If you are an AOC or Trial Court employee believe in this policy at your own peril.
Please note that this recently amended policy has the same end result as the old policy. Come forward and you will be fired for an unrelated reason. Cooperate with any investigation and you will be fired for an unrelated reason as well. In most cases, significant time will pass during which time you will be considered “the walking dead”. Your career has ended by coming forward. It is only a matter of time (and if you work for the AOC, they actually like to wait a year) before terminating you. The pages of this blog thoroughly document what happens when you follow these guidelines. As much good as you may believe that you are doing, no one has observed any action taken on any complaint at any time ever!
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Policy 9.3
PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Revised 07/12/12
Policy Number:
9.3
Title:
Whistleblower Policy and Protection From Retaliation
Contact:
Administrative Services Division, Human Resources Office
Policy Statement:
The AOC encourages employees to raise concerns of improper governmental activities as soon as possible, without fear of retribution. (not true.)
Contents:
(A) Overview
(B) Application
(C) Reporting and Investigating Improper Governmental Activities
(1) Report to AOC Internal Audit Services Unit – (they’re charged with disposing of any and all evidence you turn over)
(2) Report to State Auditor – an anonymous report here is really your only safe bet.
(3) Report to State Attorney General – who will promptly turn the evidence over to IAS
(D) Protection from Retaliation – does not exist.
(E) References
(A) Overview
The AOC is committed to conducting its work ethically and in compliance with applicable law, including ensuring responsible use of public funds. (Ha!) In keeping with this commitment, as well as the AOC’s goals of fostering open communication and early resolution of work-related concerns, the AOC encourages employees to promptly raise concerns about improper governmental activities—such as waste, fraud, abuse of authority, misuse or abuse of resources, violation of law or rule of court, noncompliance with judicial branch contracting manual, or threat to public health or safety by the judicial branch or by an employee—without fear of retribution. In compliance with the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.), this policy:
Provides a procedure for reporting and addressing complaints of improper governmental activities;
Prohibits retaliation against employees who report improper governmental activities;
Provides a procedure for reporting and addressing complaints of retaliation prohibited by this policy.
All roads of resolution to your complaint start and end with IAD who is tasked with flushing you out from the cold and putting a name to the complaint by being friendly and understanding, all while and disposing of any and all evidence you turn over. All calls to the hotline are recorded so that in the event they cannot flush you out, they can figure out who you are by the sound of your voice.
For purposes of this policy, “judicial branch” refers to the AOC and the California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and superior courts.
(B) Application
The procedures set forth in this policy are not intended to serve as a general complaint procedure for concerns otherwise arising under other AOC policies. In particular, this policy does not generally apply to:
Complaints that involve allegations of discrimination or harassment;
Complaints of retaliation for filing a discrimination or harassment complaint or participating in an investigation of such complaints; or
Other work-related concerns not involving improper governmental activities, as defined in this policy.
AOC employees with such concerns should refer to the Open Door Policy and Internal Complaint Review Process, policy 9.1 or Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Complaint Resolution Policy, policy 9.2, as applicable.
(C) Reporting and Investigating Improper Governmental Activities
Consistent with the AOC’s Open Door Policy and Internal Complaint Review Process, policy 9.1, employees with work-related concerns are encouraged to discuss them with their supervisor or manager as soon as possible, so they can be promptly resolved. Employees wishing to raise concerns about improper governmental activities more formally may do so under any (or more than one) of the following options:
(1) Report to AOC Internal Audit Services Unit
Employees may report concerns by contacting the Judicial Branch Whistleblower Hotline (1-866-865-6400). Reports received by supervisors or through the Judicial Branch Whistleblower Hotline are referred to the AOC’s Internal Audit Services Unit. (all roads lead to the branch cleaners)
Upon receipt of a report concerning the AOC, Internal Audit Services—in consultation with the Human Resources Office and the Office of the General Counsel—will determine whether further investigation is warranted. Internal Audit Services will contact the reporting individual and request any further information necessary to evaluate the report. If Internal Audit Services decides that an investigation is warranted, it will arrange for an impartial investigator to conduct the investigation and prepare a report of the findings. (No matter how much merit your complaint has, it will not be investigated. Instead, YOU will be investigated and put on the “walking dead career track”)
The investigator will provide a copy of the report to Internal Audit Services (unless Internal Audit Services performs the investigation- because internally, only IAD investigates complaints.), which in turn will provide the report to the Chief Deputy Director, in consultation with the appropriate division director. If the investigation leads Internal Audit Services to conclude that a crime may have been committed, the group will also report the results of the investigation to the appropriate law enforcement agency. (though this has NEVER happened.)
If the report concerns a judicial branch entity other than the AOC, Internal Audit Services will contact the applicable judicial branch authority to resolve the issue and may, where appropriate, partner with that authority to resolve matters at the local level.
The identity of the AOC employee who made the report will be kept confidential unless the reporting employee authorizes disclosure or disclosure is to a law enforcement agency or otherwise required by law. (Of course, Mr. Judnick has no intention whatsoever of keeping anything confidential. Everything is escalated to the Chief Deputy Director, General Counsel, your director and HR – or your court executive officer and presiding judge with your name attached. )
(2) Report to State Auditor – Your only safe bet is to file an anonymous complaint here.
Under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.), the State Auditor is authorized to receive and investigate reports of suspected improper governmental activities. If the State Auditor finds that an employee may have engaged or participated in improper governmental activities, the State Auditor will send a copy of the investigative report to the Administrative Director of the Courts. The State Auditor may also report the results of substantiated allegations to other government authorities, as deemed appropriate by the State Auditor. Information on filing a complaint with the State Auditor is at http://www.auditor.ca.gov/hotline.
(3) Report to State Attorney General (aka Peter Krause, former AOC Attorney, current managing attorney for the AG’s office who only represents the AOC, not the people and certainly not you)
Under California Labor Code sections 1102.5 to 1106, the State Attorney General is authorized to receive calls from persons who have information regarding possible violations of state or federal statutes, rules, or regulations. Such activities may be reported through the California State Attorney General’s Whistleblower Hotline. The Attorney General will refer calls to the appropriate government authority for review and possible investigation. Reports may be referred to the AOC’s Internal Audit Services Unit as the appropriate government authority for review and possible investigation.
(D) Protection From Retaliation
Employees who, in good faith, report improper governmental activities or who participate in the investigation of such reports, are protected from retaliation.
Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting improper governmental activities should immediately report the matter through the procedures outlined in Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Complaint Resolution Policy, policy 9.2.
Employees who file a written complaint under AOC’s policy 9.2 alleging retaliation for reporting improper governmental activities may (should, must) also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true or that the employee believes them to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint must be filed with the State Personnel Board within 12 months of the most recent alleged act. The State Personnel Board will investigate the complaint and make a recommendation to the AOC regarding the alleged retaliation. Information on filing complaints of retaliation with the State Personnel Board is at http://www.spb.ca.gov/legal/appeals/retaliation.htm.
(E) References
Judicial Branch Whistleblower Hotline 1-866-865-6400 (This line is recorded)
California State Auditor
California Attorney General
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.; Lab. Code, § 1102.5 et seq. (whistleblower statutes)
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Same as it ever was (NOT).
Nice work JCW.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_21206787/new-presiding-judge-named-yolo-superior-court
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Hmm why did this thought just pop into my mind…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cleaner
Dan Dydzak
August 1, 2012
Thanks for that very interesting input. Given that I have been exposed to being almost arrested without cause by US Marshalls in the Central District federal court in LA, been monitored and followed by US Marshalls without cause, had Sheriff’s deputies put closely next to my vicinity while doing oral argument in downtown LA Superior Court in William Fahey’s Courtroom, had a U.S. security Marshall lecture me and phone me at the direction of District Judge Audrey Collins to intimidate me without cause, had State Bar illegally officials follow me in a Mercedes and lie to security in my building to gain access to my residence area, given that pleadings in certain litigation are not filed or deliberately deleted from court dockets, given that people like Michael Paul had legitimate whistleblower lawsuits tossed on dubious legal grounds, and now given that DYDZAK V. DUNN was fixed to go a certain judge, etc., etc….the aforesaid guidelines seem window dressing at best.
I still believe despite all this that there are numerous ethical judges that will not put up with nonsense. The fact that the Alliance Judges have spoken up with an unified front and asked that the Judicial Council be democracized with “voting” rights, this is in the right direction.
Is the new AOC director reading the Judicial Council Watcher comments? If I were him, I would clean shop and implement the SEC recommendations. That way, he will gain the respect and appreciation of the taxpayers, public, union trust, the judiciary and the legislature, including Gov. Brown. It should not be “business as usual”.
Wendy Darling
August 1, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, August 1, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner and, as always from Girdner, well worth the read:
To Dither or Not to Dither
By BILL GIRDNER
In an email conversation with a judge, I commented that the outpouring of website commentary from California judges felt like a rebellion. He emailed back, saying it was good to see the judges at last standing up on their own two feet.
Looking at the website again, I still want to rub my eyes in reaction to the breadth and sheer volume of the commenters whose names are preceded by “Hon.”
Hundreds of judges are practically shouting for reform of the system.
When I looked today, the name at the top of the list, with the most recent comment, was from Judge Lance Ito. He wants to know who is behind the manipulation of the pension system within the court administrative office and who in the office of the general counsel approved that manipulation.
Ito concludes with one word: “WHO?”
His comment brought immediately to mind a conference in Long Beach a year ago, a period that, with all the intervening events, seems like an eternity, where judges were indeed shouting.
The judges at the California Judge Association conference were asking for a different name, that of the person behind a tricky maneuver that would have removed trial court administrators from the supervision of the trial court’s presiding judge, thus transferring all administrative power in the courthouse to the centralized bureaucracy.
The gambit, an amendment to a trailer bill in the Legislature, failed. But Ito and other judges wanted to know who was behind it.
You could hear the anger in their shouts. They were head hunting.
They did not get their answer. But in the months since then, California’s chief justice set up an evaluation committee that in turn issued a massive report recommending sweeping and fundamental reforms to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The reforms include a radical downsizing of the bureaucracy that has ballooned in the last two decades.
The large number of proposed changes also included a fundamental reversal of the basic role of the agency, saying the administrators should return to the role they had in the past, that of serving the judges rather than trying to lord over them.
The reforms are the topic for comment on the current website, where so many judges are posting their opinions. The margin in favor moving forward with the reforms is about 90%.
The comments are also shot through with suspicion that the administrators along with a compliant and weak-kneed Judicial Council will try to slow down and derail the reform train.
“The 400-plus judges who responded shed anonymity and openly stood behind their statements critical of ‘business as usual,'” wrote Judge Kevin McCormick in Los Angeles.
He added, “The results are nothing short of a resounding and emphatic demand for implementation of reform and an unambiguous expression of the exasperation of judges to the endless excuses for delaying long overdue reforms.”
Appeals Court Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote, “To dither is to wither. It is time to act, now, not after more unnecessary deliberation.”
In looking down the list of more than 400 judges who have posted comments, I was curious about the judges from smaller trial courts, in the sparsely populated north of California or along the central coast.
Much has been made of the division between the smaller courts who are said to largely depend on the bureaucracy, and therefore be more likely to support it, and the bigger courts like the behemoth Los Angeles that are powerful enough to battle the mandarins from the central office.
But I found no such division in reading the comments. Judges in small courts and the judges in big courts joined together in urging that the deep reforms recommended by the evaluation committee be put into action.
From Placer County, Judge Alan Pineschi urged adoption of the proposed reforms “with all due speed.”
From the gold rush county of Amador, Judge David Richmond wrote, “The past failed structure can no longer be tolerated.”
From the central coast county of San Luis Obispo, Judge Dodie Harman quoted John F. Kennedy in saying, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/31/48868.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Curious
August 1, 2012
Re: Big court/small courts, see also the great comment posted by the California Courts Consortium, a group of 25 (I believe) small courts. Firmly in favor of SEC recommendations.
This can easily be overlooked, but was HUGE.
Wendy Darling
August 1, 2012
It is worth noting who it was at the AOC that actually issued the “annual Whistleblower notification” to AOC employees, Mr. Retaliation himself:
From: Rinoza, Maria On Behalf Of Couch, Kenneth
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 1:35 PM
To: AOC Users-All
Subject: Whistleblower Annual Reminder
Importance: High
Each year the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides reminder notification to all employees regarding California’s state whistleblower policies.
Please see the attached memorandum regarding this notification and revised Policy 9.3 (Whistleblower Policy and Protection from Retaliation) sent on behalf of Jody Patel, Interim Administrative Director of the Courts. The revisions to Policy 9.3 were made due to changes at the state level.
Please contact Cathy McBeath, Senior Human Resources Analyst, Human Resources Office, at 415-865-4273 if you have any questions on Policy 9.3.
Kenneth R. Couch
Assistant Director
Human Resources Office
Administrative Services Division
Judicial Council of California-Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-865-4271, Fax 415-865-4328, kenneth.couch@jud.ca.gov
http://www.courts.ca.gov
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Ah just drinking a beer here and laying on my “Couch”.
Wendy Darling
August 1, 2012
You might lay on your “Couch,” Unionman, but you’ll never be a “SofaMan.” 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 1, 2012
Who do I think of when I hear the word “cruelty”?
One person. Marin’s presiding family court judge Verna Adams.
I’ve seen a lot, and I kid you not. It is frightening that she is dealing with children, and those in the family, juvenile, drug, and/or mental health courts. IMHO, for whatever reason, she is completely whacked, with longstanding intensely personal and ethical issues of her own. She enjoys hurting people. The child and other victims of her decisions will ultimately tell the tale.
JusticeCalifornia
August 1, 2012
And that is why the CJ, the AOC and Judicial Council — all of whom had been on documented written notice FOR YEARS about Verna Adams, had to work together to stall the BSA, and completely cleanse Verna’s family court Family Court Services case files, before the BSA audit of the Marin family court could commence.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Here’s the new toll free AOC hotline: 1-800- LOSE JOB
unionman575
August 1, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/48903.htm
Wednesday, August 01, 2012Last Update: 1:12 PM PT
Judicial Council Mulls Offsetting Court Cuts
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Under strict limits for moving money within the judiciary’s budget, California’s Judicial Council had little wiggle room to offset the $385 million in new cuts doled out to trial courts at its recent meeting.
“There are inequities in the proposals, yes, but it is inequitable to reduce the trial court budgets for the current year and the past years, that’s the reality,” said council member David Rosenberg, presiding judge of Yolo County. “Our discretion was very limited and very narrow.”
This week, the council’s staff agency, the Administrative Office of the Courts, will meet with the Department of Finance to negotiate its recent decision stripping the state’s 58 trial courts of all but 1 percent of their fund balances, about $550 million, and sweeping it into a statewide pot.
Rosenberg said the AOC, presiding judges and court officials will make the case for allowing the courts to hold back some money to meet certain financial obligations.
“We want to get down in the weeds with them in a real sense and say here’s what we need fund balances for, here’s what we need to pay for and here’s what will happen if we don’t,” he said.
In his presentation to the council, AOC Finance Director Zlatko Theodorovic said the Department of Finance had been very clear that it would not budge on the fund balances issue, though trial courts had already committed their fund balances to meet expenses.
“They were steadfast in their position that fund balances as articulated by Director Ana Matosantos, that it is the entirety without regard for what it was previously designated for,” Theodorovic said. “We have to actively engage the Department of Finance and the Legislature on redefining the statute that they adopted regarding fund balance policy.”
A meeting is also scheduled with the Department of Finance regarding an error in the judiciary’s budget that may result in the council having authority over an extra $29 million.
“There was an error on the part of the Department of Finance and the Legislature,” Theodorovic said. “Authority to spend money was moved from the trial court appropriation to the Judicial Council and AOC budget because that was where it had been historically spent. In their effort to provide greater transparency, they wanted to show where the funding was actually being spent out of, so they moved $29 million of authority from one item of the budget into another item of the budget — except they didn’t reduce the authority in the trial court appropriation. So we had informed the Department of Finance of that issue, but in terms of looking at every option, we’re proposing to use that authority fully.”
During a public comment period, Los Angeles attorney David Farrar called on the council to start aggressively collecting fees, fines and penalties to raise money for the courts, saying it is an “embarrassment” that the courts are sitting on $7.5 billion in court-ordered debt that could be put toward keeping the courts open.
“If the courts are so broke, why are they owed so much money?” he asked. “There was considerable speculation to the effect that I guess people who don’t pay just don’t have the money. But the simple fact is, there’s absolutely no evidence to support that speculation. For all we know, all the people that don’t pay are drug dealers, driving Cadillac Escalades who simply have no respect for the law. And that could be why they don’t pay.”
“The current system is broken,” Farrar added.
“And right now the $7.5 billion in court-ordered debt is just sitting there as a major embarrassment to all of us. And if even 10 percent of the $7.5 billion were collected, we would all be better off.”
😉
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Wow is this Ken at work?
litigants4justiceJanette M. Isaacs
August 1, 2012
“Is the new AOC director reading the Judicial Council Watcher comments? If I were him, I would clean shop and implement the SEC recommendations. That way, he will gain the respect and appreciation of the taxpayers, public, union trust, the judiciary and the legislature, including Gov. Brown. It should not be “business as usual”.
My comment: Bingo. Time to clean up shop and gain the respect of taxpayers, legislature, public, and judiciary respect. I’d leave Jerry Brown and union’s out of the equation as it pertains to trust. 🙂 Keep up the great work JCW!
unionman575
August 1, 2012
“Troll Alert”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
unionman575
August 1, 2012
I’d leave Jerry Brown and union’s out of the equation as it pertains to trust.
You can go fly a kite.
disgusted
August 1, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlE0OPrmKFA
“so they moved $29 million of authority from one item of the budget into another item of the budget — except they didn’t reduce the authority in the trial court appropriation.”
disgusted
August 1, 2012
Tani 101
courtflea
August 1, 2012
wow that troll stuff is too weird for a flea.
Ok wait here. The lawyers remarks that the courts could have so much money if they were just collecting it? courts are very agressively collecting monies to enforce court ORDERs not to make money. Courts are not in the business of making money nor should they be. And by the way, the courts receive little or nothing from fine and fee collections. It goes to a multitude of agencies for various causes (brain tramua, etc.). Not to mention and I may be considered way too politically incorrect here for speaking the truth but tough shit: you are not going to collect a lot of money from illegal aliens, and I am not talking martians, for driving without a license or DUI. Or collecting filing fees from pro pers in civil or family law matters. So that arguement is a load of BS.
Ok and I am really getting irritated about the painting of all dissenters of the SEC report as “administrators” that is just not the truth. There are judges, justices and many agencies who benefit from the AOC’s largess that oppose the report. Good point Curious about the CTCC administrators.
The issue of the small versus large courts? Not all small courts utilize AOC services, well at least willingly that is. And of course small court judges may not be able to afford to be as candid as some other court judges because duh! they don’t have the political clout and protection that goes with that and so why stick their neck out? In no way am i diminishing the bravery of those judges, justices, and individuals that commented publicly but there is a good reason some did not.
Ok sue me, I am getting really tired of some of this arm chair quarterbacking by these yahoos and suffering fools gladly. Unionman, where is my vodka tonic?? make it a double my friend.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Courts Invited by Court Facilities Working Group to Present Information on Project(s) at September 5-7, 2012 Meeting in San Francisco
unionman575
August 1, 2012
unionman575
August 1, 2012
SHASTA…hmm I wonder if the AOC’s business hours will be reduced in a similar fashion Director designate Jahr?
I am sure good old OERS will continue to do it’s thing 24/7.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
hmm…
unionman575
August 1, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/courtsbudget.htm
To receive text message tweets from the California Courts, text the words follow CalCourts to 40404.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/1494.htm
Impacts
California Courts are reporting lay-offs, court closures and the shutting down of facilities.
Budget Impacts : As of July 31, 2012
unionman575
August 1, 2012
Pass that along to every legislator you can think of.
Michael Paul
August 2, 2012
This more accurate, corrected version should be passed out to every employee by other employees.
unionman575
August 2, 2012
There ya go!
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
September 20, 2013
Because we missed it this year, we’d like to remind our readers of the AOC’s annual whistleblower notification. Nothing has changed and everything is the same as above.
One important change is that local courts are suggesting the same thing as us and that is take your complaint to the state auditor and not those who coordinate fraud, waste and abuse within the branch.
unionman575
September 20, 2013
http://www.auditor.ca.gov/hotline
wearyant
August 19, 2016
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article96690707.html
——————————————-
It may take “awhile,” but the win is definitely worth it. Not to mention the relief, joy and vindication. Oh, some cash is nice. No doubt there will be motions to reduce the verdict as the upper crusts usually do not tend to respect verdicts from the Great Unwashed, the commoners. Elaine Howle was mentioned. She was not fooled by the judicial branch elites either. Arnold Lara was also mentioned. He also was not duped by Tanto’s fancy dress and sparkling rings nor Vickrey’s long, LONG self-aggrandizing speeches at OUR JLAC hearing a few years back. As long as there is hope, one can look to the third branch and demand change.
Fight on, folks. Long live the ACJ.