September 6, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
By now you know that the incoming Executive Director of the AOC has chosen his top three staff members. While we were not surprised that current acting Executive Director Jody Patel and acting Chief Deputy Director Curt Soderland were chosen (as they would otherwise lose their jobs with the elimination of the AOC Regional Offices), we were perplexed by the selection of the AOC’s top lobbyist, Curt Child, as the new Chief Operating Officer.
It was Mr. Child or one of his subordinates who was responsible for the drafting of trailer bill language in 2009 which would have, among other things, stripped the local courts of the right to elect their own Presiding and Assistant Presiding Judges. You will recall that at the time this 11th hour sneaky power play was uncovered, the AOC attempted to place the blame on the Governor’s Department of Finance staff. Once that maneuver failed, the explanation was that this was never a bill that the Judicial Council or AOC would have supported.
In any event, the Alliance has continued to pursue the truth about the origins of this trailer bill as well as the identity of those responsible for its drafting. Six weeks ago Alliance Director Judge David Lampe directly asked Ms. Donna Hershkowitz, Mr. Child’s top lieutenant, whether she had been responsible. She simply ignored the request. Thereafter, he made the same request of Ms. Jody Patel, soon to be the AOC Chief of Staff. Judge Lampe wrote:
August 6, 2012
Dear Ms. Patel:
On July 18, I sent a straightforward email to Ms Hershkowitz, as set forth below. The only contact I have received is the automated “out of office reply” which follows. I am not the only one having problems getting timely and candid responses from your staff. Judge Gilliard had great difficulty obtaining a response from Mr. Child regarding his lobbying efforts against the amendments to Govt. Code 68085 which the Chief Justice says she did not oppose. In fact, he didn’t respond until you apparently intervened, and then his answer was wholly non-responsive, saying, in essence, that his advocacy was consistent with Judicial Council policy.
That’s the question: DID the Council, Chief, or ANYONE ELSE tell him to lobby against the changes to Government Code 68085, and did he in fact do so?
Why do you allow your staff to stonewall simple requests such as these?
Ms. Patel, we want truthful, candid, transparent answers to simple questions about Ms. Hershkowitz’s involvement in the drafting of the trailer bill in 2009 referenced in my email to her, and whether press reports were correct that the AOC lobbied against recent changes to Government Code Section 68085 and, if so, on whose authority? When will we get complete and truthful answers to these questions? These matters are critical to the Judicial Council’s consideration of the recommendations of the SEC.
Sincerely,
Judge David Lampe
Alliance of California Judges
Ms. Patel did not respond. Instead Judge Lampe received this email on August 7:
Judge Lampe,
Because your request does not seek judicial administrative records as defined under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court, we have forwarded it to Hon. Harry Hull of the Judicial Council for consideration.
-Chad
Chad Finke
Director
Court Programs and Services Division
Justice Hull was given the request by AOC on August 7, 2012, and has simply ignored it. The stonewalling on this issue continues, as does the AOC practice of referring uncomfortable matters to Justice Hull, who insists on responding, if at all, by U.S. Mail only.
Recently, however, we came into possession of an email sent by Ms. Donna Hershkowitz that shed some additional light on this matter. We include it here for your review, and have attached to our email the original attachments to Ms. Hershkowitz’s email–the Department of Finance Language sent to AOC, and the language sent back by Ms. Hershkowitz, which she characterized as being only “necessary technical assistance” to make the Dept. of Finance language work. Please read both bills and see if you agree with this assessment.
We also include articles by The Recorder’s Cheryl Miller and yesterday’s article by Maria Dinzeo that delve into this topic.
Finally, it is unknown at this time exactly how much these top three AOC staff members will be paid for their services. We do anticipate receiving documents on Friday that will reveal how much it has cost for Ms. Patel and Mr. Soderland to stay in San Francisco hotels four days each week during their interim assignments rather than commuting from Sacramento like many others do.
As always, we will continue to update you as events warrant.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________
From: Hershkowitz, Donna [mailto:Donna.Hershkowitz@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:31 AM
To: McGee, Fredericka; Curran, Shelley
Cc: Stephenshaw, Joe; Brown, Brian; Osterli, Matt; Cooper, Allan; Child, Curtis; Norman, Janus
Subject:
On June 11, DOF sent out proposed language to eliminate SAL as well as language providing oversight of court budgets. Fredericka and Shelley, you weren’t on the distribution list, but I’m assuming Joe and Brian (who were) shared it with you. In case you haven’t yet seen it, I’m forwarding the language finance sent. The AOC made revisions to the language to provide necessary technical assistance to make the language work. I’m attaching that version as well
1. DOF version (JCW – Doc Link)
2. AOC revision (JCW – Doc Link)
Donna S. Hershkowitz
Assistant Director
Office of Governmental Affairs
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
770 L Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-323-3121, Fax 916-323-4347, donna.hershkowitz@jud.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
_____________________________________________
The Recorder’s Legal Pad Blog
August 27, 2012
Email on Controversial AOC Proposal Surfaces
[Cheryl Miller]
Three years ago a veritable judicial ruckus erupted when a draft piece of legislation that appeared to give the Judicial Council authority to appoint presiding judges and court executives was discovered in the Capitol.
The fracas over the never-introduced bill, authored by someone in the judiciary who is still unidentified, never really died down. In fact, it’s become a touchstone for judges who see the document as evidence of a power-hungry Administrative Office of the Courts hell-bent on centralization.
An email that surfaced last week may only add fuel to that fire. It’s a June 16, 2009 missive from Donna Hershkowitz, assistant director of the AOC’s Sacramento lobbying shop, passing along proposed Department of Finance judicial budget language and the AOC’s response to a half-dozen Capitol staffers. It’s the first document made public linking a specific AOC executive to the controversial draft.
“… I’m forwarding the language finance sent,“ Hershkowitz wrote. “The AOC made revisions to the language to provide necessary technical assistance to make the language work.”
The revisions she refers amend Government Code Section 77001 to read, “The Judicial Council shall adopt rules, policies, or directives, which shall provide, consistent with statute … means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court, and jury commissioners.”
Contacted last week, Hershkowitz and the AOC’s chief lobbyist, Curtis Child, declined to say who authorized the draft language. They also say, as they did three years ago, that no one in the judiciary endorsed the language, which they insist was drafted to fix structural and wording problems in the Department of Finance’s bill. (A Finance spokesman three years ago said his department never asked for the amendments). And even if the bill had been enacted, they say, the changes would have had “no substantive effect” on local courts’ ability to select their own presiding judges and other court officers.
“No one had any intent to put together any language secretly that would have allowed the Judicial Council to appoint presiding judges,” Child said.
Suspicious judges aren’t buying the explanations.
“The proposal speaks for itself,” said Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard, a director of the Alliance of California Judges. “It was a blatant and sneaky attempt to eliminate the statutory requirement for ‘a decentralized system of trial court management.‘”
The answers also did little to soothe Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, who in an email called the revelation of the AOC’s draft language three years ago “the event that caused me to lose all faith in the AOC and the Judicial Council.”
Ito has been among the most vocal judges demanding to know who authorized the draft. The judge said he plans to continue pressing the issue.
“The [lobbyists’] refusal to identify the author begs the question, ‘What else are they hiding?’” Ito wrote. “I will be attending the CJA conference in Monterey in October for the specific purpose of asking the chief [justice] these questions in the annual Ask The Chief session that closes the conference.”
_________________________
AOC Promotion Appalls Judges
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The promotion of the judiciary’s top lobbyist to a newly created executive position at the central bureaucracy for California’s courts has brought a sharp negative reaction from many of the state’s trial judges. On Wednesday, incoming director for the Administrative Office of the Courts Judge Steven Jahr unveiled his choices for the three executives who will be working directly under him, all three coming from the old guard of the AOC. Filling the chief of staff position is former regional director Jody Patel. Patel has been the interim AOC director for the past seven months until Jahr’s appointment in August. Her right hand Curt Soderlund will be the new chief administrative officer.
But the selection of lobbyist Curt Child as the AOC’s chief operating officer has “perplexed” the Alliance of California Judges, a group that has called for widespread reform of the bureaucracy hammered by judges, legislators and the State Auditor for mismanagement of statewide projects, mishandling taxpayer dollars and trying to influence council policy.
The judges are particularly critical of Child’s promotion, as his office is responsible for slipping an amendment into an under-the-radar trailer bill in the Legislature that would have seized authority from local courts over the selection of their presiding judges and court clerks. “The Alliance is not surprised by the promotion of interim director Patel and interim chief deputy director Soderlund as they would otherwise lose their jobs by the closure of the AOC’s regional offices,” said Judge Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento, an Alliance director. “We are however, perplexed by the promotion of chief lobbyist Curt Child, in light of the fact that either himself or one of his underlings was responsible for the attempt in 2009 by way of an 11th hour trailer bill which would have stripped the local courts of their right to elect their presiding judges and assistant presiding judges.”
A document sent to the state’s Department of Finance also implicates lobbyist Donna Hershkowitz in the AOC’s alleged scheme to exert direct control over the local trial courts. In an email, Hershkowitz said the AOC revised language drafted by the finance department meant to provide oversight of court budgets. “The AOC made revisions to the language to provide necessary technical assistance to make the language work,” she wrote, attaching the new language deleting the trial court’s authority to select its own presiding judge and clerk.
An email between Gilliard and Teresa Calvert of the finance department confirms the Administrative Office of the Courts’ direct involvement.
Judge Jahr said his three selections will strengthen oversight of the bureaucracy as part of a major overhaul and restructuring of the office in response to a highly critical audit by a committee of judges earlier this year. A statement from the bureaucracy on the new hires notes that the executive office has gone from 14 positions to four.
“These new leadership positions within the AOC’s Executive Office will strengthen oversight of the agency’s diverse areas of responsibility,” said Jahr in a statement. The mystery of who was behind the attempted coup of the court has been a subject of inquiry and anger for years among trial judges. At a conference of the California Judges Association in Long Beach last year, questions were shouted out by judges in the audience at a discussion moderator calling for the identity of the orchestrator. The moderator and panelists refused to provide the name.
Related articles
- Email on Controversial AOC Proposal Surfaces (legalpad.typepad.com)
Judicial Council Watcher
September 6, 2012
Colleagues:
I am following up on last month’s notification regarding flexibility to “bank” and use furlough days during this fiscal year. I regret that, due to certain fiscal restraints associated with managing the process, we are unable to move forward with implementing this approach and must continue with the current practice, whereby a furlough day must be taken each month.
The Chief Justice and Judge Jahr share my concern regarding the negative impact of long-term furloughs for employeesfrom financial, time management, and morale standpoints. For this fiscal year, mandatory furloughs will continue as a necessary component of our cost-saving initiatives. Our goal remains to end the furloughs as soon as possible.
I know that the hard work continues, but now with greater positive momentum. Thank you for your continued support and dedication.
Jody
unionman575
September 6, 2012
Burning the midnight oil again JCW.
Nice work!
😉
unionman575
September 6, 2012
Here’s a little help from a friend…
unionman575
September 6, 2012
Justice Barbra
September 6, 2012
I am confused. Are we conducting a public trial regarding a 2009 email that included draft legislation? I am not sure that this is relevant or the best use of energy in 2012. “The AOC made revisions to the language to provide necessary technical assistance to make the language work,” is a horribly written sentence. Beyond that, I am not clear why identifying one responsible author is of such great concern today. There may not have been one author, and the draft may have been informed by individuals who no longer work at the AOC. There are members of the bench today that seem to have latched on to past and obsessive concerns, much like a divorce that takes years to complete and never ends. This is where I do agree with Justice Corrigan and appreciated her remarks. Given a choice, move forward. Focus on funding and restoring the courts. In a public forum, I would like to foster a belief that judges are responsible and mature.
unionman575
September 6, 2012
I would like to foster a belief that judges are responsible and mature.
…and they are entitled to stray as they see fit from speak with one voice. I know you understand. Thank you.
JusticeCalifornia
September 7, 2012
Those of us who have experienced, studied and documented the past have become pretty good at predicting the future.
It is foolish to “move forward” with the same inept, disrespectful, power-grabbing crew that brought the branch to ruin. Because that really isn’t “moving forward” at all, is it?
Of course not.
JCW, thanks for keeping that bright light shining into the dark corners of the AOC.
unionman575
September 7, 2012
Exactly right, on all points, Justice California, especially the last one.
Curious
September 7, 2012
With respect, Barbara, perhaps you haven’t read the attached versions of the bill, and/or failed to grasp the import of the power grab. Perhaps you are unaware that to this day the AOC maintains publicly that they did nothing wrong. Personally, I am uncomfortable having people who have a problem telling the truth in places of authority. Or maybe it’s just that judges believe in truth, and spend their careers trying to provide a forum for its discovery.
I’m with the judges on this one. Somebody needs to come clean.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 7, 2012
The thought we should leave a whole series of questions (like this) unanswered and move on is not a credible solution. The fact that we have someone appointed in a place of authority that is challenged by the truth (and everyone knows it) does not bode well for future budgets or to win the confidence of the branch that the AOC’s leadership is on a solid footing. I doubt any democratically elected council would have appointed any of these people to their positions.
JusticeCalifornia
September 7, 2012
Agreed, Curious and JCW.
Sidenote to Curious: it’s Justice “Barbra”. . .not b-a-r-b-a-r-a.
Wouldn’t want anyone reading here to mistake a “Barbra” for a B-a-r-b-a-r-a. . . .
🙂
Curious
September 7, 2012
My apologies. My response was of course to B-A-R-B-R-A. Sorry for the typo.
unionman575
September 6, 2012
“Focus on funding…”
Hmm… here YOU go from a guy that KNOWS how to hose down folks for CASH…
News from the former AOC Money Man and current San Bernardino CEO Steve Nash…
http://www.sb-court.org/Home.aspx?ItemId=61
September 6, 2012 ~ San Bernardino Superior Court Introduces New Service
Save the time, cost and inconvenience of coming to the courthouse for copies of documents in civil cases
The Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino has implemented an enhanced service with remote access to electronically imaged documents.
The fee for access to this enhanced service is $0.50 per page, up to a maximum charge of $50.00 per document.
😉
Jaded
September 7, 2012
While no fan of Mr. Nash, let the record show that the current cost to obtain copies from the court is .50 cents per page regardless of the number of pages being copied. Add to that a person’s time and parking costs. Now the court has an online service that is the same cost (.50 cents per page) with a maximum charge of $50. Sounds like a deal to me.
The OBT
September 6, 2012
The trailer bill issue is of critical importance. The language proposed was explicit and clear and if passed would have allowed the JC/AOC the ultimate control, to ” select ” local trial courts Presiding Judges and Chief Executive Officers. Such a significant intrusion on the powers of local trial courts would have been unconstitutional . Aside from the blatant power grab many have also been concerned for years about the AOC’s explanation for their actions. They tried to lay the blame for this on the Department of Finance. That story made no sense from the start as why would the Department of Finance have any interest in who a Presiding Judge was. Incredibly the ever “transparent ” J Miller claimed at a CJA meeting he knew who was responsible for the bill but refused to reveal any further details.So much for “transparency ” and the “new” JC leadership. The issue will always be relevant as it shows what the JC/AOC intended regarding centralizing power and their attempt to blame another state government entity raises significant issues regarding the integrity of their operations. Finally, if and I say if, Mr Child was involved in any of this, the public is entitled to know that as he was just installed by J Jahr as Chief Operating Officer of the AOC. My guess is no one at the crystal place will ever step forward on this which further supports the need for legislative hearings and democratization of 455 Golden Gate.
Wendy Darling
September 7, 2012
Exactly right, on all points, OBT, especially the last one.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 7, 2012
Exactly right, on all points, OBT, especially the last one.
Long live the ACJ.
Justice Barbra
September 7, 2012
Thank you OBT for clarification of issues and for providing historical context.
DAN DYDZAK
September 7, 2012
Pass legislation, a fair and voted in Judicial Council made up of fair judges, attorneys and other independent persons, a few businessmen and others, then the “democracized” Judicial Council could determine (1) who runs the AOC; (2) if the AOC should be completely abolished or modified in structiure; (3) how the money is allocated and spent to all the local courts throughout CA. Again, it is all about the legislature acting responsibly and passing legislation. Otherwise, what is being referenced above will continue to go on and on. Somebody needs a Harry S. Truman type to twist politely a few arms and get the legislation passed, pronto.
As one of our astute commentators says, every so often, “You can’t make this stuff up, really.”
Been There
September 7, 2012
Getting Curt Child out of Sacramento was probably necessary; when you have a lobbyist with zero cred your future with the legislature is toast. No, time for a fresh new face with some cred. Unless of course they appoint Donna Herkowitz :).
Wendy Darling
September 7, 2012
Published today, Friday, September 7, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Courts Compete for Funding
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A day of tough decisions on the fate of California’s courthouses lasted well into the evening Thursday, and the judiciary’s court facilities working group gave a tentative nod to 16 new courthouse construction projects.
“I feel like we’re in a Jerry Lewis telethon with the numbers clicking behind us,” said committee Chairman Justice Brad Hill, as the group worked to cut nearly $400 million from the judiciary’s construction program. By the end of the day, the group had cut $358 million.
The courts that won demonstrated to the committee that they had tried to whittle down costs.
Fresno Superior Court cut its estimated construction cost from $103 million to $43 million. Committee member Robert Trentacosta, presiding judge of San Diego, said the Fresno court “demonstrated a lot of creativity. What they’re asking for is eminently reasonable.”
Courts in the counties of Riverside, Nevada, Santa Barbara, Mendocino, Sacramento, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolomne and Lake also received unanimous approval from the working group.
Other courts were not so lucky.
Monterey Superior Court requested $40 million to replace what it called an “unsafe and physically deficient” courthouse. But the committee was not persuaded the courthouse needed replacing.
“We have to be good stewards. It seems to me you have a pretty good courthouse,” said committee member Justice Jeffrey Johnson. “And one flood and one unpaved parking lot, I just don’t see it. I’m just saying, you may not be hearing me clearly. You’ve got a building already.”
The committee rejected Plumas County’s request to replace its historic 1921 courthouse.
“The problems are exaggerated. Having visited it, it is close to being ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliant. This to me would be an obscenity,” said Judge William Highberger of Los Angeles. “It would be an absolute disgrace to the taxpayers if we do this.”
Los Angeles was denied three new courthouses, though the committee voted to approve building a new juvenile courthouse and the first mental health courthouse in the nation.
The committee on Wednesday asked Los Angeles Court Executive Officer John Clarke to prioritize the requests, but Clarke replied, “We’re going to stand on the position that all six projects are necessary.”
On Thursday, Clarke asked the committee to approve six projects contingent on the court’s devising a strategy to save the judiciary an additional $48 million.
The committee did not approve new projects in Glendale or Santa Clarita.
“It just takes us back to where we were yesterday where we said help us prioritize these buildings, and we got nothing,” Justice Johnson said.
But Justice Candace Cooper said, “I’m really having difficulty with the demonizing of L.A. for not prioritizing, given the size of the county.”
Cooper said no other court was tasked with choosing between projects.
“Were they required to prioritize their projects coming in here yesterday? Or was that someone’s personal request?”
Justice Johnson, a Los Angeles resident, said he was not demonizing the court.
“I love all these projects,” Johnson said. “I would love to see L.A. get all these courts, but we have to be stewards of the state. L.A. has more money, more people, and they’re going to come up with more great projects than most other places because they have the population and money to do that. Just because a project is great doesn’t mean we can pass it to the detriment of the smaller counties.”
Clarke objected to the refusal of money to build a courthouse in Santa Clarita, a fast-growing community Clarke said has a desperate need for court services.
He said the county had “bent over backwards” to secure the land.
“This is a courthouse that is critically needed in an area that’s growing,” he said. “I believe it’s bad policy to reject a county offer to provide the property. If this one receives a delay, L.A. has just contributed $182 million – over half of your target. We’re getting to the point where this is inequitable and unfair and unbalanced. We are contributing half the total target that is on the table. It is unfair.”
Kern County requested two three-room courthouses to serve local prisons. The committee rejected both, citing the high cost of operating regional courthouses.
“In this current economic climate, these tend toward decentralization; the trend should be one of centralization,” Johnson said.
Court Executive Officer Stephen Nash, from San Bernardino, disagreed.
“I think geography is very important. When you’re talking about some of the really large counties it becomes completely unfeasible and completely unfair to assume everything is going to be centralized in one location,” Nash said.
Some courts complained that the committee based its decisions on cost estimates provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the bureaucracy in charge of all courthouse building projects.
They said those were figures the courts had no part in calculating, and that costs would be significantly reduced if the AOC’s construction office gave them flexibility on building standards.
“Standards that are talking about size of buildings and size of rooms can be adjusted,” Hill said. “We see in this economic environment we need to change our thinking. These courts may be hamstrung by standards that may be too rigid.”
The committee will revisit the votes today (Friday), giving at least five more courts some hope that their projects will survive.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/07/50055.htm
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
September 7, 2012
I bet ya Judge kaufman is crying “wee wee wee” all the way home! that is after he wiped the foam from his mouth 😉
Wendy Darling
September 7, 2012
Published late today, Friday, September 7, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Funding Approved for 23 California Court Projects
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In its quest to save nearly $390 million in court construction costs, the California judiciary’s court facilities working group voted Friday to approve 23 projects and put seven new courthouses on hold indefinitely.
The working group also spent 15 minutes discussing a lengthy audit of the Office of Court Construction and Management, a department of the Administrative Office of the Courts that was found by independent consultant Pegasus Global Holdings to be in serious need of transparency and accountability.
The committee unanimously accepted the audit, for which there was no public comment, with the caveat that the time frame for implementing its recommendations be extended by six months to July 16, 2013.
Friday’s meeting wrapped up more than 20 hours of public hearings on the court construction program, the result of the committee’s task to reassess all courthouse projects after the Legislature and trial judges criticized extraordinarily high courthouse construction costs.
“Our credibility is on the line, to the Legislature and the governor,” said Assistant Presiding Judge Gary Orozco of Fresno.
Courts in Inyo, Imperial, El Dorado and Los Angeles counties whose projects were on the fence eventually got the nod from the committee to proceed, with the stipulation that they cut their building costs by another 10 percent.
Assistant Presiding Judge Brian Lamb for Inyo County was relieved, as his court hoped to build a two-room courthouse to serve the county’s population center in Bishop.
“The 10 percent figure we think is readily achievable,” he said in an interview. “It will not materially affect the functionality of our design in Bishop. But we will continue to advocate for two courtrooms.”
Two more projects planned for Los Angeles – in Santa Clarita and Glendale – were axed by the committee, though regretfully.
Before the vote, Justice Candace Cooper said it was unfair to ask Los Angeles to choose which new courthouses it needed most, as some committee members had done at Wednesday’s meeting.
“I had some considerable difficulties with respect to the entire discussion about Los Angeles,” she said. “I think that what we are doing with respect to Los Angeles appears to be in fact prioritizing their projects for them. I didn’t think it was appropriate then and I don’t think it’s appropriate now. The way the process has worked has boxed Los Angeles into a corner, I think unfairly.”
“Let me be very clear,” said Justice Brad Hill, committee chair. “We are not boxing any court into a corner. We are assessing each project individually on the merits. An unwillingness to prioritize is not a negative and will not be held against L.A. or any court. Whether a court has five projects or one, we’re looking at each project on the merits.”
Los Angeles Court Executive Officer John Clarke said he could not put one project ahead of another in importance and could not, as some committee members suggested, move the caseload for Santa Clarita or Glendale to nearby courts.
“I cannot, as suggested yesterday, lose Santa Clarita and move the work load to other locations that are said to be close,” he said. “It’s not feasible given the caseload. There are some 85,000 cases there. We need both desperately.”
The committee ended up saving the state $2.7 million over its target goal, but all approved projects must still be vetted by Justice Jeffrey Johnson’s cost-reduction committee, a sub-group of the court facilities working group.
Hill said Johnson’s group might find enough money to build the Santa Clarita courthouse with additional cuts from other projects.
“In six months we may have that money,” he said. “That’s why Justice Johnson’s committee needs to go through all of these.”
Before voting on the audit of the construction office, committee members praised the AOC for taking on eight courthouse building projects within a short period of time.
“They were asked to go from zero to 60 in a very short time,” said Judge Patricia Lucas of Santa Clara. “This meant that other, less critical objectives in the short term but critical in the long term were not addressed.”
Lucas said the construction office’s Jan. 16, 2013 deadline to fix the problems pinpointed by Pegasus was too optimistic.
Orozco said the Pegasus report should serve as a guide for building the office into an efficient organization.
“Now we can go back and take the lessons learned and streamline our processes,” Orozco said. “Transparency is important.”
Last week, the full Judicial Council elected to split the construction office into two divisions, one handling building projects and the other courthouse maintenance, in an effort to reduce confusion and inefficiency.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/07/50076.htm
Wow, the committee spent a whopping whole 15 minutes discussing the “lengthy audit” of OCCM. Do you think they could spare the time?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 7, 2012
Another Friday night blue light special from the Death Star…my, my, my they sure do love Fridays…
Justice Barbra
September 7, 2012
I live in Malibu where everyone self promotes, but it has always struck me odd that the AOC issues press releases with pre-selected quotations. If one of the agency-stated goals is impartiality, what impartial body has decided a particular quote or speaker is appropriate? Very sad to see Jack Clarke with hat in hand, this does indeed mean that times are extraordinarily tough. And Justice California, we know how to spell Barbara. I wish you well and thank you for your comments.
JusticeCalifornia
September 7, 2012
Terrific “Justice Barbra”, just wanted to make sure your interesting nom de plume does not cause confusion.
Regards, JusticeCalifornia.
lobstahsmaht
September 12, 2012
My god, the immaturity here has no bounds does it?
courtflea
September 7, 2012
OK I know I am going to get smacked for saying this but “seeing Jack Clarke with hat in hand” made me think of more along the lines of now he knows what it is like for those “other” (that is the other 57) courts that don’t have the political clout that LA does.
Justice Barbra, you should attend a meeting of any committe and then read the AOC prepared minutes after. makes the press releases seem realistic.
unionman575
September 7, 2012
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/08/23/california-courts-shared-procurement-services-project.aspx
18 California courts to share procurement services
• By GCN Staff
• Aug 23, 2012
Eighteen courts in California are teaming up to share online procurement services, combining purchasing power to save money.
Recent legislative mandates require Superior Courts of California to conduct more competitive procurements, which might be a challenge for small and medium-size courts, according to John Falone, of the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
“In California, the recently enacted California Judicial Branch Contract Law has had a major impact on procurement policies and procedures for courts across the state,” Falone said.
The Superior Court of California, County of Riverside is taking a leadership position by sponsoring the Shared Procurement Services Pilot Project, providing the services of a trial court procurement specialist to the other courts via BidSync, a provider of electronic procurement services.
The BidSync platform is a software-as-a-service solution that requires no incremental investment in hardware, software, or specialized technical resources.
With Riverside Court’s facilitation, 18 participating courts — most of them members of the California Trial Court Consortium — will work together to share procurement services, resources, expertise and materials, Falone said.
By moving to an online system, the courts in the consortium will be able to access a vast network of more than 700,000 vendors in BidSync eProcure, which will drive down prices through increased competition, Falone said.
The BidSync website contains current and upcoming project lists. This gives participating courts the option to “piggy-back” on current or planned procurements and combine purchasing goals for better pricing or services, BidSync officials said.
In addition, contract manual templates, purchasing forms, documents and online procurement links are available. The courts will also reduce the time it takes to prepare solicitations and requests for proposals by accessing a massive library of previously created bids. Public notification and bidding are completed online through BidSync on a timeline set by the participating courts to meet their specific requirements.
The consortium of Superior Courts, including the courts of Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Lassen, Mariposa, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, and Yolo counties, will gain access to the BidSync service under an umbrella contract through the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
😉
Lando
September 8, 2012
Nice to see that Judge Kaufman and Plumas won’t be getting another new courthouse. Maybe change is starting to come slowly to the branch after all. Kaufman one of the ultimate Judicial Council/AOC insiders will long be remembered as the CJA President who presided over the demise of one of the strongest and most independent judicial ethics programs run for decades by the CJA .Kaufman allowed this excellent program to be shoved aside so the Judicial Council and AOC could take over this as well. None of this helped Kaufman this week. The Judicial Council/AOC subcommittee did the right thing and rejected Kaufman’s efforts to waste more multi millions on yet a second new courthouse for his two judge court. You can’t make this stuff up. Really.