Is it just us or does this character live on another planet?
___________________________________________
AOC Colleagues:
Today will complete my first month as Administrative Director. I wanted to take this opportunity to check in and share information with you on a number of ongoing activities for our organization and for the judicial branch.
Judicial Council Recognition of Jody Patel
I would first like to extend congratulations to Jody Patel on her recognition by the Judicial Council with its Distinguished Service Award for Judicial Administration. Although Jody has been quick to point to the strong collaboration she received from the directors during her tenure, she is most deserving of this honor for her exceptional service as Interim Administrative Director of the Courts. We are fortunate to have Jody’s continuing leadership as Chief of Staff.
Voter Passage of Proposition 30
The successful passage of the Governor’s tax initiative on Tuesday provided some relief for the state budget in terms of new revenue. The state’s budget circumstances are still challenging and vulnerabilities are still present but, plainly, its passage put the judicial branch in a much better circumstance than had it not gone through. Further, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg’s post-election comment that the judicial branch is one of the areas of government that has suffered the most and that it is one of the priority areas for attention provided a clear indication of awareness in the Legislature about judicial branch needs.
Addressing Workload
The past month has borne out my prior experience that the Administrative Office of the Courts employs some of the most hardworking, dedicated public servants in government. From the many individuals with whom I have engaged on issues and the quality of work product I have seen, it is clear that the strong commitment to improving the administration of justice is alive and well in our organization. At the same time, I recognize that increased workloads and reduced resources are exacting a toll. As a corollary to implementing the Judicial Council’s directives on restructuring the AOC, we have initiated a process to clarify priority functions and services for the agency with the goal of achieving a more effective allocation of personnel and workload. Final recommendations will be brought forward to the Judicial Council in the spring.
Restructuring
In relation to the restructuring efforts, my thanks to all involved in implementing directives and preparing the progress report presented to the Judicial Council by Executive and Planning (E&P) Committee chair Justice Douglas Miller at its October 26 business meeting. The report provided a status update for all 145 directives, including detail on 55 directives we have completed or on which specific updates were requested. Monthly updates will continue to be provided to E&P, in addition to reports at future council meetings. These progress reports will be posted to the AOC Restructuring page on the California Courts website.
Classification and Compensation Study
The division chiefs and I were briefed yesterday by the Human Resources Services Office on the status of the first phase of the AOC classification and compensation study. As you know, 39 classifications pertaining to 223 employees are being reviewed in this phase. The review process is on schedule for completion of the first phase by end of January 2013. HR is currently reconciling employees’ submissions on their duties with the supervisors or managers to whom the employee reports. Recommendations and resource requirements for completing a timely study for all classifications will be presented to the Judicial Council in February 2013.
Hearing from AOC Management and Key Customer Groups
Restructuring was a central topic for discussions at the meeting of supervisors, managers, and executive leadership on October 16, a recap of which was shared with you through the AOC intranet (meeting recap). I appreciated the exchange with the management team members during the question-and-answer session. E&P vice-chair Judge Ken So and I also participated in breakout sessions the division chiefs had with management staff from those offices for which they have oversight responsibility. This was a good initial step in establishing communications channels within the framework of the new structure, and we received helpful feedback. I am also benefitting from the series of briefings on the work of each of your offices. Over the past two weeks, the respective division chiefs and I have met with executive and management staff of the Judicial Branch Capital Program Office, Trial Court Liaison and Special Programs Office, Office of Governmental Affairs, Office of Real Estate and Facilities Management, and Trial Court Administrative Services Office. The briefings, 17 in total, will continue into December; most are occurring in office conference rooms. Following the sessions, wherever possible, I will spend some time visiting informally with staff on the different floors and locations. I was glad to have the opportunity to meet and talk with staff from our Burbank office earlier this week.
The array of critical issues on which the AOC is focused on behalf of the trial and appellate courts drives the ongoing, and in some cases almost daily, interaction with judicial branch leaders and stakeholders. The meetings I have had with the administrative presiding justices and clerk/administrators of the Courts of Appeal, the presiding judges and court administrators of the superior courts, and numerous other groups during the past several weeks have underscored the importance of the dialogue and collaboration that we must have to deliver services effectively and efficiently. The positive working relationships that many of you have established with judges and court personnel are critical to the AOC’s success in this effort.
Strengthening Two-Way Communication
Similarly, open channels of communication within the AOC will support how we accomplish our daily work and overarching charge to improve the statewide administration of justice. The division chiefs, Jody, Curt Child, and Curt Soderlund, and I are purposefully working to promote timely discussion and action on issues. We encourage you to work through your division and office leadership and colleagues to raise issues that need to be addressed and bring forward suggestions. We also invite your direct feedback and questions through Tina Carroll, the Executive Office’s Liaison, who will share your input with us.
To further facilitate information sharing across AOC offices, the Executive Office and the Office of Communications, with input from the AOC Internal Communications Advisory Group comprising representatives from other offices, are developing a regular communication to highlight Judicial Council/AOC issues, programs, and leadership. This communication vehicle, which will commence in the New Year, will include a feedback mechanism so that we address the issues that are important to you. In addition, the Office of Communications will be seeking your feedback on internal communications through its annual survey process.
Judicial Council Support
At last month’s management team meeting, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Judge So both voiced their support for the manner in which the AOC has responded to challenges and to change. Like all areas of government, we have a public responsibility for the improvement of the institution we serve and the services we provide. We are still in the midst of the change process, from policy and procedures right down to the physical office moves that have occurred and will be occurring. The process is not without anxieties, but with each element of change, we are building a bridge to a new environment. I appreciate your support and hard work as we continue to push forward and, again, wish to reiterate that the Executive Office welcomes your input and feedback.
Judge Steven Jahr
Administrative Director of the Courts
Related articles
- Judicial branch issues require legislative intervention (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Bureaucrats continue to stonewall judges with new tactics (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Facts remain hidden in AOC power grab (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The AOC’s Mausoleums to justice campaign (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Chief appoints familiar faces to trial court budget working group (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Council cuts NCSC payout, CCMS boondoggle tied to prop 31, Courts desperate for emergency funds (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
November 9, 2012
unionman575
November 9, 2012
Classification and Compensation Study = Time for BIG PAY RAISES FOR THE BOSSES @ the Death Star.
unionman575
November 9, 2012
Let me clarify for all involved…
Classification studies are used to give pay raises.
I don’t agree with the practice…but that is the way it goes.
unionman575
November 9, 2012
“Hearing from AOC Management and Key Customer Groups”…
Here’s a thought: Hear US now and quit ripping off trial court funds for Death Star BULLSHIT.
unionman575
November 9, 2012
“Strengthening Two-Way Communication”
Wendy Darling
November 9, 2012
Not just another planet . . . parallel universe that no one has discovered yet.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 9, 2012
Wendy Darling
November 9, 2012
“We encourage you to work through your division and office leadership and colleagues to raise issues that need to be addressed and bring forward suggestions.”
Speak up at the AOC =’s You’re fired.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 9, 2012
Yeah just ask the biggest whistleblower of them all…my hero: Michael Paul.
unionman575
November 10, 2012
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/long-beach-courthouse-cost-160m-too-much-state-legislative-analyist-s-office-concluded-on-public-private-partnership-san-francisco-presidio-project-also-studied-george-deukmejian-courthouse-gerrie-schipske-questioned-5-million-expense-to-city-for-inmate
Long Beach Courthouse Cost Up to $160 Million Too Much
Legislative Analyst: $490 million courthouse could’ve been built cheaper but cost estimates ‘were based on several assumptions’ that are subject to ‘uncertainty and interpretation.’
• ByNancy Wride
• November 9, 2012
The independent California Legislative Analyst’s Office has found that the public-private partnership now building the state’s $490 million Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in downtown Long Beach is costing $160 million more than it should because cost estimates were flawed.
The report by the non-partisan state fiscal and policy advisor, analyzed the financial effectiveness of two enormous public projects that were designed, bid and built under what are called 3Ps, for public-private partnership. It’s report titled Maximizing State Benefits from Public-Private Partnerships was released Thursday, Nov. 8, but might have been buried amid post-election analysis.
Law.com’s The Recorder wrote around the sunny title:
“The Administrative Office of the Courts used skewed assumptions to justify building the new Long Beach courthouse under an untested public-private financing scheme, a report issued Thursday … said.”
It is an oft-heard term: public-private partnership. The idea behind these arrangements, the report states, is they will, among other things, save money by streamlining the process and transferring risks to the private company. In essence, a private firm develops, designs and builds the public project, then receives a yearly state fee to manage it. San Francisco’s Presidio Parkway Transportation Project by Caltrans was the other 3P project the LAO examined.
From the report: “In December 2010, AOC entered into a P3 that requires a private developer to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the Long Beach courthouse over a 35–year period in exchange for payments from the state totaling $2.3 billion. At this time, the Long Beach courthouse is the only project that the AOC has procured using a P3.”
Locally, the courthouse has been championed as an economic boost that will replace a 1959 dilapidated building with a modern one at Broadway and Magnolia. But for Long Beach City Hall, the seemingly simple tunnel between Long Beach Police Department and the new courthouse proved to be a curveball.
And at least one Long Beach City Council member and many residents last year questioned the $5 million city estimated cost it would need to shoulder for a jail-to-court tunnel. Some, including Council Member Gerrie Schipske, believed the inmate tunnel, a public safety issue, should have been part of the original bid. On Oct. 4, 2011, Council members Gary DeLong, Robert Garcia, Patrick O’Donnell and Dee Andrews supported the city paying $1 million in start-up costs for the tunnel. It was estimated to cost “upwards of $5 million.”
Long Beach City Hall has said that the state refused to pay for the tunnel, which it viewed as a city-only use. In June, 2012, the Long Beach City Manager’s office, in a memo to the City Council, informed them that the tunnel plan was scratched and there was a Plan B: transferring inmates via van at a cost of $243,000 annually in current- day cost, plus a one-time start-up cost of $279,000.
That memo (pdf attached) references several cost estimates that proved wrong. One of them was the fact that the orignal $5 million tunnel cost had been underestimated by millions. A city-hired feasability study concluded it would cost $7 to $10 million.
Responding to Thursday’s LAO conclusion, The State Worker blog at Sacramento Bee, which is written for California civil service workers, framed it more bluntly, it’s headline reading “California unprepared” for public-private partnerships:
“A new report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office concludes California taxpayers have overpaid for two infrastructure projects that granted private businesses more sway in the process but concluded that the state could still save big bucks through so-called “public-private partnerships” if they were executed properly.
“State officials looked at Caltrans’ and local governments’ Presidio Parkway project in San Francisco and the Long Beach Courthouse, which is overseen by the state Administrative Office of the Courts. Both projects are still under construction. Each carries a taxpayer price tag of nearly $500 million and are being built through a public-private partnership.
In it’s executive summary, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, or LAO, states:
“In recent years, the state has partnered with the private sector to finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain two state infrastructure projects—the Presidio Parkway transportation project in San Francisco and the new courthouse in Long Beach. Both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) entered into a public–private partnership (P3) for these projects in order to achieve benefits that they might not have obtained under a more traditional procurement approach (such as design–bid–build). These potential benefits include greater price and schedule certainty and the transfer of various project risks to a private partner.
“Our analysis, however, generally indicates that the P3 practices of Caltrans and AOC are not necessarily aligned with the P3 best practices identified in the research. For example, these departments did not use clear P3 processes and appear to have selected projects not well suited for a P3 procurement. In addition, we find that the analyses done to compare project costs under different procurement options were based on several assumptions that are subject to significant uncertainty and interpretation, and tended to favor the selection of a P3 approach.
“Based on our review and findings, we have identified several opportunities for the state to further maximize its benefits when deciding to procure a state infrastructure project as a P3. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature:
• Specify P3 project selection criteria in state law in order to provide for greater consistency across departments in terms of how P3s are selected.
• Require a comparative analysis of a range of procurement options (including design–bid–build, design–build, and P3) for all potential P3 infrastructure projects in order better determine which procurement option would most effectively benefit the state, as well as allow the state to better balance the potential benefits of increased private sector involvement with the potential risks unique to each project
• Require the existing Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission (PIAC) to approve state P3 projects in order to improve the consistency of the state’s P3 approval process.
• Require PIAC to (1) have a broad mix of expertise related to P3 and state finance and procurement, (2) develop additional best practices for the state’s use of P3s, and (3) evaluate other state departments to determine if they would benefit by having P3 authority.
Late Friday, none of the principals could be reached.
😉
Wendy Darling
November 10, 2012
“The Administrative Office of the Courts used skewed assumptions to justify building the new Long Beach courthouse”.
So not a surprise. Anyone familiar with the AOC and current judicial branch “leadership” know all too well that “skewed assumptions” are de regueur when it comes to decision making at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 10, 2012
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2012/11/lao-california-unprepared-for-public-private-partnerships.html
November 9, 2012
LAO: California unprepared for public-private partnerships
unionman575
November 10, 2012
Long Beach Judicial Partners
http://www.longbeachcourtbuilding.com/files/LBJP%20Newsletter_SUM%202012.pdf
unionman575
November 10, 2012
The man behind the Long Beach smoke and mirrors:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenreinstein
unionman575
November 10, 2012
Long Beach Lease:
http://file.lacounty.gov/bc/q2_2012/cms1_176933.pdf
unionman575
November 10, 2012
That was then: http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/ccn/documents/longbeach_transcript_12202010.pdf
This is now:
A 2.3 billion monster in Long Beach.
courtflea
November 10, 2012
So what does J Head want?? Applause? Like he accomplished soooo much in 30 days. Gag me. And to top it all off you can’t even speak to Mr. Head or division directors directly you must go through some clerical flunky who no doubt understands all aspects of AOS’s operations. The worst however is the new internal communications advisory group. What the hell?! Sounds a little Orwellian don’t you think? Gee I bet AOC employees will be lining up to speak at those meetings ya think? Will they only be alloted 5 minutes to speak like at JC meetings? Roberts Rules of Order = the best way to provide an open dialog between staff and management. They just don’t get it. You can’t make this stuff up. Really, no you can’t. Not even in your wildest Kafkaesque dreams. You reckon??
unionman575
November 10, 2012
Judicial Council Watcher
November 10, 2012
It does appear that Mr. Jahr is maintaining the same closed door policy of his predecessors so that he can quickly discount and disclaim any knowledge of events (improperly) brought to his attention (by not following the chain of command) much like his predecessors. Nothing has changed in this regards other than a constant reinforcement of the new chains of command.
In other words, it is still acting more like a criminal enterprise than a public agency.
courtflea
November 10, 2012
If you watch note the new AOC office complex in the background 😀
Wendy Darling
November 10, 2012
Goosestepping is alive and well, and regularly practiced, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 10, 2012
Flea I like it!
😉
Delilah
November 10, 2012
The whole thing is so gag-worthy, I couldn’t even bring myself to read it in its entirety. These people are the most self-congratulatory, back-slapping, award- and kudos-giving to themselves and each other group, ever. It truly is beyond belief. Reminds me of “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” At least Brownie resigned 10 days later. It seems we’re stuck with all of these insular figureheads into perpetuity. Jahr is just the newest inductee to pop out of the clown car.
courtflea
November 10, 2012
Did anyone else notice the Long Beach proposed courthouse is designed with 5000 square feet of retail space? Is that code for a super sized snack bar or will there be a strip mall on the first floor?
Wendy Darling
November 10, 2012
One of the retail store fronts is earmarked for selling justice. At the right price, of course.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 10, 2012
courtflea
November 10, 2012
Amen Wendy amen.
wearyant
November 10, 2012
SF Whistle, you are missed.
Wendy Darling
November 10, 2012
Here’s some news from the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue . . .
The bleeding and carnage continues in the AOC’s HR Division, even as HR is in the process of moving down to the 5th floor, next to the Executive Office. While line staff are dropping like flies (or being fired), the AOC just passed out raises to all the Pay & Benefits staff, and a promotion and raise to an attorney over in the Labor & Emloyee Relations Unit ( a true misnomer if there ever was one). Oh, and an update on Ron “Tonto” Overholt – he’s taken a job as an Assistant CEO at a court in Arizona.
Note to self: Stay out of Arizona. Apparently it’s where corrupt court officials from California go when they need to get out of town.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 11, 2012
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh the good old days…what a visual!
http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/San-Francisco/ronald-g-overholt/88231091.aspx
Wendy Darling
November 11, 2012
You really have to wonder why someone would identify Ernesto V. Fuentes as one of their professional “connections.” One would think that is really not something one would be proud of or want to advertise. But that assumes that Tonto actually “thinks” about these things, and that’s probably not a reality.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 11, 2012
This is dedicated to you Ernie and your illustrious HR team that still does lot of “good” work even though you are long gone Ernie…
Been There
November 11, 2012
Overholt has a job in AZ? He cannot possibly need the $$$.
unionman575
November 11, 2012
His ego…is huge….
You now what a windbag Tonto is…
wearyant
November 11, 2012
ron0 can’t possibly need the money? He runs with people who always “need” the money. They all live beyond their means. I suppose they’re all trying to impress and outspend each other. There’s never enough money for people like them. Scary when they’re in charge of –anything.
The OBT
November 11, 2012
Happy Veterans day weekend everyone. Thanks to the many dedicated and decent members of the United States military who gave their lives to protect the freedoms we all enjoy . Those freedoms in turn allow us to speak about our government without retribution or punishment. Since our “new ” CJ was appointed, we have seen a level of incompetence that is staggering. The latest is the remarkable multi million dollar waste of taxpayer dollars described above related to the Long Beach courthouse and the appointment of unrepresentative and insular “insiders” like Justice Hull to a committee that could revamp the very structure that funds all of our trial courts. As a group we need to continue to work to change our branch governance and hopefully eventually bring democracy to the Judicial Council and reform to the AOC.
courtflea
November 11, 2012
Where in Arizona? Kingman? 😛
Been There
November 11, 2012
As I read the memo from Mr Jahr, my first thought was, “What a lightweight!”
Unionman, any chance of finding the Doonesbury symbol for former VP Dan Quayle (the feather) in your vast catalogue of all things AOC?
Wendy Darling
November 12, 2012
Ah, yes, the Doonesbury “floating feather”; that is just too perfect Been There.
How about a floating jar with nothing but air inside?
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
November 12, 2012
30 days into the Jahr administration. As you will recall J Hull pronounced Jahr the most qualified person in the country to run the AOC. Huh ? I guess it was just a coincidence that they found this most qualified person in Shasta county after he defended the AOC’s failure to create a trial court bill of rights required by the trial court funding legislation of 1997. Nothing has or ever will change with an organization that exists only to serve itself. Millions continue to be wasted on courthouse construction , including Long Beach. No one at the crystal palace will step up and confess they pushed the trailer bill to allow the AOC to pick trial court presiding judges and CEOs . Hiring for non essential AOC jobs continues unabated while every trial court struggles. Insiders continue to rule the JC with no intent to change despite the devastating conclusions of the SEC report. Yes the AOC claims they are new and transparent but I think we can all see through that. Have a nice Veterans day everyone.
unionman575
November 12, 2012
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL
Job Description
Job Title:
Receptionist I/II
Job ID:
3688
Location: Sacramento
Regular/Temporary:
Who May Apply
DO NOT APPLY ONLINE. Please carefully review the below “How to Apply” section.
Overview
The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in Sacramento is accepting applications for a Receptionist I/II.
.
Responsibilities
Duties include acting as the initial public contact person for callers, answering multiple telephone lines, and performing a variety of office support and clerical duties including word processing and data entry.
.
Qualifications
Receptionist I: Equivalent to graduation from high school and one year of general office experience.
Receptionist II: Equivalent to graduation from high school and two years of receptionist experience. Or One year as a Receptionist I in the judicial branch.
Directly related college-level experience may be substituted for required experience on a year-for-year basis.
.
How To Apply
DO NOT APPLY ONLINE: For a complete job announcement and application, please visit the Court’s website at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/3dca or email 3DCA-Careers@jud.ca.gov.
Filing deadline is 5:00 P.M., November 19, 2012.
.
Pay and Benefits
Starting salary and level commensurate with experience:
Receptionist I: $2,747 – $3,340 per month
Receptionist II: $3,024 – $3,675 per month
.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Equal Opportunity Employer.
unionman575
November 12, 2012
And now a word from Ms. Kiri Torre, Court Executive Officer…
BUDGET CUTS REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN COURT CALENDARS AND OPERATIONS:
http://www.cc-courts.org/_data/n_0003/resources/live/11-2-12%20press%20release%20additional%20changes.pdf
unionman575
November 12, 2012
As every court downsizes its number of open courthouses, open courtrooms, and staff, all counsel should keep in mind this as they lose their marbles waiting in line all day for court services:
http://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/sites/all/assets/pdfs/general-info/AttorneyCivilityGuidelines072007.pdf
courtflea
November 12, 2012
Wendy we don’t need a characterization of an empty jar, one just needs to look at. Mr. Jahr’s head. Viola!
Wendy Darling
November 12, 2012
Exactly right, Flea. Exactly right.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
November 12, 2012
So has anyone heard how J Huffman’s committee is doing on their review of the AOC??
unionman575
November 12, 2012
unionman575
November 13, 2012
Controller Chiang Launches New Public Pay Website
http://publicpay.ca.gov/
unionman575
November 13, 2012
Here it is – the AOC gravy train:
http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SearchNew.aspx?search=judicial+council#Pe9cfc7268bbc4eab8538d7eb34e5635e_3_30iT0
unionman575
November 13, 2012
Hmm..courts across the state are closing EXISTING courthouses and laying off staff…
WHO will work in these Taj Majals?
WHO????????????
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19875.htm
Pre-Qualification of General Contractors, New North Butte County Courthouse RFQ# JBCP-2012-05-BR
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Judicial Branch Capital Program Office, seeks to pre-qualify a pool of qualified General Contractors from which to solicit bids for the construction of the new North Butte County Courthouse. Firms selected for pre-qualification will be given the opportunity to submit bids for the construction of the Project as described in Article 4 of the RFQ. Subject to the conditions prescribed by the AOC and provided herein, the AOC is hereby soliciting qualifications for the Project. Selection will be made on the basis of qualifications. The AOC intends to pre-qualify a group of General Contractors in a timely manner, and solicit construction bids from them shortly thereafter.
The new courthouse for the Superior Court of California, Butte County, will be situated in the Meriam Park Development in Chico, California. The building consists of five courtrooms, along with support spaces, and totals approximately 77,400 gross building square feet. The courthouse will be two stories in height with a basement level. The structure is a steel moment frame structural system on spread footings. The project is designed to be LEED “certified”. Please refer to Attachment B for additional project description.
In responding to this RFQ, all Proposers are required to adhere to all of AOC requirements provided herein. All Proposers must hold a type B general contractor license from the State of California.
Mandatory Pre-Prequalification Submittal Conference at 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, 95833, California on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 2 P.M.
Requests for clarifications or modifications must be submitted to: capitalprogramssolicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 5 P.M. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.
unionman575
November 13, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19025.htm
Significant cuts to court operations budgets have required the consolidation of court services throughout the state. The consolidation has led some trial courts to close branch or satellite courthouses. Limited service days and temporary and permanent courtroom closures are announced here.
When a decision is made to permanently close a courthouse that was transferred from a county to the Judicial Council, California Government Code section 70391(c)(2)—which is found in the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002—requires the council to offer to sell or lease the space back to the county.
“The Judicial Council shall consult with the county concerning the disposition of the facility. Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 11011, when requested by the transferring county, a surplus facility shall be offered to that county at fair market value prior to being offered to another state agency or local government agency.”
Although the county is under no obligation to buy the building, the Judicial Council is mandated by law to offer the property to the county at fair market value. As the staff agency to the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts assists courts with the space issues that result from court closures.
unionman575
November 13, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-Sonoma-20121105.pdf
unionman575
November 13, 2012
http://gcc.sco.ca.gov/Reports/Department.aspx?fiscalyear=2011&statedeptid=3794
Judicial Council of California (State of California)
903 department employees
$82,866 average wages in this department
$60,317 average wages for all State of California employees
$74,828,126 amount spent on total wages for this department
wearyant
November 14, 2012
Thank you, Mr. Chiang, for providing the website and all this information that had been requested time and again from the JC/AOC with no joy. Paging through lists of senior managers and senior attorneys, more managers and more attorneys, one wonders, what do all these people DO all day?
Thanks, Unionman575, for the links! And, now, for the bromo seltzer …
Wendy Darling
November 14, 2012
More to the point, Ant, what do all those senior managers and senior “attorneys” do at all to deserve all those six figure salaries?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 14, 2012
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
November 21, 2012
Since your comment was recently highlighted by another person I think it’s beneficial to see what hush money looks like…..
$ 82,866 average wages in this (management heavy) department
$ 60,317 average wages for all state workers
According to SCO, AOC employees make $ 22,549 more than all state workers
courtflea
November 14, 2012
What i want to know is this: did the AOC tell the controllers office that the number of employees and their salaries was just a wild ass guess??!!! If i was one of those who had been requesting this info from the AOC, I would be calling for Jody Patels head for not providing it. What an insult and a slap in the face to their claims of transparency. Excuse me but the AOC was just fucking you guys around.