikes me in these revelations is that perhaps Ron O has a conscious, hence the drinking? Now that would be news!
Been There
December 26, 2011
IMHO, Courtflea, the “fab hot meals” served JC members while others eat sandwiches is all part of the seduction to lure JC members into thinking they are special and, yes, entitled to special treatment in every aspect of their JC membership.
But, alas, behind many a seduction are elements of manipulation, control, and deceit. The AOC, and by extension the CJ, want something in exchange.
By controlling JC membership to special friends, plying them with meals and accommodations beyond state rates to keep them happy to serve, the CJ and the AOC Executive Director can cheerfully count on these special friends to support their initiatives ad infinitum.
I am afraid that should Tonto not prove a good choice for permanent appointment as Executive Director (or if he signals a desire to retire), there are, as JCW has indicated, dedicated yes-men waiting in the wings.
The best hope for change lies with the ACJ members, but they will have no small task in bringing about a democratically elected JC. That is the important first step to bringing about meaningful change for the states court system. And both the CJ and the AOC Executive Office know this.
Been There
December 27, 2011
I have posted my share of gloom and doom on this site, but i do want to say that i know there are many, many judicial officers serving on JC Advisory Committees who are as appalled by AOC Management malfeasance as are many who post here. These judicial officers are incredibly good people who are honest, dedicated, and committed to making the California Courts better. Thank you ACJ for giving them a voice and articulating avenues for positive change. Here’s to a better New Year everyone!
anna
December 28, 2011
if you know so many “good” judges who are appalled, why the hell aren’t they putting themselves on the line?
Being appalled and doing nothing about this, is as bad as doing it. These judges wouldn’t give one iota about sentencing an accomplice, they are no better.
althepal55
December 26, 2011
“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body – working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
Thomas Jefferson
[Today is day 290…]
Wendy Darling
December 27, 2011
Published today, Tuesday, December 27, from The Sacramento Bee:
Gov. Jerry Brown made just one judicial appointment in his first 11 months in office.
This afternoon, he announced 14.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/12/jerry-brown-ramps-up-california-judicial-appointments.html
Long live the ACJ.
anna
December 28, 2011
They are all suck up to the JC and the AOC. Holly Fujie is tied to HRH George at the hip, and is as corrupt too.
anna
December 28, 2011
It should read as they are all suck ups, to the JC and AOC.
Been There
December 28, 2011
Anna, why don’t good judges on the JC Advisory Committes publicly put themselves on the line?
To paraphrase an old US Air Force maxim, “There are old Judges on the JC Advisory Committees, and there are bold Judges on these Advisory Committees, but there are no old, bold Judges currently serving.
Wendy Darling
December 28, 2011
Judicial officers, as well as court executive officers, and others, who know about the misconduct going on within the AOC and who are “appalled by AOC Management malfeasance” also know that if they dare to speak up about it, the court they work for will be punished for it. It is one of the very reasons the AOC, the Chief Jusitice, and the Judicial Council are so opposed to any attempt at legislation to directly fund the trial courts, such as AB 1208 — loose control of the money, and you loose the ability to control the court. Retaliation by the AOC, and blessed by the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, is a reality. It’s not an excuse, but it is a reality. And every judicial officer and court CEO “appalled by AOC Management and malfeasance” knows it.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
December 28, 2011
Great. So they are cowards, not worthy or fit to hold the offices they do. “Judges are suppose to be men [persons] of fortitude and tough skins”. That’s was the case law states.
These “good” people need to be on the front lines. Not hiding. As “Been There” implies most are ready for retirement. What’s their excuse?
They can sentence people to death, but can’t stand up for an honest judicial system?
Their silence brings into question their honesty, and integrity.
John Adams puts them all to shame.
As does Thurgood Marshall. If it weren’t for those two, we wouldn’t have our country, or any civil rights.
Tani owes her job to those two.
I have more respect for George, at least he clearly stated he wanted to destroy the judiciary, and actively went about doing it.
Where were all these “good” people then? Silent.
They were suppose to be the guardians at the gate.
Instead they left the dirty work to “help”. [It’s the equivalent of a King saying “the bedchamber maid, made me do it”]. What are these men[persons]? Men, or mice?
These privileged few, [judges] are suppose to have a sense of noblesse oblige, and leadership abilities.
They abdicated, their leadership, their positions in the community, and their right to be considered worthy of the offices they held.
All for a lousy paycheck and the “title” of judge. [which is hollow, and should be synonymous with criminal] and thanks to their silence, they helped HRH George do it.
They could have gone to the FBI. They know where all the bodies are buried.
anna
December 28, 2011
Punished? How? By not being promoted.
Been There
December 28, 2011
Anna, as Wendy Darling indicates, the punishment is seldom solely a personal one, such as not being reappointed to a JC Committee. Let me share a fable — and like many fables there is truth within it.
During the 1990’s the CJ, whom we shall call HRH, wanted two modifications to the state court system. One was trial court unification, which would require the approval of the 58 individual counties, and the other was unified state funding of the trial courts, which would require legislative approval. These two ideas of HRH are, as you can see, related.
The first step was the trial court unification and HRH had his ambassadors travel around the state holding meetings with each of the 58 county PJs to “sell” the idea. Some PJs were enthusiastic, others not quite convinced that unification was a good idea, and a very few were flat out opposed.
One PJ who was absolutely, positively opposed was the PJ of a very LArge county court system, spanning hundreds of miles in area, with multiple court houses, and literally hundreds of judges serving millions, yes millions, of people.
Within a relatively short period of time many county courts signed on to trial court unification amid much publicity and heaps of praise from HRH. As time went on more and more counties signed on, some albeit reluctantly, but LArge County and a couple of others were hold outs.
HRH’s plans were doomed without LArge County signing on — remember HRH wanted to get unified state funding and he could not get it without the LArge County courts. More ambassadors were sent, but HRH’s pleas were ignored.
Time moved forward and as the New Year approached the LArge County PJ received notice from several of his judicial officers that they planned to retire — this was a very normal as several judges were of an age to retire — and the PJ notified the AOC and the Governor’s Office of the upcoming retirements so that new judges could be appointed to handle the county’s caseload. Some time later in the year, more judges notified the PJ of their intention to retire, and the PJ was getting worried because the Governor had yet to make a single judicial appointment to his county courts to cover all those retirements that occurred at the first of the year.
We will not discuss in this little fable the potential for chaos if a court system lacks an adequate number of judicial officers to handle its civil and criminal calendars, especially the criminal calendars, but let’s just say that the PJ of LArge County was justifiably concerned. He called HRH and asked him to please notify the Governor’s office that LArge County was short xxx judicial officers, the current bench officers were taking on extra calendar responsibilities, pro tem judges had been brought in, but the tipping point was near. HRH was sympathetic, offered to personally speak to the Governor’s Judicial Appointments Secretary on the PJ ‘s behalf, and then HRH asked if the PJ had reconsidered his court’s opposition to court unification. The PJ said, “No.” HRH replied, “Oh, I am so sorry to hear that.”
More time went by and more judges in LArge County were approaching retirement, but no new appointments had been made to the bench in LArge County despite the PJ’s pleas. The PJ asked for a meeting with HRH, but instead ambassadors were sent who shared an opinion, merely an opinion, that if LArge County could find a way to support trial court unification, somehow, someday very, very soon, those unfilled judicial appointments would be filled.
And so, Anna, by acquiescing, do you think the PJ in our little fable was a coward, utterly devoid of honesty and integrity? You see, it was never about the PJ himself. He was responsible for the timely resolution of court matters for millions of people. Yes, he thought trial court unification might not be in his court’s long term best interest, but he put people first. The FBI? To report what? You, see nothing that transpired in our little fable is different from the kind of things that happen in every state in the country,
anna
December 28, 2011
Your damn right I do. He was blackmailed by the CJ. He should have had the where with all to counter this blatant power grab with a constitutional argument, both US and California.
HRH George blackmailed him to obtain a violation of what our Cal Constitution instilled in the first part of the twentieth century, so reviewing courts had to issue written opinions, along with providing oral arguments, in stead of issuing one word denials, when it came to appeals, in order to create “transparency”.. That is why the COA’s were created.
Obviously, HRH George wanted to retreat to the good old days of no written opinions.
That’s why the JC and the AOC exist.
I’m not talking about being appointed to another JC committee, when I said they won’t get a promotion.
I’m talking about being promoted to the COA or a Federal Bench position.
That PJ should have brought the County to it’s knees, gone to the legislature, reported the game playing of George to the CJP, and the Judiciary Committees and asked for the Son of a Bitch to be impeached for abuse of his office!!!!
A first year lawyer out of law school could have written a cohesive complaint to these committees.
Unless the CJ had dirt on the PJ.
Do you think the “people” are served by judges who rule corruptly?
Corrupt injustice is better, than no justice? You think a plaintiff or defendant is better served with injustice, than not having their fair day in court??? How corrupt is your thinking????
Do you have any idea what parties go through when they entrust their lives to the law?
The least they should expect is that someone sees that the law is followed.
It’s devastating to them to find out the law is not followed, they would be better off not going to court at all.
To threaten a trial court in order for George to get his G*# D*#& hands on funding is outrageous.
So if every state’s judiciary engages in fraud does that make it right????
There are so many violations of judicial cannons of ethics, and California Constitutional law, of what George did in your fable that a competent law clerk could have had that SOB sent to jail. How stupid was that PJ?
Just what did George promise all these judges?
I know. Money.
As for Chuck Horan,
I hear the offer was just to good for you to pass up.
I hear you’re pulling a Judge Halpren. Must feel good to be getting paid twice as much. How is the weather in Pomona???
Did you use the JCW to get the JC to offer up the deal??? To keep you quiet, yet increase your salary???
Inquiring minds want to know.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 28, 2011
Speaking for JCW: We believe in the assigned judges program be they Halprin or Horan and believe they serve an essential function. To retire is not to sell out if one comes back as an assigned judge – it is providing an occasional, vital service based on years of experience.
When Horan does a multi-year stint in the same court, on the same bench, with no break in service and elections pass him by like a bullet train while citizens start to rail en masse, then he is pulling a Halprin and we will again highlight the AOC discrepancy of long term appointments for a law designed for short term assignments and being accountable to no one.
The other issues you address are intriguing and thought provoking. Thank You.
anna
December 29, 2011
I’ve been told by a little birdie that while “being in the program”, he has to “stay in line” otherwise, they won’t let him continue. This “little birdie” also mentioned that he was told that they would make it impossible for him to go to JAMS, or any other firm, to be used as a neutral.[if he wants to quit the program] So, while the program might be good as a stop gap measure for certain counties that is not how it’s ever been used under the last two HRH’s.
Ask yourself how long has Judge Alvarado been on the SF Bench as a “replacement”? If these so called “judges” want to retire, why don’t they retire? No, they want to keep working, they just don’t want to run for election, or they want to get more money, without any oversight.
Theoretically, the “program” should work, however, it never has under HRH reign, nor was it intended to.
anna
December 29, 2011
Ask Unionman about the practice of using “partime” workers full time for 15 weeks, instead of a full 16 weeks which would qualify them for becoming “full-time” employees, cutting back to 10 hours in the last week, then starting back up to full-time again, for another 15 weeks.
Not only is it a form of fraud,[however, legal] it keeps the employees vulnerable to abuse by supervisors, for all sorts of mischief, so they will “keep” their full time schedules. It’s used to keep people “in line”.
That’s is how this program is being used. Full-time workers don’t have to put up with this crap, and are not at the mercy of scheduling. This type of crap is used against the most vulnerable employees.
Judge Danduran “retired”, forced if you ask the women he beat up,[see the police report] and went to a firm to become a neutral. No one in their right mind would use him.
After several controversial rulings, big firm defense attorneys publicly said they would never use Alvarado, as a neutral. I’ll leave it up to the reader to figure out where he turned, and the conditions he worked under.
My question is, if one wants to retire, why don’t you retire? Go away. Do something different. Most of these judges dream of the “big Bucks” as neutrals. However, that too has a price.
anna
December 29, 2011
I did not mean for the reader to confuse Danduran with Alvarado. They are two different judges. My point was, while Danduran was forced to retire, and went to become a neutral, he was at the mercy of people willing to use him.
Alvarado was also at the mercy of “people” willing to use him. However, I’m not aware of any misbehavior, or criminal conduct that compelled him to retire.
How or why judges “retire”, is a very loaded term and concept. Because no one wants to clean up the judiciary, or report misconduct, [apparently it would damage the PR of the judiciary, if the truth was told, and how rampant it is] so we have all these judges “retire”.
This information, that the CJ has, all the CJP info is forwarded to the CJ and the Governor,[that includes private discipline] so, when the AOC of JC assign judges, they know who is compromised, and which judges “retired” with a “public cloud” over their head, and which didn’t. What the public doesn’t know is what judges “retired” with clouds over their head, privately.
No, this program is much more complex then the innocent problem it was “created” to solve.
Again that pesky little problem of transparency rules it’s ugly head.
anna
December 29, 2011
should be “rears it’s ugly head.”
anna
December 28, 2011
In addition that PJ should have gone to the press, and let the Gov. have it. Why the hell did he go to the CJ? You honestly think that if framed correctly what was going on that the State wouldn’t have had a fit? If they had a cogent argument that P. Wilson was playing politics with the courts, he would have never gotten re-elected.
We would have had a new Gov. in four years, instead of eight.
No, George knew if he got his hands on that money, he would be able to “spread” it around. And he did, to control the outcomes of trials for all his “constituents” and HRH2 still does.
It’s insulting to hide behind the “people”, as an excuse not to do the right thing.
It’s even more insulting to try to rationalize why all these judges cover up for everyone.
A little bird told me that the only reason the “straight” judges don’t report the corrupt ones is that they don’t want to tarnish the “public opinion” of the judiciary. WTF!!!!!!!!
So as a result we get corrupt judiciary, as a forgone conclusion.
I’m in the wrong country.
We don’t have a justice system, we have judgments and verdicts for the highest bidders.
anna
December 28, 2011
If, as your fable states, is true, what Geoge did was quid pro quo and is god damn illegal.
anna
December 28, 2011
George was not a member of the legislature trying to drum up votes. He in his administrative capacity, was suppose to make sure the trial courts were supplied as judges!!!!!!!!!! With no strings attached.
George has always wanted to write the law, enfoce it, and play executioner all in one
You obviously know much more than you let on. The fact that no one could “connect” the dots to frame this illegal abuse of his office, and have this no good piece of crap impeached speaks to the complacency, and willingness of those around him to let it go unfettered. It also speaks of how used to we as a state, and court system, put up with corruption, and treat it as business as usual.
Frankly, it’s more disturbing than I thought.
Where the hell can I vomit???
anna
December 28, 2011
Sorry for the typos. Your fable ruined by year. Hope you all have a good new year.
I’ll start drinking now.
anna
December 28, 2011
Not only did the PJ of the LArge county lose, honesty and integrity, the LArge , by unification, lost their franchise on BAJI. George then set up CACI [what a load of crap] and started to attempt to rewrite the law that the legislature wrote. So, by acquiescing they not only lost their autonomy, they lost a great deal of revenue.
For a PJ, he brought a water pistol to a knife fight.
unionman575
December 28, 2011
Interesting.
Been There
December 28, 2011
Hey Anna, I would love to join you for that New Year’s drink!
It was not my intention to provoke your anger with the fable. Let me share something I personally experienced ( this is not a fable): the higher up the food chain you go, the greater the level of deniability. I have seen higher ups excoriate subordinates in front of judicial officers for doing precisely what the higher ups told them to do. Vickrey was the most diabolical practitioner of this.
anna
December 29, 2011
That’s why employees should have a retort for that type of abuse, and use it in front of that very same judicial officer.
The employees need to get their hands on a copy of “workers rights’ published by Nolo press.
Then they could sue the shit out of the AOC, and JC [in federal court] for state and federal labor violations.
That book lets workers know their rights and how to document abuse and workplace violations.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
December 29, 2011
The AOC is an at-will employer. There are no rights held by employees, beyond the anti-discrimination laws in effect, and even if you allege discrimination, there are cases reported on this site of the lengths the AOC will go to defeat your claims.
The usual scenario is you complain, they find a reason to terminate you, and then you have to litigate without funds against a state agency with unlimited resources.
These are not nice people.
anna
December 29, 2011
Labor laws apply to all employees in California. Period. This has nothing to do with concept of “employment law” and whether you are an at-will employee, or a contractual worker in California. At-will does not apply to union workers. At-will just means that you do not have a right to demand, or a “cause of action”, against your employer if they fire you for no “cause”. In other words they do not have to have a “cause” to fire you, as a matter of law in Cal.. Contractual workers are governed by their contracts. Actually there is a blend over in both areas. Union workers are governed by their collective bargaining agreement, which is not an at-will, situation.
Employers do not have a right to violate the labor laws against you. this has to do with working conditions in Cal.
In fact you can sue them, while you are still employed, for violating labor laws in Cal.
Either, human resources is lying about what an “At-will” employee is, or you have been misinformed by someone who doesn’t know the law. [or is deliberately misinforming you, so, you will blow your statute of limitations.]
This has nothing to do with discrimination, which is another cause of action in the workplace.
Labor law can be pursued through the labor dept. of California.
At-will is not immunity from violating labor laws in Cal!!!!!!!!!!!!
The issue of whether they can fire you once you complain for violating the labor laws, creates another “causee of action” against them, one of constructive termination, and whistle-blowing, for violating labor laws, along with retaliation.
FEHA Claims are an entirely different matter. [Fair Employment and Housing ACT] You need to consult a competent employment lawyer, or at least someone who doesn’t lie about the law.
unionman575
December 28, 2011
I want to join you BOTH for a drink.
unionman575
December 28, 2011
Correction: I’d like to invite Sharon Kramer to join us too for a drink -we could all use it. Make mine a double.
Wendy Darling
December 28, 2011
Anyone else invited?
Been There
December 28, 2011
Absolutely! Since most of use utilize a nom de plume, anyone have concerns about a public get together? You never know . . . .
unionman575
December 28, 2011
=)
Wendy Darling
December 28, 2011
Perhaps, JCW could faciitate the date, time, and place to interested parties without posting it . . .? Maybe from JCW’s desk? Or another way?
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
December 29, 2011
And perhaps at the same time we could provide a public service to Tonto and the JC by reporting on “Good places to dine and drink for LESS than $60 per person.”
anna
December 29, 2011
Bravo!
unionman575
December 29, 2011
“Been There” look for the guy with the Tonto mask and that will be me.
Been There
December 29, 2011
Masks! Feeling very challenged as to what to wear/who to be. Trying to think of a slightly notorious woman AOC/JC character, but am not coming up with any names.
Wendy Darling
December 30, 2011
You might try Cruella DeVille, who bears a disturbing and strange resemblance to Shelia Calabro, especially the striped hair style . . .
unionman575
December 29, 2011
NO DON’T ASK ME THIS:
Ask Unionman about the practice of using “partime” workers full time for 15 weeks, instead of a full 16 weeks which would qualify them for becoming “full-time” employees, cutting back to 10 hours in the last week, then starting back up to full-time again, for another 15 weeks.
Not only is it a form of fraud,[however, legal] it keeps the employees vulnerable to abuse by supervisors, for all sorts of mischief, so they will “keep” their full time schedules. It’s used to keep people “in line”.
My. my. my. Shaking my head, hell no!
anna
December 29, 2011
Sorry, I won’t ask you, however, it happens day after day in every “union-shop” grocery store in this state. Not to mention some other industries.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Res Ipsa Loquitor is 100% correct The AOC is an at will employer.
anna
December 29, 2011
Unionman, see above post. Employment law is complicated. I’v e spent 23 years in the field and belong to 4 unions. [Don’t ask] At-will employment has nothing to do with labor laws and conditions that employers are required to provide under the Cal labor code.
Contract law, coupled with collective bargaining agreements, is another kettle of fish entirely.
Just because the AOC is an at-will employer, and not governed by a collective bargaining agreement, does not allow it to violate the labor laws or code of this state.
Being an at-will employee is a big “so what” when it comes to violating labor laws, or engaging in constructive termination, based on violating labor laws. Labor laws, include how personnel records are kept, and what has to be in them if you are going to be “disciplined” for inappropriate conduct, or wrongful conduct. If they aren’t willing to put it in writing in your personnel file, and other requirements. as to what you were reprimanded for they can’t claim you did something wrong later,[or during a law suit] otherwise they open themselves up to; slander, violations of labor codes and other causes of action, including interference of economic advantage, not to mention spoliation of your personnel file.
Good employment lawyers know this.
Employers have affirmative duties to their employees, beyond that of having an environment free of discrimination.
anna
December 29, 2011
Sorry, unionman, this is not a diatribe against you.
It’s just extremely frustrating to see that the employees of a branch of govt. which is suppose to dispense justice, so ill-informed as to their “workers rights” in this state.
It’s almost as if it was deliberate!?! Or as if, “it speaks for itself” res ipsa loquiter.
The question of a “little” person taking on a governmental agency with unlimited resources is another matter. However, reporting labor violations to the Labor dept, costs nothing.
The right to see one’s personnel file, and have copies made, is a right. [Look it up] what would the AOC and JC do, if every employee wanted to see their personnel file and have copies made? You are not required to tell them why.
It’s just good practice to review your personnel file on a yearly basis.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
The assigned judge’s program has been a who you, who you blow program for years. This is nothing new folks. Is it right? Hell no!
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Ask Michael Paul all about the AOC.
anna
December 29, 2011
Am well aware of Michael’s situation, am rooting for him.
i hope he’s prepared for oral argument on the Demurrer.
I hope he prevails, and if not, hope he’s willing to appeal.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
The broad position the CA judicial branch takes is that California Labor Code does not apply to it. Welcome to the party.
As for grocery stores..that’s your deal, not mine since you mentioned it in your post above. I don’t care about anything but our CA judicial branch and in particular Trial Court Funding (or lack thereof).
Are you a CA attorney specializing in CA public sector labor law, and in particular the Trial Court Governance Act of 1997? We are stuck with that ’97 Act – that’s the rules of the road at least for now for ALL CA TRIAL COURTS. Boy oh boy do we ALL have questions for you Anna.
anna
December 29, 2011
Based on what? They aren’t employers?
And the answer to your questions is no. However, the question is who employs “trial court employees? My understanding is that the counties do it? Am I wrong?
NO employer in this state can avoid the CAl Labor code, that is a condition that upon which employers can hire employees. It’s against public policy to hire and violate the labor laws of this state.It’s also criminal.
One does not need to be an expert in public sector labor law, or an employee in the public sector, for labor laws to apply. The labor laws cover both, the pubic and private sector..
Would you please cite to me the statutes of the trial court governance act of 1997, that exempts the AOC, or the JC from the Cal. Labor code?
I’ll research it to the best of my ability, and post whatever I find.
anna
December 29, 2011
my comment on grocery stores was an anecdotal example of how their can be abuses even in “collective bargaining contracts” and when one is dependent on a superior’s power of “scheduling” in order to get work. As is the situation in the “assigned judges” program. The AOC which assigns these judges, have control over these judges, and the compensation they get, if they get it at all.
The Fact that the AOC now provides legal services to the trial courts, [legal advice] coupled with the fact that they assign judges is problematic.
The AOC was not suppose to provide “adjudicative” services, only administrative ones. The JC was suppose to make sure those lines were never crossed. The AOC does not have immunity, because it’s not suppose to need it. They are not suppose to be doing anything “judicial” in an adjudicative sense.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Our remedy as Trial Court Employees now rests within the CA PERB Board as a result of numerous legal and administraitve rulings in recent years.
Just shedding some light for my fellow career trial court employees out there. =)
If you work elsewhere within the CA judicial branch, you may have remedies elsewhere, I don’t know.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
As a union rep I have all my co-workers/dues payers review their files and get a copy of same each year.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
I’ve been doing this for many years, you are preaching to the choir my friend. =)
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Wrong. Counties went bye bye in ’97 with Lockyer Isenberg. At the moment that passed we became trial court employees.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/trial.asp
unionman575
December 29, 2011
71639.2. Application of Labor Code § 923
The enactment of this article shall not be construed as making Section 923 of the Labor Code applicable to trial court employees.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/trial.asp
anna
December 29, 2011
Thanks for the information. However, I thought we were talking about AOC and JC employees, Trial court employees are covered by your agreement which is equivalent to a collective bargaining agreement, and a union contract. Am I incorrect?
If the AOC, nor the JC, have a union contact, they are covered by Cal. Labor Laws. Contract laws, and employment contracts, [which include union contracts] have to comply with the minimum legal standards in this state, they usually have more rights written in. That is why the employees you represent, don’t have to go the courts. You have a tribunal, the Cal Perb Board. There is no equivalent for AOC or JC employees. Am I wrong???
As I said earlier, at-will does not apply to union contracts, or certain types of “contractual” employment.
I was directing all my comments to only AOC or JC employees, which my understanding is that they are “at-will” employees. My understanding is that their “employment contracts” do not include an arbitration agreement clause to it. Am I incorrect? That means that their only recourse for labor violations is in the courts, or with the labor dept..
unionman575
December 29, 2011
http://www.nossaman.com/california-appeals-court-strict-state-labor-laws
California Appeals Court: Strict State Labor Laws Do Not Apply to Public Sector Employers
08/04/09
Public sector employers, unlike private employers may not be obligated to follow California labor laws that are stricter than similar federal laws.
On June 3, 2009, the California Court of Appeal ruled that public sector employees, protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), are not always protected by stricter California Labor Code (Labor Code) wage and hour provisions or by Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) orders. The court explained that the Labor Code and IWC orders are not meant to interfere with how public agencies perform their services.
In Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist.,[1] the court held that Labor Code provisions and IWC orders do not apply to public sector employers unless the public sector is expressly included in the provision or order.
The case involved a class action complaint alleging that the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (District) failed to pay overtime, termination wages, or provide meal breaks in accordance with Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 510, and 512, and Wage Order No. 17. The trial court dismissed the case finding the District exempt from these provisions because they do not expressly apply to public agencies.
The appellant argued that the Legislature intended the Labor Code and IWC orders to apply to all employers, including public agencies, unless an employer was expressly exempted from the statute or order. Appellant did not dispute District’s status as a public agency for the purposes of Labor Code Sections 510 and 512, but did dispute the District’s status as a municipal corporation in the context of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202.
The court rejected these arguments, expressly holding that the District is designated a “public agency of the State of California”; the District, as a public agency, is exempt from Labor Code Sections 510 and 512 because the sections do not expressly apply to public entities; IWC Wage Order No. 17 does not apply to the District because its employees are not “miscellaneous” employees; and the District, as a municipal corporation, is exempt from the Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203 because the sections expressly exempt municipal corporations.
(1) The District is designated a “public agency of the State of California” whose powers and duties are set forth in the California Water Code § 39000 et seq.
The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District is a public agency. As a public agency, it is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, but not necessarily to state labor and wage provisions or codes.
(2) The District, as a public agency, is exempt from the Labor Code Sections 510 and 512 because the sections do not expressly apply to public entities
Labor Code Sections 510 and 512 contain express exemptions (and public agencies are not one of those exemptions). Public agencies are not subject to general statutes. Rather, in the “context of wage and hour provisions, the Legislature expressly refers to public entities when it intends them to be included.” The District is exempt from these as neither section expressly applies to, nor expressly exempts, public entities.
(3) IWC Wage Order No. 17 does not apply to the District because its employees are not “miscellaneous” employees
IWC Wage Order No. 17 regulates employees not covered in other sections. Other IWC orders specifically exempt public employees, while Order No. 17 does not. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that no employees were in Wage Order No. 17’s miscellaneous employee category. Therefore, Wage Order No. 17 does not apply to the District.
(4) The District, as a municipal corporation, is exempt from the Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203 because Section 220(b) expressly exempts municipal corporations
Sections 201 and 202 of the Labor Code require an employer to pay an employee their wages immediately upon termination. Section 220(b) expressly exempts “other municipal corporations” from Sections 201 and 202 (and the penalties that Section 203 imposes for failure to comply with those Sections). California case law supports a broad interpretation of “other municipal corporations,” and, prior to this case, water districts were considered municipal corporations outside of the Labor Code context. The Court of Appeal found that the District is a municipal corporation under Labor Code §220(b) because it provides an “essential government function for a public purpose.” As a municipal corporation under Section 220, the District is exempt from Sections 201-203.
The importance of this decision is that public agencies covered by the decision will not be vulnerable to the wage and hour class actions that have been plaguing private sector employers for years.
Ron Cooke is a Partner with Nossaman specializing in ERISA/employee benefits, labor, and employment law. He can be reached at 213.612.7885 or rcooke@nossaman.com.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 729, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 53, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6887, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8076.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
I don’t do non-judical branch anecdotes here.
The case above, Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 729, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 53, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6887, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8076, really kicked our asses in labor and in the trial courts in particular.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
It is what it is. We can argue the good, the bad, and the ugly all day.
anna
December 29, 2011
I don’t want to argue about apples and oranges. My comment was strictly about the issue of “at-will” employees. While I don’t like the “statutory construction” of that opinion, [what a mind fuck that is,] it does not affect the ”Causes of action” I was referring to. Constructive termination, slander, and making working conditions unbearable in violation of certain labor codes does not always include “hour and wage” issues. That case does not say the entire labor code section does not apply, nor is exempt. [the mind fuck is; 1] on one hand for exemption, the statute has to expressly say it, on the other, 2] if it doesn’t say it, it’s exempt.] That’s the equivalent of ” heads I win, tails you lose.” Under that reasoning, you will never win. Unless i read it wrong.
Last, I understand what you don’t do. However, the Conflict of interests, between the Trial court judges, and the [illegal] oversight of the AOC and JC are mine. They are not suppose to have any oversight [other than that of reviewing courts] The constitution states that the AOC and the JC are the administrative agencies of the Supreme court. Not the enforcement agencies for the entire judicial branch. That falls to the CJP. Which is not a judicial branch. These two “administrative agencies” have no business threatening any trial court PJ. When these two agencies were created, funding for the judicial branch was not given to the JC or the AOC. The constitution has not changed. The legislature did not do away with checks and balances.
We are not enemies. However, I am deeply concerned about the abuse of the CJ, along with Supreme Court for some of it’s actions through, these “administrative” agencies. They use these agencies for things they cannot do legally, with their written opinions. That should scare us all.
The fact that the AOC is now providing legal advice to the trial courts, means they want to write orders for the trial courts, so certain facts never see the light of day. And then affirm them. That means they are controlling the outcomes of trials, rather than reviewing what trial courts and litigants do. In other words they don’t like the law, and as a result they don’t want to affirm it, and they can’t outright overturn it.
The opinion you cited, comes about as close as I’ve ever read that the legislature, doesn’t have to give all Californians the same rights. That will be the tip of the ice berg if the AOC and the JC continue as they are. Obviously, George and Schwarzenegger made that opinion come about. Neither support organized labor, employment rights,or civil rights. Schwarzenegger violated everyone’s, especially women. [ If Tani thought Calderon,made offensive comments, she should have been locked in a closet w/ the Gropenator] They coordinated that opinion through the back channels of the AOC and JC.
While monies to the trial courts might be your issue, abuse and judicial corruption are mine.
Michael Paul
December 29, 2011
Abuse and judicial corruption (and AOC corruption) are the responsibility of all of the attorneys of this state and I think they should take it on like they took on big tobacco.
Attorneys ultimately write most of the law and they need to get down to writing some with meaningful protection of employees and some legislation that holds the branch in check. Recently I was forwarded an article from the daily journal regarding Calderon and AB1208. AB1208 does not go far enough. Whistleblower protections don’t go far enough. When someone like me can be tied directly to saving the state more than a hundred times my lifetime wages and unable to get legal representation, the state should pony up the attorney via an assignment. Only one out of hundreds said I don’t have a case. Only one. Hundreds said I had a case, they just wouldn’t risk their careers and livelihood taking on the AOC.
Yet over at Calbar, they have former AOC legislative consultant Joe Dunn calling the shots, committing the bars millions towards a case management system for bar court. They’re ready, willing and able to play enforcer and make peoples professional lives miserable for taking on the JC / AOC. You wouldn’t be the first attorney to tell me this. Most tell me to my face.
Also supporting the AOC’s lofty CCMS goals is the plaintiffs bar that likes the idea of centralization and e-filing, common rules and common procedure. Not the individual lawyers but the organization itself and some of the larger, more influential law firms backing them. Between these two it is unpalatable to represent anyone taking on the system. I’m no lawyer but I’m doing my best without any legal assistance and we’re just going to have to see how things go.
The sad fact of the matter is a viable case management system with a different architecture could be deployed in months that would satisfy the needs of every attorney in this state and satisfy the needs of the courts without relying on the train wreck that is CCMS. I’m sure many people recognize this. This is about who controls the information is also he who controls the money to access said information. If it was about a working case management system, Sacramento would be working first, then all the other V1-3 courts would upgrade.
Michael Paul
December 29, 2011
That needs a qualifier: The qualifier is – if former AOC attorney Peter Krause (now managing attorney for the AG’s office) does not intentionally throw the case as simulated litigation by never mentioning Team Jacobs.
Mr, Krause has been provided a boatload of proof of team jacobs but has never mentioned it in his litigation. Someone is trying to preserve their kickbacks and its also my hope the FBI is watching that case because they have the same exact proof of Team Jacobs and everyone should burn at the stake for letting it slip by.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/29/42650.htm
In this case, the judge cried foul. I hope that the judges looking at the Jacobs matter in San Francisco Superior Court desire to know why ABM people being paid by ABM were passing out business cards in their court that said Team Jacobs as well as Jacobs own personnel passing them out. I hope they ask for proof of source of employment for the people wearing team jacobs uniforms working there. They all were paid by ABM previously. And why else would you want an unlicensed contractor case to disappear other than to keep your kickbacks?
Please answer that last question Mr. Peter Krause.
anna
December 30, 2011
Attorneys don’t write the opinions. Judges do. [or at least I thought so, until I started reading this blog, and cross referencing news articles] It seems with the AOC furnishing legal advise to the trial courts, the AOC is writing the opinions, and openly admits to it, on their website. [legal clerks to the courts write the opinions, however, they were never employee of the AOC before, now it appears they are]
Bad facts make bad law. As Michael points out if the facts never make it into the “opinion” it becomes very easy to write a dishonest opinion. [or dismiss a case] This state is a fact based complaint state. Meaning, a complaint is based on the facts you plead. You omit facts, your case can be thrown out.
Whoever, is writing trial court orders in such cases as Michael’s, and others who take on the judiciary, deliberately is omitting what is actually plead in the complaints, recasting the complaint [the complaint is suppose to speaks for itself, it does not need to be “recast” unless one doesn’t know how to read] in order to have these cases never see the light of day.
While money may be needed to run trial courts, a calculation good attorneys always make is, is it better not to go into court at all? Is a litigant better off not having a judgment entered against them? And do you want to create bad law based on bad facts? Some people have no choice and cannot afford not to go into court, or else they waive more of their rights.
“Having one’s day in court” is not always a good thing.
After reading Been There’s fable, we may be beyond any help. Trial by combat, was used to settle matters prior to our judicial system. Wars, still use that system.
I don’t know if money is the answer, however, it surly leaves a trail of stink, which can be followed.
anna
December 30, 2011
sorry for the typo, should have read “surely”
anna
December 30, 2011
sorry for all the typos!! not just the last one
Wendy Darling
December 29, 2011
Published today, Thursday, December 29, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
After Singing Praise of Private Investor, Judicial administrators Beat Hasty Retreat
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — After judges calling him a “white knight” and an “angel in the wings,” California’s court bureaucracy on Thursday abruptly halted talks with pharmaceutical mogul Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong over a deal that was supposed to help a beleaguered and extraordinarily expensive IT project.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/29/42651.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
December 29, 2011
That was predictable. He wouldn’t need source code to host the application but he would to do data mining. Mr. S-S is right that it would take far more than philanthropy to connect (and stay connected) to NLR.
Game changer.
pfft.
Been There
December 30, 2011
Two things stand out to me:
First, i must say that when the negotiations were first disclosed (ahem, after one year of private negotiations), the usual cheerleaders on the JC lavished more effusive praise (I seem to recall Kim Turner as “gushing” with enthusiasm for the proposed deal) than one hears at a Christmas recital of The Messiah. It came across to me that the Powers that Be are desperate for $$$ to save the HMS Titanic. Desperate people often make bad decisions about money.
Second, we learn from the article from Courthouse News Service that the “fixer” initiated the negotiations by bringing Dr. S-S to a private meeting with Bill Vickrey. Any fire alarms going off for anyone else?
So here we are at the very end of 2011, and as a result of the termination of negotiations with Dr. S-S we know:
1. The Powers that Be are still desperate for money, and perhaps even more desperate than they were when Dr. S-S first met with Vickrey because there are no “white knights” on the horizon to save them from themselves. They are going to have to come up with the $millions on their own.
2. Their desperation is enhanced because they know big cuts to the budget is coming for 2012-2013, and it is unlikely they will be exempted from cuts.
3. They have no problem closing courts in order to keep funding the Titanic.
4. By now the world knows these people at the AOC are unable to successfully launch CCMS as it is presently designed, no matter how much money they take from the courts to fund it.
A massive intervention is long overdue.
I hope and pray that the ACJ demands that the AOC/JC be barred from engaging in private negotiations with anyone or any entity — including potential “charitable Donors” for anything!
I think the time has come for an independent panel of IT experts to review and assess the CCMS project as designed, and issue a public report on their findings. Michael Paul is one person who is uniquely qualified to serve as a resource to this committee. Some mechanism must be in place to require the AOC/JC to implement the key recommendations of this committee, because too often in the past the AOC has spent $$$$ on consultants and reports, and then simply tossed the reports if they did not like the recommendations.
The AOC is desperate for money not just because the State has had to cut funding; it is desperate because of it’s own incompetence. How many more years will the California Courts be forced to close? We need to save the AOC from itself.
Commercial IT
December 30, 2011
I only occasionally read this blog now and rarely comment but I should comment here that it is possible in many situations to data mine without having access to source code. I could provide numerous examples and give a demonstration within minutes. Inability to data mine is not likely the reason for the change of heart. Something else is going on. My guess at the source of the change in positions would be there was a test of the system and the realization that it would not work well on Soon-Shiong’s computers. As someone stated earlier (Michael Paul), the system wouldn’t necessarily have high performance just because the backbone is high speed. There’s that annoying little problem of connecting to it with a high speed line.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Inadequate trial court funding = no trial courts in which to try most civil matters.
Good luck litingating just about anything civil when the trial courts take another huge $ hit in 2012-13.
You absolutely have the right to “go for it” on your civil case unless the civil courts aren’t there and open for you.
Been There
December 30, 2011
Commercial IT and Michael Paul: could the problem be that not only would the system not work well on Soon-Shiong’s computers, but that no reasonable amount of reworking would improve its performance?
That said, under what circumstances does the AOC see this as a source of revenue?
Commercial IT
December 30, 2011
There are a number of possible explanations. I can only guess. You are correct in guessing that no reasonable amount of reworking will improve the performance. The performance (basically we’re talking here about speed) is hindered by the overall system design which cannot just be tweaked. It’s a do-over situation. The problems in that area lie in the data communication. Also, the interface impedes performance and that is also embedded in the basic design so “tweaking” is not going to help much there either. Another problem is the number of bugs which arise from coding errors. And an additional problem is the failure to plan at the beginning for interfaces to other agencies. Maybe there was a recognition of the existence of such problems. Beats me.
Michael Paul
December 31, 2011
The focus on this application since inception has been to run it out of the CCTC and for the AOC to retain overall control of the application and data therein. The AOC makes money when they (over) charge the trial courts for supporting (from the AOC and CCTC) and hosting the application on behalf of the local court. Furthermore, the AOC has previously identified that it could charge the media, the general public, lawyers and other governmental entities (like county prosecutors and law enforcement) big bucks to access this system in an effort to get a return on their investment.
I can’t imagine that discussions ever arrived at the stage of Dr. Soon-Shiong’s equipment because the prize here for the AOC was access over NLR. When last mile costs were calculated to connect to NLR, the issue of source code (and Richard is right here – you don’t need source code to do data mining but it is easier to do if you know where your data mining program should be looking to find and restructure the data) and the issues related to the application architecture were all considered, it was of no benefit and significantly greater costs to the AOC.
As stated before, I believe that things could be done to improve the system performance, like edge servers in the local courts to do a majority of the work and then replicate that data out to the mothership in the CCTC ( a re-write of code that would return great control over the application to local courts because servers sitting on their wires would be doing a majority of the work, thus enjoying the successes experienced by Orange County) or a citrix solution ( a desktop from the CCTC being projected to the local court to perform work on – tested in Sacramento and shunned by the AOC because they have to give up some control) would both improve performance.
On all other points I also agree with Richard. There has been so much time and money sunk into this project and a vendor with (and I’m being generous here) questionable credentials that I would like to see the legislature mandate a commercial off the shelf product and force the AOC to abandon CCMS. There is just way too much development that is required to continue down this road and it should have all been completed and delivered years ago. Instead of completing the application and all deliverables they separated out a core product and called it complete.
Speculating, Mark Moore left in part because this was about to blow up in his face and part because a pause voted on by the council wasn’t a pause to him. The latter demonstrated how the AOC leads the council, not how the council was leading the AOC.
Commercial IT
December 31, 2011
Pretty well agree with Michael. He’s probably right that it’s been largely about the bucks and control all along. I have tried to stay out of all that but it’s there. And yes, data mining can be easier in some situations, depending on how the data has been structured.
Michael noted one of the big problems facing CCMS – connecting to other agencies. I think that problem is such now that it can’t reasonably be done. You could be at it for years and billions of dollars and not get anywhere. Part of the reason is the defects in the so-called “core” code. You can’t match up well to defective code. However, another general batch of problems has to do with mismatched sequences, mismatched syntaxes, mismatched platforms, mismatched application engines, etc. between software at opposite ends of data exchanges. I have created systems with matching components and can tell you from experience there is no substitute for analyzing all that interaction process right at the beginning. Later on it can become absolutely impossible to create the matchups. Even when you address it at the beginning, you still may have to make compromises and get people on board with those compromises. Been there, done that. And if you want to have bilateral data exchanges, that brings up a whole new set of problems. It’s easier usually in such situations to rewrite software at both ends, designing the components simultaneously in parallel.
In the justice system situation, I believe this is all susceptible to reasonable solutions but you need to know right up front about mismatched platforms, mismatched field sequences, etc. Some of these problems can be solved by rearranging both ends of the interaction process and on top of that, possibly setting up block recurrent conversions. The best approach now is to start over.
I don’t know exactly what stopped the Soon-Shiong arrangement but it’s good that people came to their senses before getting into a further nightmare.
Commercial IT
December 31, 2011
At the risk of being too wordy, one additional observation. Could California use an off-the-shelf case management product? Maybe, but there might be some big limitations and problems. The necessary modifications might well be a nighmare and might well even present impossibility barriers. I know a person in the IT industry who was involved in an attempt to sort of copy and paste software designed for one state to another state. After he told me about his involvement in that I began to understand why the second state was having so many problems. The two states simply had way different situations. One of the few things the AOC may have analyzed correctly is that it is likely necessary to have a solution that is customized for California right from the get go.
Why? Because we have 50 states with 50 different sets of laws. Court procedures are not uniform. Court structure is not uniform. The types of data desired to be tracked is not uniform. Associated agencies within the overall justice system are not even uniform. The non-uniformity problem is so ubiquitous that it’s not worth trying to modify something that worked in Minnesota and apply it to Texas, or Nevada, or California. You can apply common principles of software design but you can’t lift and dump.
What you can do probably is to set up commonly structured exports and use pooled array procedures for data compilation and comparison. That could be done within the California situation as well and I know how to do that easily.
Finally, with advances in custom software design, doing it from scratch is way faster, way easier, far less expensive, and way more accurate, assuming you do it correctly.
unionman575
December 29, 2011
Michael you nailed it again as always.
Been There
December 30, 2011
Thank you, Commercial IT.
Jon Wintermeyer
December 30, 2011
In the news today, the CA Superior Court rules against the Cities of CA ( what a shock) for their redevelopment agency monies. The JC and AOC has already ripped the buildings and land from all 58 countys and turned that CA Taxpayer money of locsl county funding for the courts over to themselves for their unchecked Waste and Fraud spending we have witnessed.
I too was released from my position in the Superior Court that was noted by them as an “At Will” position, but when I went back and reviewed my hiring records which I had a copy of, the position was not advertised, posted or classified as “At Will” back in 2003. Only the Court Executive officer and Assistant CEO were the “At Will” classified that way. Some where along the time path of my being hired and released this classification took place without any notification.
I forwarded copies of these facts to both my attorneys and the State of CA Dept of Fair Employment and Housing. They reviewed the documents and said i had the right to file against the Court, but they would not represent me against another State agaency.
So the rules are all arranged in favor the control of the JC, AOC and those court CEO’s that are all part of the JC’s inner circle of miipulators and their backroom contractors.
unionman575
December 30, 2011
I am sorry to hear DFEH blew you off John. The system sucks, and that’s on e reason why we are all doing our thing here with JCW, in SF, and SAC.
unionman575
December 31, 2011
Don’t worry folks t he AOC will simply “fetch” another $20 million of trial court funding to backfill the loss of the good doctor’s money. And, many more of us in the trial courts will continue to get laid off. That’s the bottom lien, they continue to waste money on CCMS like there’s no tomorrow. Sad but true.