Of course we haven’t poured over the AOC’s response line item by line item but you know we will. You can also rest assured the mismanagement of the AOC will do everything they can to preserve their kingdom.
Behold, the raw AOC response to the SEC report. Notice how The Ministry of Truth released their version on a Tuesday afternoon.
Related articles
- You’re suggesting that the budgeting authority should go to the self-dealers? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- April 18th Rally – What’s your message? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- AOC Telecommuting: When a few equals 98 & an editorial by Judge Dan Goldstein (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Patel, Jody
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012
To: AOC Users-All
Subject: Comparative Overview of SEC and AOC Reorganization Recommendations
Colleagues:
At the Chief Justice’s request, we prepared the attached status update and news release on changes to the AOC that have been adopted or are under way that address concerns or recommendations contained in the Strategic Evaluation Committee’s (SEC) report. The document has been shared with the Judicial Council and will be released publically today.
A large number of the SEC recommendations have already been implemented or are under consideration by the AOC¾in whole or to a greater or lesser extent¾as part of our own internal organizational restructuring efforts. This is an initial overview. It is not intended to address other issues raised in the report. We will have the opportunity to share further information and context with the Chief Justice and the council as they consider all of the recommendations.
In addition to the attached document, the Chief asked that I share with you the below message from Judge Steven V. Manley of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. Judge Manley’s message of support for the AOC represents the voices of many others throughout the judicial branch and beyond.
Jody
Jody Patel
Interim Administrative Director of the Courts
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
415-865-4275, Fax 415-865-4244, jody.patel@jud.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
Judicial Council Watcher 
The OBT
June 6, 2012
Hmm…. Given Ms Patel’s memo can I assume the AOC is leaving the crystal palace for cheaper space in Sacramento ? Telecommuting from Europe and the midwest is over ? Ron O’s former position has been eliminated? The 30 managers who didn’t pay into their own retirements are all now doing so? Somehow my guess is that the JC/AOC is batting a thousand. A thousand, as none of the above I described will ever occur .
anonymous
June 6, 2012
You’ll note that this was the AOC’s response and not the Judicial Council’s response. The tail still wags the dog.
The AOC is nothing but another Bell, California hiding behind the robes of the judiciary. No one will do anything about it because some (not all) judges and justices claim the AOC’s status as a co-equal branch of government permits them to conduct fraud, waste, abuse or engage in public corruption. These people need to be held accountable for their administrative acts.
I don’t like to see anyone lose their jobs but if the only way to eject the management of the AOC is to cut their budget to zero then that is what the legislature needs to do.
unionman575
June 6, 2012
“…the only way to eject the management of the AOC is to cut their budget to zero then that is what the legislature needs to do.”
Yep I can go for that.
unionman575
June 6, 2012
Pinching myself. ..
They have decided it is business as usual by using the “That was then this is now” routine.
It’s time for a recall.
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
JusticeCalifornia
June 6, 2012
The “that was then this now now” routine that we all predicted was made possible by bouncing Scotland (who bounced Patel from SEC participation) so Patel could “prepare for the release of the SEC report” (read– do damage control).
By the way, does anyone else find it amazingly unprofessional and way too familiar for a cj to call the “interim AOC director” by her first name? I realize “Jody” is a longtime best bud of our gambling barmaid, but “Jody” Patel sure as heck isn’t best buds with those in the branch who do not appreciate, at all, what she and other top Team George members have done to the branch.
And if “Jody” Patel-from-hell or any other Team George cheerleader who has helped rob the public and bring the branch to its knees ends up as a permanent fixture in our gambling barmaid’s administration. . . . .well, let’s just see if our gambling barmaid has learned anything from the public asskicking the branch has been taking for exhibiting ongoing unclear-on-the-concept branch leadership behavior.
The Team George methodology included topheavy, closed, insular rule with an iron fist, obfuscation, improper alignments involving obvious conflicts of interest, and spin doctoring — with the apparent ultimate goal of building a wealthy, interconnected oversight-free empire that could control all three branches. Team George had no respect for anyone in any of the three branches who did not tow the Team George party line, but rather enjoyed punishing dissidents in a decidedly thuglike manner. The cream did not rise to the top; rather, blind allegiance has been the best predictor of promotion and success under the Team George regime.
Team George stalwarts presently remain in charge of the AOC.
Sakauye needs to clean house, and unless and until she genuinely does so, or steps down (or is forced out) so someone else can, the branch is going to continue to suffer. A leopard doesn’t change it’s spots. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Etc., etc. etc.
Lan
June 6, 2012
Sure. All the SEC recommendations are now in effect and implemented. All is well ! Sounds like a familiar story. I remember J Bruiners pronounced within hours of the State Auditors CCMS report that all of those numerous concerns were addressed. We all know how that turned out . You really can’t make this stuff up. The CJ needs to be recalled and the JC democratized.
Lucy Van Pelt
June 6, 2012
This might be the worst document I have ever seen from the AOC and I have seen many. This has absolutely no information in it. What does “in process/completed” even mean? What do they mean by completed? There is no detail what so ever not to mention the format denotes something that was slapped together in five minutes. This isnt even up to their usual something that is eye catching with no substance products. Plus there are no details about why or why not they are acting on things. I thought they had a communication group. Perhaps they are all gone due to voluntary separation.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, June 6, from Courthouse News Service, and Bill Girdner (and an article that probably won’t appear in the AOC’s “e-news”:
A Long Ways to Go
By BILL GIRDNER
For all the worries that it would soft-pedal the problems, the 11-judge committee hit hard in its massive analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo called me on Saturday over Memorial Day weekend — after I had just gone for an ocean swim — saying the story could not wait.
“This report is scathing as hell,” she then emailed. “I’m only 10 pages into it and it’s so damn quotable. It even says the AOC had 1,100 employees in 2010-2011, which we reported and were accused of misrepresenting.”
And indeed the Strategic Evaluation Committee’s report covers a lot of ground and delves into an array of shortcomings at the administrative office that are impressive by their sheer number. But the matter that most intrigued me was how the money controlled by the bureaucrats is doled out.
The adage “follow the money” tends to provide good results for reporters looking into an organization and, when we could get financial information, we have focused on the issue of how financial decisions are made at the administrative office.
For example, Dinzeo’s story showing that, based on administrative office numbers, Californians would be spending $240,000 a day on a big IT project — every single day from now until half way through 2014 — was a shocker. A judge called it “a nuclear bomb.”
But we had consistently heard commentary from judges saying that the bureaucrats played favorites with the trial courts based largely on the head clerk. So little was disclosed about funding decisions by the central office, however, that we could not track the story down.
So the biggest eye opener of the report was the confirmation that financial decisions were made “on an ad-hoc basis” by the administrative director. Said the report, “This type of approval process is consistent with criticisms that AOC budget decisions sometimes were made on the basis of whether division directors were regarded as favorites of the Administrative Director.”
But the report did not get into specifics. So the veil of mystery remains about the actual favorites, about what projects and what courts were favored through the ad-hoc system.
You can bet Los Angeles was not one of them.
The court has fought the administrative office on every attempt by the bureaucrats to impose a central control on the trial courts through technology, both on the centralized financial software and the centralized case management software.
The dispute over the financial software came to a head with the central bureaucrats threatening to hold back funds and Los Angeles officials making it plain that the bureaucrats did not have that authority and, furthermore, that they would be “misappropriating” public money if they did.
It is fair to characterize those terms, in the context of the normally polite and formalistic exchanges of bureaucrats, as fightin’ words.
So that is the next hill to climb on the way to reform of the administrative office, putting in place a system that shows how the money is spent and ensures a fair process for making those decisions, as opposed to the current feudal system of fear and favor.
The question remains whether that hill will be climbed.
In the wake of the report, most trial judges and most observers looked with understanding on the chief justice’s effort to buck up the staff at the administrative office. But her argument that a lot of change has already taken place sounded familiar.
For example, the state auditor rebuked the administrators last year over financial decisions and statements regarding the bureaucracy’s boondoggle of an IT system. Literally within minutes, the administrators put out a press release saying they had already implemented most of the auditor’s recommendations.
It would fair to say that was not true, based on the findings of the judges’s recent report, which banged a lot harder on the same basic points as the auditor, about lack of accuracy, transparency and professionalism in the financial decisions by the administrative office.
In a video circulated to the administrative staff, the chief justice said, “The report is a snapshot in time about an AOC that in some ways has substantially changed since the SEC began its work.”
The judge who heads the committee that wrote the report, Charles Wachob, was careful to not overstate the amount of change that has taken place. He told Dinzeo, “Several division directors left and some divisions were consolidated, so yes, I guess there has been some change.”
That leaves an awful lot of change still to go.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/06/47185.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2012
Also published today, Wednesday, June 6, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Chief Justice Releases AOC Interim Report on Structural Changes
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye yesterday released a report from the interim administrative director of the state courts, Jody Patel, on the current status of the Administrative Office of the Courts in light of the recommendations made recently by the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
The report follows up on comments last week by the chief justice that the report, which reads as a blistering indictment of how the AOC has operated, was “a snapshot in time” that did not reflect the changes that have taken place at the AOC since the committee was formed over a year ago.
The SEC report is to be presented to the Judicial Council at its meeting later this month. Patel’s response said that 57 of the approximately 148 recommendations of the committee had already been completed or were in process of being completed when the SEC report was presented to the Chief Justice on May 25.
“The AOC has undergone many changes in the last 18 months, not only in leadership but also in structure,” the chief justice said in her statement yesterday. “Further, I asked Jody to send a copy of her status report of the AOC to the Judicial Council members and to the chair of the SEC, Judge Charles Wachob of the Superior Court of Placer County. In addition, I anticipate that the Council also will be focusing on the effect of the recommendations on the Council’s service to the public as well as to the courts when it studies the SEC report and the status report.”
Chart Form
Patel’s report lays out the SEC recommendations in the form of a chart, with indications as to the status of any AOC actions consistent with the recommendations.
The chart indicates, for example, that the AOC has taken action, as recommended by the committee, to eliminate positions related to the now-rejected central computer system known as CCMS. The chart notes that two positions have been eliminated, and one employee has been reassigned.
Among the other 56 recommendations of the SEC that the AOC says it has implemented or is in the process of implementing are:
•“Discontinue investigating and responding to complaints from litigants [through the Center for Families, Children & the Courts] about judicial officers who handle family matters, as such matters are handled by other entities;”
•Reduce or eliminate the various publications produced by the CFCC;
•“Eliminate the Judge-in-Residence position” at CFCC, which the report says will be done as of June 30;
•“Merge the Assigned Judges Program and Assigned Judges Program Regional Assignment units, resulting in elimination of one supervisor;
•“Review the AJP travel and expense policies to mitigate adverse impacts on the availability of assigned judges to smaller and rural courts;”
•“Consider creating a pilot program to allow half-day assignments of judges, taking into account the probable inability of small, rural courts to attract judges on this basis;”
•“Consider development of an Assigned Commissioner Program to assist courts with such matters as AB1058 child support cases;”
•“A workgroup has been formed to review all education for new judges to ensure that it is being provided in the most effective and efficient way possible. The efficiencies identified by this working group may present opportunities for reductions,” which the AOC said it initiated last December and hopes to complete this fall:
CCMS Cancellation
•“Eliminate the CCMS training unit and other positions engaged in CCMS-related activities in light of the JC’s decision to cancel the full deployment of the CCMS system,” to which the AOC responded by saying it had eliminated the training unit in April and has transferred three partial positions to other duties;
•“Reduce the total staff size of the AOC significantly;”
•“The Judicial Council must take an active role in overseeing and monitoring the AOC and demanding transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the AOC’s operations and practices;” and
•“The primary role and orientation of the AOC must be as a service provider to the Judicial Council and the courts.”
The full report can be found at http://www.courts.ca.gov/ documents/SEC aocstatusreport.pdf.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
June 6, 2012
Geeze, just reading the first few pages of the intro and the table, I am already insulted. I agree, the JC needs to respond to this not the frickin AOC and I love that justice CA, Patel from hell! What is this we will consider it crap in the letter? Again, I never ceased to be amazed by the arrogance of this organization, and it will be the same frikin shit, just a different day unless someone keeps the faith and won’t accept that.
unionman575
June 6, 2012
Flea I’m NOT buying this BULLSHIT. None of us are.
unionman575
June 6, 2012
Whoosh! I just filled another 5 gallon bucket Flea.
unionman575
June 6, 2012
AOC NEW HIRES HERE:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/administrative-office-of-the-courts
unionman575
June 6, 2012
THE AOC IS HIRING HERE:
http://www.linkedin.com/company/judicial-council-of-california
unionman575
June 6, 2012
Salary: $227,196 (2012). – Is it worth it???????? Nope!
http://www.ncsconline.org/d_kis/jobdeda/Jobs_AOC%20Positions(1).htm
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS: Judicial Council of California,
Administrative Office of the Courts. San Francisco, CA. Qualifications: A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university is required. The ideal experience for this position would include a minimum of ten years of significant management experience in an administrative capacity in a court system with similar complexities. Salary: $227,196 (2012).
unionman575
June 6, 2012
The salary range for this exempt position is up to $227,196 per year including a generous executive benefits package.
http://www.ralphandersen.com/jobs/judicial_council_of_calif_administrative_dir_of_the_courts.html
Career Opportunities
Administrative Director of the Courts
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
(San Francisco, California)
Closing Date: Closed
The Judicial Council of California seeks a dynamic and experienced individual to serve in the critical role of Administrative Director of the Courts (AD or Administrative Director). California’s judicial system is the largest in the United States, and is recognized nationally as a leader in court administration, access to justice, and improving service to the public. A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university is required. A degree in law or an advanced degree in judicial administration, public administration, business administration, or related discipline is desired. The ideal experience for this position would include a minimum of ten (10) years of significant management experience in an administrative capacity in a court system with similar complexities. Other public sector candidates with public agency experience may also be considered, if they can demonstrate a successful track record of increasingly responsible experience as a “generalist” at the executive level in a comparable sized organization. The salary range for this exempt position is up to $227,196 per year including a generous executive benefits package.
BRB gotta get another 5 gallon bucket…
unionman575
June 6, 2012
How does this sound: Commencing 6-18-12, we will be sure to send LASC customers tthat cannot be served to:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Southern Regional Office
2255 North Ontario Street, Suite 200
Burbank, CA 91504
818-558-3060
🙂
unionman575
June 6, 2012
P.S those are some fancy diggs in Burbank!
unionman575
June 6, 2012
Go ahead, service the unwashed masses, we do everyday.
courtflea
June 7, 2012
Yep unionman on the Burbank offices, I was astounded when I saw their quarters.
I did not think that anyone on this blog would fall the AOC’s usually BS. Just others out there might.
PS there are other ways to void 🙂
1