In the next twenty days, it is being alleged that the AOC will drive through 70+ exceptions to the current hiring freeze. There is a reason for this urgency which we’ve heard also from other entities that are interested in state employment. With the changes in CALPERS benefits coming to those that are hired after January 1, they may not be interested in full-time employment with the AOC. So the AOC intends to bring those people on as fast as possible.
This will be a straight conversion from temp to perm without any other candidate competition. It is alleged that Gerald Pfab is converting all of his Apple One temps (about 40 in all) that work for the old facilities management unit, now called facilities maintenance from Apple One temp to perm and it is being alleged that Information Services will also convert over thirty temps to perm by the end of the year.
It must be nice to be top dog and write court budgets and your own budget. With dissent forbidden or censored, you can do whatever the hell you want and get away with it.
+++++++++++++
Got an anonymous tip? https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher
Judicial Council Watcher
December 12, 2012
You probably remember Justice Brad Hill announcing this meeting with a caveat. His caveat was that the available facilities wouldn’t permit people to attend telephonically, yet that claim is difficult to reconcile with this meeting agenda.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CFWG_Agenda_12_12_13.pdf
unionman575
December 12, 2012
JCW – Yes very difficult to reconcile indeed
😉
unionman575
December 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CFWG_Agenda_12_12_13.pdf
SB 1407 Projects Discussion
Court Facilities Working Group
Courts with projects tentatively considered for deferral will be invited to
make a 15 minute presentation (in person or telephonically) and answer
members’ questions
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ON PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Court Facilities Working Group received public comments on this
topic during its meeting on September 5–7, 2012, therefore no time is allotted during this meeting for public comments.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
If interested in providing public comment, please submit a request to TCFWG@jud.ca.gov with the following information:
– Speakers name, occupation, name of entity that the speaker represents, email address, telephone number, and mailing address
– Statement on the nature of the comment in a few sentences
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CFWG_Agenda_12_12_13.pdf
😉
wearyant
December 12, 2012
Hill and Hull — The Dark Ages reign! Or do they think they are setting people up by having them sign their names on paper and/or appear in person? Circling the wagons for protection down the road? If there is any “road” left for these top-level hooligans at the AOC’s JC? Current technology bit ya via CCMS and Deloitte? Bring back Morse Code and The Pony Express, you antiques. Get rid of your facsimile machines.
JCW, is there a Santa Claus?
Merry Christmas, All! 😀
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, December 12, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmaker Promises ‘Hard Look’ at Long Beach Courthouse Deal
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that the Legislature “is going to take a hard look at” the troubled Long Beach courthouse financing agreement that has placed funding for 23 other projects around the state in jeopardy.
“There will be the inevitable questions,” said state Senator Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa. “I’m not saying I have the answers. I’m just saying there will be questions.”
Evans’ North Coast senate district is home to three planned courthouse projects — in Sonoma, Ukiah and Lake counties — that may be delayed or even shelved after the Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Working Group meets Thursday. The group’s chairman, Fifth District Court of Appeal Administrative Presiding Justice Brad Hill, said members must slash $600 million in funding from other projects to free up money for the new Long Beach courthouse.
The 31-courtroom Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is being built under a novel public-private partnership model. A consortium of companies will finance, construct and maintain the downtown building, expected to open next fall, and the Judicial Council will pay an annual service fee over the next 35 years. The first full-year fee is expected to total $54.1 million.
The plan, pushed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office and approved by the Legislature in the 2007 budget, assumed the state’s general fund would cover the payments. But this summer state Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told judiciary leaders not to count on any money coming from the overburdened general fund. They should instead rely on an internal judiciary construction fund, Leno said.
The state has already swept and borrowed millions from that fund, leading the Judicial Council to reduce the list of once-planned 41 new and renovated courthouse projects to 23. The reductions will continue anew on Thursday as Hill’s group works to get its recommended cuts to the full Judicial Council by January.
Sonoma County Superior Court Presiding Judge Rene Chouteau, who is hoping plans for a new Santa Rosa criminal courthouse will be salvaged, called Thursday’s meeting premature.
“The fundamental question is, why isn’t the state meeting its obligation to fund this out of the general fund?” Chouteau said.
Many advocates of the original 2007 Long Beach deal have been termed out of office. The Legislature’s many new members are likely unaware of the arrangement and even those who were in office probably don’t remember much about the details. Evans, a state assemblywoman in 2007, said she needed to refresh her memory on the plan.
“It’s just another problematic legacy of the Schwarzenegger administration,” she said. “I know the Legislature is going to take a hard look at it when it returns in January.”
Evans would not commit to seeking general fund money for the Long Beach courthouse, noting the many other demands on the state’s biggest source of discretionary funding.
The problem for Chouteau and others hoping to hang on to the endangered 23 projects is that the Long Beach courthouse will consume a larger piece of any construction money pie. Unlike traditional projects that comprise only a new courthouse, the Long Beach agreement includes costs for ongoing maintenance and building services.
“It’s a huge commitment for a project that is unrelated to the” 23 other planned courthouses, Chouteau said. “It’s just like apples and oranges.”
The presiding judge said Sonoma County has already committed $11 million toward preparing the site of the future Santa Rosa courthouse. He’s not sure what he would tell county leaders if judicial funding evaporates.
“We’ve worked 10 years to replace our criminal courthouse,” he said. “We’re one of the courts that are unsafe because of security reasons, because of seismic reasons. This is not a fun-to-do project .… It seems a little unfair to pull the rug out from underneath it at this point.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202581306876&Lawmaker_Promises_Hard_Look_at_Long_Beach_Courthouse_Deal&slreturn=20121112203607
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 13, 2012
Two points:
1. Today’s meeting is way premature UNLESS you intentionally want to get courts and legislators alike that were expecting courthouses all riled up. We would suggest to judge Chouteau that reading is fundamental and that he will be hard-pressed to prove his claim that the state had any obligation to fund Long Beach with general fund money as would the typically accurate Cheryl Miller.
2. Lots of courts set aside money for their court construction projects because courts must pay for many furniture, fixtures and equipment and their actual move. Delaying courthouse construction could result in the state sweeping that funding costing trial courts millions more, thereby leaving new courthouses empty.
JusticeCalifornia
December 12, 2012
You know, Ron George tucked tail and ran like hell once he realized the due bill was coming for what he had done to the branch. We haven’t heard a peep out of him since.
Cantil Sakauye has protected Team George and Team George follies, and promoted loyal Team George cheerleaders who are in way over their heads. She has made changes but they leave in place Team George’s essential “it’s good to be king, my way or the highway” philosophy and retaliatory/secretive/circle the wagons power structure.
The branch needs to get it. As long as the branch spits in the wind, makes service to the public its last rather than first priority, insults those it is supposed to serve, bites the hand that feeds it, and at any level allows corruption, mismanagement and waste, the branch is going to get its butt kicked. From all directions. At every opportunity. And rightfully so.
The Legislative and Executive branches cannot tell the Judicial Branch what to do. But it can refuse to enable dysfunctional, wasteful, corrupt behavior that is harmful to the public. And it can do that via the budget. Or appropriate legal actions. Like a parent cutting off allowance for a child using the money to buy illegal drugs, or refusing to cover up or justify that child’s sale of illegal drugs to others. Those very many in the branch(the majority?) who don’t like or deserve economic sanctions for bad branch behavior of others and who can influence branch policy are going to have to FINALLY step up and demand competency, accountability and change from branch leadership at all levels. Here’s a novel idea: democratize the Judicial Council.
The public wants what it needs: open courts, good judges (elected by the public), court clerks, court reporters, and self-help resources. It does not want CCMS debacles, courthouse maintenance debacles, Long Beach debacles, assigned judge travesties, the most expensive courthouses in the nation, an overblown AOC, hordes of Court administrators who make more than the Governor and U.S. Supreme Court judges, and. . . . .taxes, traffic fines, penalties and court fees, funding all of the above.
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Nor does the public want or need a judicial branch administration and Administrative Office of the Courts that lies and has no credibility or ethics.
But that’s what is has got.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
The Trial Court financial asswhipping has arrived big time!
unionman575
December 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-Stanislaus-20121204.pdf
New: PUBLIC NOTICE*
-REDUCED CLERK’S OFFICE HOURS-
Effective Monday, February 4th, 2013:
Due to ongoing and anticipated reductions in the court’s budget, the Stanislaus County Superior Court has determined that a reduction in hours is necessary. *
All Stanislaus County Superior Court offices will reduce service hours for the public filing windows and telephones every Friday by closing at noon. Office hours for all offices including the Self-Help Center will be 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday through Thursday, and 8:00 AM- 12:00 PM on Fridays (the Self Help Center will still be closed 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM for lunch).
The changes in public service will not affect courtroom calendars or scheduling for hearing dates. (Current hours are posted below).
unionman575
December 12, 2012
AB 340 – Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012
Presto!
Here comes another AOC hiring boom…
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17720
For full text of the bill, visit: http://leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
;
)
JusticeCalifornia
December 12, 2012
It must be nice for our Chief Justice and court administrators to hire or fire or “let go” of whomever they want to, to serve their purposes, even or perhaps especially to the detriment of and at the expense of the public.
Sakauye is a current judge and former litigator.
I’m going to make one thing REAL clear about something on EVERY honest litigator’s and judge’s mind as all three branches wade through budget cuts. . . .
Court reporters are a necessity, not a luxury, in substantive proceedings.
Courtflea, love you, and think you disagree (I think because of your personal integrity) but for a judge, lawyer, or litigant in an important proceeding, an audio/video system managed by court administration — while better than nothing– is not an acceptable,reliable alternative to an official court reporter’s transcript.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
“an audio/video system managed by court administration — while better than nothing– is not an acceptable,reliable alternative to an official court reporter’s transcript”.
Agreed!
😉
wearyant
December 12, 2012
Anything managed by court admin is suspect. They really don’t give a damn about the court proceedings. They are interested in fees, however.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
Anything managed by court admin is suspect.
disgusted
December 12, 2012
disgusted
December 12, 2012
JusticeCalifornia
December 13, 2012
Excellent summary of the importance of court reporters, disgusted. This link should be forwarded to every legislator.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
Hmm…LASC “Supervising judge of budget and planning implementation”…
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/snip121212.htm
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Page 11
SNIPPETS (Column)
•The Los Angeles Superior Court has announced that Judge Ann I. Jones will leave Department 86 to take over the newly created post of supervising judge of budget and planning implementation, working out of the presiding judge’s office.
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Published late today, Wednesday, December 12, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Work Group Evaluates Law That Centralized Funding of CA Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – At a meeting to evaluate landmark legislation that revolutionized court funding in California 15 years ago, legislators and judges found that money remains a point of conflict between trial courts and the central court bureaucracy.
“The issues after trial court funding remain today — which is the constant tension between a standard of statewide administration and local preference to be given money and left alone,” said said former Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg.
Isenberg is co-chair of a committee on court funding set up last month by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Governor Jerry Brown.
The Trial Court Funding Workgroup, as the committee is called, has a little over three months before it must report to the Judicial Council and the governor on the judiciary’s progress in meeting the goals of the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act that set up a system of statewide funding for the trial courts.
The legislation’s language keeping local control over trial court finances and retaining a decentralized system of court management is often pointed to by judges who have criticized the Administrative Office of the Courts for trying to direct court policy and control local court management.
At the meeting Wednesday, Isenberg asked the committee whether provisions on local court autonomy were being followed, specifically a section urging the Judicial Council to create a Trial Courts Bill of Financial Management Rights.
“Some would argue that it’s never been achieved,” said committee member David Rosenberg, presiding judge of Yolo County.
“I assume there isn’t a formal document called the Bill of Rights,” Isenberg said.
“The actual directive in the act pertaining to that subject to ensure that level of autonomy was indeed addressed,” answered Steven Jahr, a former judge and now the director of the administrative office. Jahr had worked on a task force after the 1997 bill’s passage that was responsible for easing the judiciary onto central state funding.
“The directory of provisions did not contain the words trial court bill of rights,” Jahr conceded. “I’d submit if one were to go with the original rules of courts, one would find we did promulgate those.”
Isenberg said the issue needs a renewed focus.
“Flag that as an issue because we know critics of the AOC have flagged that as a point,” Isenberg said, suggesting that the committee may return to the contentious topic in future meetings.
While a financial bill of rights for the courts may still be in dispute, Rosenberg noted that the judiciary has made some progress in giving courts the authority to manage themselves.
“There’s a constant tension here, but I think many of these elements of a decentralized system have been achieved,” he said. “The primary achievement of decentralization and and local autonomy was the right and ability of each trial court to select is own presiding judge and assistant presiding judge and select its own court executive. Those are important achievements and functions to maintain independence of the trial courts.”
“And they have all right to run their courts as they see fit,” added Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa County.
The committee directed the AOC to chart the judiciary’s progress on providing better access to courts and ensuring that courts have adopted uniform standards of conducting business. AOC officials will also try to meet with Department of Finance representatives before January to determine what directives from the Trial Court Funding Act remain unmet.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/12/53079.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
“And they have all right to run their courts as they see fit,” added Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa County.”
Without Trial Court Operations funding we are fucked big time all across the state in EVERY TRIAL COURT IN CA.
fifthamendment
December 12, 2012
I don’t understand how employees were “laid-off” back in June……yet temporary employees have been secured permanent positions?
courtflea
December 13, 2012
Rosenberg and Jahr head are assholes and should shut their pieholes. They are suggesting courts were given rights they had prior to the Act. The quotes from these clowns in the article prove what liars these scumbags truly are. Thank you Maria!
courtflea
December 13, 2012
I am so digusted. I had to read that article again to believe my eyes and to make a plea to Mr. Isenberg: please don’t give up. You are on the right path. Don’t let these brain washed folks convince you that the intentions of your act were implemented. In fact rights have been taken away from the trial courts in the way the AOC allocates funding. There is no funding left to courts that is not allocated for a specific purpose, this does not allow for courts to operate however they would like no matter what these talking heads tell you in these meetings. For the sake of the judicial branch, please hold dear the original intention of your Act and force the AOC and the council to abide by it. Otherwise you leave the branch in the clutches of a power hungry few. The branch and the Judicial council must be democratized and implementing your Act is a start in that direction. It is truly reprehensible how your Act was bastardized.
Love ya too Justice CA 😀
wearyant
December 13, 2012
Very well said, Flea. I hope Isenberg gets your message.
wearyant
December 13, 2012
Darn, apparently the gushy awards ceremony is not on audio. I wanted to capture it in case I ever need a vomit inducer.
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Brother can you spare a dime for Long Beach???…
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20171.htm
Four More Courthouse Projects May Be Delayed
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7738
December 13, 2012
Four More Courthouse Projects May Be Delayed
Judicial oversight committee makes recommendations because of potential loss of funds designated for court construction
Among 23 projects, 4 were recommended for indefinite delay.
SAN FRANCISCO—The Court Facilities Working Group voted today to recommend that four additional courthouse construction projects in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Fresno, and Nevada City be delayed indefinitely if the Legislature directs that court construction funds be used to finance the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach. …………..
unionman575
December 13, 2012
“Difficult and devastating as it is to tell more courts that their much-needed and long-awaited projects may not move forward, the branch has a responsibility to proceed with only those projects that we know we can currently afford,” said Justice Brad R. Hill, chair of the Court Facilities Working Group and Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. “All of these projects are desperately needed, and all residents throughout the state deserve access to justice in courthouses that are safe, secure, and accessible, so these decisions are very painful.
“We have been working for months advocating that the Long Beach courthouse be paid for by the General Fund, as was originally planned, and not burden the account that funds so many other urgently needed projects throughout the state. The first of the ongoing payments for Long Beach comes due in the next fiscal year, and current indications are that there will not be General Fund dollars available. We’ll continue to advocate for resolution of the funding for Long Beach from the General Fund so that these other communities would not be disadvantaged.”
Wendy Darling
December 13, 2012
Blame the Legislature. When, if ever, is branch leadership going to figure out that blaming the State Legislature isn’t a workable strategy?
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 13, 2012
Ah, judicial branch hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again. Published today, Thursday, December 13, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Four New Calif. Courthouses Axed
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – After seeing nearly $400 million and seven projects slashed from their construction program in September, California courts were once again tested by cuts as the judiciary’s court facilities working group axed four additional new courthouses.
The committee’s Thursday meeting was also the same day Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye met with Governor Jerry Brown to parley over $200 million in new cuts.
Before bringing down the hammer, the committee said they were acting under duress by the Legislature, which is currently refusing to fund a costly Longbeach courthouse and forcing the judiciary to finance it with money intended for dozens of other court projects.
“We’re like the inmates making the bullets to have ourselves shot by the firing squad,” said committee member Judge William Highberger of Los Angeles. “It is intolerable that the Legislature is backing away from decisions made by previous legislatures.”
A total of 19 projects are currently going forward, including new courthouses in Shasta, Sonoma, Santa Barbara, Riverside and the biggest project, a $544 million courthouse in San Diego.
Prior to the unanimous vote to “indefinitely delay” courthouses in Fresno, Los Angeles, Nevada County and Sacramento, a move that will save $558 million, the group debated whether to include in the motion language clarifying that the courts were suffering because the Legislature had forced the committee’s hand.
“I’m concerned that what the Legislature has been doing here has been pushing this problem from the state down to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council. I would like any motion we pass to include the provision but for the failure of the actions that were promised on the part of the Legislature and the Governor’s office we wouldn’t have to make these cuts but its directly as the result of these actions that these cuts are necessary,” said committee member Val Toppenberg. “I would be disappointed if we were to pass a motion keeping quiet about why we’re doing this.”
Others thought such language beyond the purview of the committee and should be left up to the governing Judicial Council. Committee chair Justice Brad Hill volunteered to make the committee’s reasoning clear to the council, which is set to vote the committee’s decision in January.
Toppenberg replied, “We really have an obligation to offer a suggestion as to why we’re doing this. Simply to keep quiet when we’re tasked as a group with carrying out some uncomfortable and unappetizing duties, we need to express our feelings. I appreciate your offer to make those comments to the Judicial Council, but we need to go another step further. I really think we need to make that statement.”
Presiding Judge Laura Masunaga of Siskiyou County agreed, attributing the committee’s predicament to “the Legislature’s inaction in finding the General Funds for Longbeach, which was never supposed to be paid by the Judicial Branch.”
“I could ratchet up my comments even more when I go the council,” Hill offered. “I’m just not sure that we want to wrap commentary into motions. Certainly the sense of the group is, and I can make it inordinately clear when I go to the council, that this was done under duress.”
Justice Jeffrey Johnson of Los Angeles added, “The Chief Justice and the Judicial Council interface with other branches of our state government and I am loathe to put in a motion something the Judicial Council would be forced to adopt that makes a policy statement.”
The committee ended up siding with Johnson.
Judges and court officials from the affected courts were given several minutes each to plead their cases. El Dorado and Mendocino counties, both on the shortlist for delay, were ultimately spared.
“We remember the corbel that fell off the building that you brought for us,” Hill said to El Dorado Presiding Judge Suzanne Kingsbury, referring to a piece of the court she brought for the committee at its meeting in September.
Kingsbury, who’s been lobbying for a new facility since 1999, told the committee that the county’s crumbling 100 year-old courthouse “is so woefully inadequate I cannot begin to tell you the reasons why it needs to be replaced.”
She added, “The property that is being donated for our site is coming to the state at no cost. If this property is not acquired, it will be snapped up. We have spent hours and hours with the AOC driving around the county trying to find another piece of property that would be acceptable for the development of a courthouse. It does not exist.
“We don’t have the luxury in dealing with our financial issues, to be able to close a court facility,” she added. “If the committee choose to defer it will be forever lost. I’m just really concerned that if this land acquisition doesn’t take place, we’ll never get a courthouse.”
Sacramento was also given a partial reprieve of $10 million to purchase critical land for a new courthouse. Los Angeles had three projects on the chopping block — a new Southeast Los Angeles Courthouse, the Eastlake Juvenile Courthouse and a Mental Health Courthouse. The committee asked Los Angeles Court Executive Officer John Clarke to prioritize the projects. He chose the latter two, which swayed the committee’s decision to put the Southeast project on hold.
Nevada County Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka said he wasn’t sure why his court, which proposed to renovate the historic courthouse instead of building a new costly facility, was on the list for delay. “I don’t have the vaguest idea how our project came up as one to indefinitely delay. I didn’t hear anybody say why our project was put on the list,” he said.
“This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed the project,” Johnson answered referring to a series of meetings in September on court construction. “We’ve had 23 hours of discussion.”
“I understand and appreciate your concerns, but every project we’re looking at is, in so many respects, in desperate straits,” Hill said. “The easy choices were made months ago or years ago. The choices we have no are among desperately needed facilities. All of you have very compelling cases. That’s why these decisions are so tough. One court may be more desperate than another, but there aren’t clear distinctions.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/13/53118.htm
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
December 13, 2012
The AOC and the JC never keep their promises so why should they expect a democratic legislature and gov would keep the so called promises of a Republican gov and legislature. Helllooooo
JusticeCalifornia
December 13, 2012
The branch can debate about courthouses until it is blue in the face. Until basic court services are provided to the public that pays for EVERYTHING, the branch is rightfully going to get whacked. Do you think the public wants a courthouse or a real judge, court clerks that work regular work hours, and a record of the proceedings? As a litigator, I would rather have a real judge, a court clerk to manage the evidence, and a court reporter in a barn than a new courthouse.
Get real.
JusticeCalifornia
December 13, 2012
And I daresay most ethical, responsible attorneys. . . .and virtually all of their clients. . . . and their clients would agree with me.
Hey, do you want to go to our shiny new expensive courthouse with no court clerk or court reporter or court interpreter– or shall we go to the old court modular unit equipped with all of the above?
No contest, baby.
Michael Paul
December 13, 2012
You would think a bunch of attorneys and judges would know that a contract such as this is not enforceable unless you get it in writing or in this case legislation.
Questions:
When did they first know that a budgetary line item to cover the costs needed to be written into law as a condition of the contract?
What did that recently promoted Chief Operating Officer {gag-puke-choke} know\do to get a line item inserted into the budget to pay for this?
What effort was made to ensure that the line item was inserted into the budget before betting the trial court construction fund on this project?
Stop blaming others. It’s embarrassing. It’s unethical. It’s fundamentally dishonest but most of all as a bunch of judges and attorneys, you should have known better.
Wendy Darling
December 13, 2012
Oh, they all knew better, Michael Paul. They just didn’t care.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
December 13, 2012
This is like me going and buying myself a bugatti veyron tomorrow and telling the dealer that the Judicial Council promised that over my lifetime I’ll be able to pay for it and later whine about it getting repossessed and blame them. Cry me a fucking river.
What Meridiam Infrastructure did was obtain a liar loan for the AOC.
There is no difference here.
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Stop blaming others. It’s embarrassing. It’s unethical. It’s fundamentally dishonest but most of all as a bunch of judges and attorneys, you should have known better.
I agree 100% I suppose they were all asleep at the wheel back in the day in contracts class.
;).
JusticeCalifornia
December 13, 2012
oops, posted too quickly. Sorry about the clients redundancy.
maxrebo5
December 13, 2012
Sacramento Judges got life support on their courthouse. Political payback for supporting Tani and Jodi through all of these scandals? It helped having your former court exec as the Deputy State Court Administrator in a crisis to save your project from the full chopping block. So if the Sac Judges don’t get the real money they need (like 300 million) for a new Criminal Courthouse will they finally turn on Jody Patel and demand the Chief remove her? It is long overdue already to all of us laid off employees hired by Jody.
This whole situation is so lame and it is the result of Team George policy failures. All this bond money for courthouses they pushed for but no money for staff who do the work of the people. I’m not talking about AOC staff, who are a waste of tax funds, but actual trial court staff who can process the cases the disputes the public wants resolved.
Sac Judges, I hope when the AOC cuts your dream courthouse funding, to fund Bill Vickrey’s horribly prepared and overbudget deal for the LB Courthouse, you will finally see how screwed CA has been by Team George. They have left in ruin so many courts in this state over the past decade and it is about to be your turn to be betrayed financially in terms of your courthouse dream (on top of CCMS’s failure). Sadly as long as there that hope of a new courthouse some on the SAC bench havenever stood up and demanded Jody and Curt’s resignations from the AOC and this is after the CCMS debacle and SEC Report. Where were your voices?
Now that your courthouse dream is collapsing will you finally do the right thing and demand the Chief get new leaders? Will you admit that the AOC in San Francisco should be closed and the savings passed on to fund trial courts? Will you see that the AOC should be shrunk in half since Isenberg did promise less administation not more? Will you agree that the AOC headquarters should be moved to SAC to save costs? Most importantly will you see how you have all been a part of these policy failures by allowing the AOC to run things for you instead of joining the voices saying the JC needs to be democratized and actually being fully vested and fully responsible for the administration of CA Courts.
Some of the Sac bench have been strong voices in the ACJ (to your great credit) but not full on and with 100% participation. The entire bench should write a letter demanding new leadership of the AOC just as you all wrote in support of Tani to be the new chief. It would signal an end to this horrible Team George and end a Vickrey legacy in CA court administraiton that should not exist. If you, the bench Tani comes from, says we have had enough of these scandals with 100% unanimity it would send a powerful message that Judge Feinstein has also already made which is the AOC is partially to blame for this mess and heads from the George Team need to roll. This change is needed for the sake of the Court. Like Rice recalling her name from consideration for the Secretary of State, Jody Patel and the Curts need to step down for the sake of the branch. It is long overdue and Jahr’s appointment is not fooling us (the AOC critics). Time to be responsible trial court judges, appellate court justices, and CA Supreme Court Justices. A CA citizen is telling you change is needed. Please listen.
unionman575
December 13, 2012
LET’S DO THIS NOW:
The AOC in San Francisco should be closed and the savings passed on to fund trial courts.
😉
courtflea
December 13, 2012
I like that: the “Curts”
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Me too…
😉
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Let’s review LONG BEACH…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/15578.htm
Scroll down to page 4 and enjoy this AOC masterpiece in all its natural beauty…
“Once the court occupies the building, the judicial branch pays the project company an annual fee; the state is the legal owner of the land and building.”
Let that soak in for a moment while I refill my Vodka Tonic BRB…
Now here is the AOC statement in its entirety…
Performance-Based Infrastructure
One Branch: Performance-Based Infrastructure
In 2002, ownership of California’s trial court buildings passed from the 58 counties to the judicial branch of the state. With this transfer, completed in 2009, came the responsibility of maintaining the court buildings and constructing new facilities. Many of the buildings are in poor repair, while others are simply outmoded and need to be replaced.
The Office of Court Construction and Management (OCCM) was created in 2003 as a division of the Administrative Office of the Courts. OCCM is charged with managing existing court facilities, repairing and remodeling these facilities as needed, and constructing new buildings. At present, more than 50 new construction and major remodeling projects are in various stages of completion. Most of these projects were funded through legislation authorizing the collection of court user fees and assessments set aside for this purpose. However, in this time of fiscal constraints, some of the funding authorized for court construction has been borrowed or reallocated for other purposes, so the judicial branch is exploring other methods of financing its building projects.
Currently, about 100 more courthouse construction projects need funding. No single source of public funding is large enough to finance these projects. Because of this shortfall, the Judicial Council, through the AOC, is pilot-testing an innovative way to finance and construct new court buildings called performance-based infrastructure, or PBI.
PBI is a partnership between the public sector owner—in this case, the judicial branch— and a private project company that—in the case of the new Long Beach courthouse—finances, designs, and builds the courthouse and then operates and maintains the building. Once the court occupies the building, the judicial branch pays the project company an annual fee; the state is the legal owner of the land and building. The yearly payment is performance based; that is, it is conditional based on the successful operation and maintenance of the building.
This performance-based approach ensures that the private partner will employ high standards both in construction and in maintenance of the court building.
The PBI delivery method contains other advantages for the state—and the taxpayers. It transfers many of the risks of development from the state to the private company. The private partner undertakes the construction on a fast-track basis, which leads to rapid creation of much-needed local construction jobs, with the economic benefits they bring. The state does not begin to pay until the court building is occupied.
The new Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is the first courthouse in the United States to be built using the PBI method. In 2010, the AOC reviewed applications from three consortia and selected Long Beach Judicial Partners as the project company. Construction began in May 2011; by the end of August, the foundation was finished and construction had begun on the building.
The striking design of the new courthouse will make it a landmark addition to downtown Long Beach. The 31-courtroom building will cost $490 million, and construction will be completed in late 2013. Long Beach Judicial Partners will manage and maintain the building for 35 years and then turn the building over to the judicial branch.
The project in Long Beach is a pilot effort meant to test PBI as a project delivery method. If the public/private partnership proves successful, the experience gained will be invaluable for similar projects in the future.
😉
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Paragraph 4, not page 4…sorry folks…I have been drinking 2 nite…
😉
Michael Paul
December 13, 2012
There is no one truth unionman, only versions of it. 😉
unionman575
December 13, 2012
😉
Wendy Darling
December 13, 2012
Sounds like the same superfluous language used to describe that other star of AOC salesmanship/smoke and mirror projects: CCMS.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Need cash Tani to pay for Long Beach? May we suggest…
unionman575
December 13, 2012
I’m thinking of a 35 year term..
😉
unionman575
December 13, 2012
on the loan…whew I am relaxed 2 nite…
😉
wearyant
December 13, 2012
Unionman575, you continue to be a total scream. The Money Store? Hahahahahah! Ya know, the private sector see these AOC/JC/CJ fools coming and rejoice. Years of employment for them. Deloitte sure did a “wham-bam-thank you ma’am” on ’em. Love ’em and leave ’em.
unionman575
December 14, 2012
Just keeping it real Ant.
😉
disgusted
December 14, 2012
The plug needs to be pulled!
unionman575
December 23, 2012
The OBT
December 14, 2012
Oh mirror mirror on the wall…. I think the JC/AOC need only look in the mirror to see who is responsible for our current woes. I thank Justice Johnson for having the good sense not to blast the legislature for the Long Beach mess and resulting deletion of some necessary new courthouses. Let us hope the JC will exercise similar restraint. Branch leadership needs to step up and admit that they are the ones that messed up as they wasted multi millions on CCMS, Long Beach, overstaffing the crystal palace and numerous other misadventures. One wonders how much taxpayer money got wasted today by flying in all the members of Justice Hill’s committee to salvage Long Beach ? The answer is a new governance model as this one has failed and now failed miserably.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 17, 2012
Prince – 1999 by abelflexes
An anonymous tip via the private message window indicates that the AOC is celebrating an early christmas with all of these temps being made permanent.
john
December 21, 2012
This is a fact as of today. Email announcements of temps becoming fulltime employees has started. Today IS announced a budget analyst becoming full time.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 23, 2012
Thanks for the information John. Sorry but your post was caught up in our spam filter and was not noticed for a few days but this is important information that everyone should be aware of.
unionman575
December 23, 2012
John- keep us posted as the Death Star continues to convert temps into employees.