July 12, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
Earlier today, second interim executive director Jody Patel notified E-News subscribers that the AOC would be “temporarily suspending” its daily news clipping service because of “ongoing staff cutbacks at the AOC.” We include her email for your information.
We question the wisdom of this policy and whether Ms. Patel made this decision on her own or at the direction of the Judicial Council. This is the exact type of policy decision that judges should be making, not staff. If the Council approved this “suspension” it would be valuable to know what other options for cost savings were considered. Perhaps suspending the AOC faux news network would have been a better course of action.
In the past, the Alliance has been critical of what is, and more importantly is not, included in the daily E-News. We have questioned Phillip Carrizosa, who appears to be the AOC staff person in charge of content, regarding the ban on including articles from the Courthouse News. We have also pointed out on a number of occasions what appeared to be content discriminatory censorship of opinion pieces. But even some news is better than no news.
If in fact the decision to implement a total news blackout was made by AOC staff, this again serves to underscore the need to immediately adopt all recommendations of the SEC. Unless and until the Council is willing to assume ownership and control of a bureaucracy seemingly free to act on its own, decisions like this one will continue to be made.
In that vein, we again remind you to submit your comments in support of prompt implementation of the SEC report by clicking on this link: invitations@jud.ca.gov. The deadline for comments is fast approaching.
Finally, there appears to be a campaign afoot to delay implementation of the SEC recommendations by claiming that nothing should be done until a new executive director is selected. This is the same misguided thinking that has placed us in our current position. Judges, not bureaucrats, need to be in charge. You may want to raise this issue when submitting your comments regarding the SEC report.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
____________________________________
Dear E-News Subscribers:
I regret to inform you that we are temporarily suspending E-News–our daily e-clipping service of news and commentary on the state and federal court systems–because of ongoing staff cutbacks at the Administrative Office of the Courts. We are working on ways to streamline service with our available resources and we hope to restart it in the near future, perhaps in a different format. Thank you for your patience.
Jody Patel
Interim Administrative Director of the Courts
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
916-263-1333, FAX 916-263-1966, jody.patel@jud.ca.gov
http://www.courts.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
_______________________________________
Added by Shadow Mountain :
The AOC has used a part-timer to search the internet and various publications in the AOC Law Library* and produce a pile of news clippings, internet articles, blog posts and blog comments to submit to AOC management, who then decides what is released over e-news.
There is a nefarious purpose behind this activity and that is to provide a convenient roundup of news articles so that you don’t need to be reading other publications on your own and drawing your own conclusions. Packaged up and delivered, the ‘source’ is convenient, one stop – and delivered free of charge. Of course, it is also a selection of news that the AOC wishes you to see as opposed to those articles they prefer you don’t read – like those from AOC or Judicial Council Watcher or any articles critical of the Judicial Council or the AOC.
Imagine for a moment that Glenn Beck was your only news source. Or better yet, imagine trying to have a meaningful, productive conversation with someone who only relies on Glenn Beck as their news source and then you’ll get an idea of how the AOC relies on e-news and CCN operations to shape opinion and promote their talking points.
Looking at the news clippings lately a majority of the news is not moving in their favor and they’ve been called on it. Rather than have to circulate these articles, they would prefer to suspend this service altogether rather than suspend the CCN (California Courts News) operation (commonly referred to in some circles as the faux news channel)
Patel isn’t cutting the service due to budgetary constraints. If she were serious, she would have already dismantled the CCN apparatus. However, it is the CCN apparatus that creates their own news where none exists that they have control over.
*there is a useless function that can be eliminated. With a massive law library taking up most of the 4th floor, the AOC does not need to be maintaining its own tiny “law library” on the 5th floor behind the executive offices that consists of media publications.
Related articles
- Res Ipsa Loquitor (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Did the AOC lobby against son-of-ab1208 against the Chief’s wishes? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The AOC responds to the SEC Report (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- A short walk down memory lane….. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Hundred million dollar agency responsible for a half a billion a year in branch spending cuts 29 employees (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
July 13, 2012
Wow!
JCW how will the AOC masses get their daily dose of info from the Ministry of Truthiness?
More nice work!
🙂
unionman575
July 13, 2012
wearyant
July 13, 2012
Another pennywise-poundfoolish decision by the cretinous bureaucrats. Yeah, lay off a part-timer and save the wholly unnecessary, lavish, ultra-expensive, do-nothing-for-the-trial-courts CCN apparatus spewing AOC propaganda. So typical. Never a surprise for the cynics watching from the crowded streets below the ministry of truthiness. Ho Hum.
unionman575
July 13, 2012
Time to stock up on supplies at the Death Star…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18652.htm
Statewide Office Supplies, Paper, and Toner IFB # FIN010111CKPrint The AOC is requesting bids from highly qualified proposers with expertise in office supplies, paper and toner.
There will be no bidders conference for this project.
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to the solicitations@jud.ca.gov no later July 27, 2012 by 1:00 PST.
Hard copy bids must be received no later than August 24, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. PST.
Proposals must be sent to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP No. FIN010111CK
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in IFB No. FIN010111CK.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 15, 2012
Apparently there was another casualty at the ministry of truthness. Lynn Holton is alleged to have retired when she got word she was going to be laid off. We’re also getting word that Jyodiben went ballistic when she found out Mr. Carrizosa posted here.
So much for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And they wonder why court employees and AOC employees alike are terrified of submitting comments.
Something else very disturbing is being alleged. It is being alleged that the very AOC people who did not have a favorable view of the AOC and were interviewed by the SEC were specifically targeted for layoffs by Jyodiben.
And you thought the process was confidential.
anonymous
July 15, 2012
Think about it – one member of that committee works for an organization that gets paid nearly a million dollars a year by the AOC and does not wish the gravy train to end any time soon. When you have a committee so large, inevitably you’re going to have leaks.
This last allegation should be investigated by the SEC committee themselves and if there is even a smidgen of truth to it, Jody and Curt need to be run out of town on a rail.
Michael Paul
July 15, 2012
I’ll go one step further. The electronic survey system utilized was fully traceable back to the source in both directions and it was supplied by that same national center for state courts that conducted the survey on behalf of the SEC committee. The same ones that get paid that nearly million dollars a year. As a computer systems engineer, it would have been effortless for me to determine whom every survey respondent was if I was sitting over that server. Any doubts? Ask your own computer systems engineers.
Michael Paul
July 15, 2012
The SEC committee could have easily been electronically compromised in this fashion without their knowledge or consent.
As to if NCSC actually did turn over any information off their web servers conducting the survey as opposed to simply running a report, I couldn’t tell you that.
I can assure you that web servers pick up all sorts of information about visitors. The survey I received had my name and a number attached to it that was unique to me.
Others that JCW analyzed had unique names and numbers attached to them. The survey was only as confidential as the systems administrator or other persons who have knowledge of how to run these systems was.
If it is true that people who criticized the AOC to the SEC were targeted for layoffs or even the very allegation being made – the whole branch was put at risk (as usual) by some lame AOC attempt at running an intelligence operation against them. Personally, I think it’s imperative that the SEC committee know for sure if critics were fired. If there is no evidence of that, then so state. Myself? I’m not going to put anything past the AOC – with good reason.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 15, 2012
People were generous in supplying their versions of this survey to us. We were also able to verify that the survey invitation was unique to every recipient and warned accordingly.
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2012
Retaliation in and by the AOC is not news.
Someone actually doing something about it? Now, that would be news.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
July 15, 2012
Very disturbing information, Michael. First, if retaliation against SEC report responders can be documented, that information must be disseminated with all the force JCW and its media contacts can bring to bear. The legislature and the governor’s office no doubt have low expectations of Jody & Co, but they need to know this.
Second, if the likely source of the leaks proves to be the beneficiary of the million dollar gravy train, not only is a nomination to Digital Purgatory in order, but again, public disclosure of this violation of the trust the SEC is imperative.
We have the disturbing prospect of a SEC member entity promising confidentiality to AOC employees and then violating their promise. There is a cautionary tale here that the other members of that national state court organization need to know. Hopefully, no other state court system will employ them to run surveys, and no state employee anywhere in the USA will participate in any survey they undertake.
Been There
July 15, 2012
If the survey was hacked or compromised by AOC “intelligence” God help us all! The gang that cannot deploy a viable CCMS despite $ billions wasted, is diversifying its endeavors into “black ops” against its own employees?
Like Michael, I am not putting anything past the AOC.
If there was a breech of confidentiality, not just AOC employees were compromised.
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2012
To Been There” “If”?
More accurately, “When” the survey was hacked and compromised by AOC “intelligence.”
unionman575
July 15, 2012
“Confidiential” = laid off.
It’s the New Math at the AOC.
😉
Been There
July 16, 2012
“As a computer systems engineer, it would have been effortless for me to determine whom every survey respondent was if I was sitting over that server. Any doubts? Ask your own computer systems engineers.”
Michael, what organization or company had control of those servers?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 16, 2012
Michael is out of town. The servers belonged to the National Center for State Courts. http://www.ncsconline.org/
Michael Paul
July 16, 2012
Android Ice Cream Sandwich is my friend🙂 The National Center for State Courts owns the server. The issue is this software is installed with multiple permissions levels, so while the SEC had permissions to one view, nothing says the AOC couldn’t have had their own customized view or account on the same system. I guess what it boils down to is how much do you trust a not for profit that the AOC pays nearly a million dollars a year. Me? I think that buys a whole lot of influence and the AOC could get whatever they asked for.The judges in this state appear to be wise to the AOC by the look of the comments and at this point, after all they have experienced and witnessed, I seriously doubt they would underestimate the power of the AOC.