Enclosed is the Long Beach courthouse contract executed between Mr. Robert Emerson of the Administrative office of the Courts and Mr. Stuart Marks of Long Beach Judicial Partners obtained by Mr. Michael Paul via the State Department of Finance.
Note that the attachments are mostly larger than 8 megabytes each and that they are numbered in the order in which they occur. As we continue to study this lengthy document, we will return to this post to comment upon it at a later date.
PRA#990.1 PRA#990.2 PRA#990.3 PRA#990.4 PRA#990.5 PRA#990.6 PRA#990.7 PRA#990.8 PRA#990.9 PRA#990.10
Related articles
- The Long Beach boondoggle gets more press coverage (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Courthouse construction? Frozen until further notice. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Long Beach – Unwind the deal. (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Four More Courthouse Projects May Be Delayed – Including Nevada City (yubanet.com)
- Courthouse plans for Modesto, Sonora, Los Banos stay alive (modbee.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
December 28, 2012
More nice work JCW!
😉
wearyant
December 28, 2012
The JC/AOC/CJ really need to get out of the construction business. They are a sad, judicial version of the Keystone Cops and a total embarrassment to the third branch of California. With all the pages and pages of protections and limitations, the JC/AOC still manage to get screwed in the California private industry marketplace and thus the taxpayers suffer and end up with the damned bill. I’ve only scanned the first pdf download and can see this — and I’m not a lawyer, just a commoner and one of the unwashed, huddled masses. I’m looking forward to a hawk-eyed lawyer pointing out all the finer points that the JC/AOC/CJ fell flat on their face on due to this epic of a contract. As another poster suggested, the JC/AOC/CJ should be held personally and financially responsible for all these bites they chomp off.
unionman575
December 28, 2012
And now a word from Steve Nash ….
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=E1iqpt4EHrE%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=s6SmrOrM_iY%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
Wendy Darling
December 28, 2012
Published today, Friday, December 28, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Brown Names 30 to Superior Courts, Including 11 in Los Angeles
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Gov. Jerry Brown yesterday named 30 people as judges in superior courts throughout the state, with 11 of those appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
He also named a former state lawmaker, Allyson Huber, to the Sacramento Superior Court.
The local appointees are Lori R. Behar, Daniel L. Brenner, Robert B. Broadbelt III, Patrick A. Cathcart, Annabelle G. Cortez, Robert S. Draper, Marc D. Gross, Joseph R. Porras, Tony L. Richardson, Michael J. Shultz and Lynne Hobbs Smith.
Cortez, 43, of Glendale, has been an attorney at the Administrative Office of the Courts since 2007. She was western regional counsel at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in 2007, and before that an attorney in private practice for 12 years. She received her law degree from the University of California, Hastings, and her undergraduate degree from the University of California, San Diego. Cortez, a Democrat, fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge John P. Shook.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
December 28, 2012
Oooo, I don’t think I’m gonna like Annabelle …
Michael Paul
December 29, 2012
The AOC indicated that they would be gathering these documents and that they would be ready by January 9th. I recall that this is the day before the governor would be presenting his budget. I’d like to thank the department of finance for producing these contracts in what can best be described as instantly upon request for a government agency. I can’t imagine the AOC being thrilled about this being circulated in the public domain where people can pick it apart.
unionman575
December 29, 2012
A round of applause for the Department of Finance…
😉
wearyant
December 29, 2012
“I can’t imagine the AOC being thrilled about this being circulated in the public domain where people can pick it apart.”
Hahaha. I live for this bevy of bureaucrats discomfort, they’ve done such egregious harm to the public and enriched themselves so selfishly.
Michael Paul
December 29, 2012
Let me commence the picking apart. If you’re an IT professional or manager in Long Beach you’re going to need to read and understand this and commence mitigation so you’ll be able to move in.
According to this documentation, the Long Beach courthouse was designed and built using a document that was obsolete the day it was published. I know because I published what is known as the JINA amendment to chapter 17 of the 2006 of the Trial Court Facilities Standards which would later be incorporated into the 2010 trial court facilities standards.
OCCM wrote these 2006 standards and sent them downstairs for the IT department to amend or correct. As a result of inter-divisional disputes, the IT management refused to respond to review requests. Sowhat was written in chapter 17 of the 2006 standards is unusable by any entity, much less any court. In case you need an example, the 2006 standards tell the designer/builder to use category 5 wiring. The last JINA amendment makes that a very capable POE requirement of category 6A.
Elsewhere in this document it spells out that security cameras should have a single cable powering them. Now if you follow chapter 17 and try to run a couple of POE injected amps at 24 volts over cat5 wiring, the wiring will melt, the injectors will pop a fuse on the POE injectors and POE and the camera will be lost.
Oddly, the documents make no reference to updated IT standards but does make reference to updated security standards written by Chris Hoover, their former security electronics ace. Security standards that require POE injectors to power the security camera wiring. This is a large building. It should have IDF’s on either side of every floor so that the runs between the POE injectors and the cameras aren’t too long. Any designer worth their salt knows that the definitions written in chapter 17 of the trial court facilities standards are unusable. Mr. Ham knows that most of the 2006 TCFS was so poorly written that they resulted in a flurry of change orders on every project. Especially in chapter 17 that defines the IT standards.
So what are you getting?
I could not tell you because Clifford is the lone ranger. Only he reviews his own engineering documentation. He does not send it on to in-house experts to review and comment. He does not send it out to the courts to review and comment. You will get exactly what Mr. Ham believes you should get. In the case of Santa Ana’s courthouse, this meant that the racks were underpowered with an obsolete electrical buss bar that only supplied 220 volts. Racks are supposed to have 30 amps each, not 50 amps total for the whole server room. Mountains needed to be moved at the last minute and again, a flurry of change orders that Mr. Ham would not approve needed to be executed just so 4DCA could move in to Santa Ana. These approvals needed to shoot over his head partly because he refused to approve change orders but mainly because he was touring europe in the weeks before the courthouse was to be delivered to the customer, leaving a poor AOC inspector to do the grunt work of delivering the building and leaving me to steal from everywhere and everyone to get the server rooms and IDF’s ready because no purchase order could be processed that fast.
The moral of this story?
Доверяй, но проверяй
Trust, but verify.
Last minute surprises on a structure this large are unworkable and will take months to address. This isn’t a tiny appellate courthouse. This is ten times larger.
unionman575
December 29, 2012
Michael Paul
December 29, 2012
What are most of those change orders related to? Chapter 17 of the TCFS. They’re probably not even close to IT build out as that tends to happen right before system commissioning.
Michael Paul
December 29, 2012
FYI – the JINA amendment = Judicial Integrated Network Architecture, It combines voice, security, video, fire/life safety and building management over a single ubiquitous high speed switched network. The 2006 standard would require 7 different networks which is why it was unusable.
unionman575
December 29, 2012
More AOC bullshit…
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2012/12/28/state-court-construction-delay-railyard.html
wearyant
December 29, 2012
Yeah, Unionman, it appears to have an AOC spin … Ruano shouldn’t be able to get away with that crap — $50 M taken from court construction and put into the courts. Tell the whole truth, Cow!
unionman575
December 29, 2012
Oh my! Long Beach on my mind..
A picture is worth a thousand words…
😉
http://oxblue.com/open/clarkconstruction/longbeachcourtbuilding
Michael Paul
January 2, 2013
Query: If the Long Beach Courthouse will only cost 600 million as Justice Hill and others have explained, then why do they need to terminate 793 million dollars worth of projects?
Answer: The Long Beach courthouse costs more than what is being quoted. Oddly in these department of finance documents, what is missing is numbers that reflect price. It would be irresponsible for them to sign off on paying for this courthouse without knowing the price.
Wendy Darling
January 2, 2013
Answer: It’s the “new math” of 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
And as for it being “irresponsible for them to sign off on paying for this courthouse without knowing the price,” since when has that ever stopped them? They signed off on CCMS without knowing the full price. Who’s going to hold them accountable? How about letting the warranty expire on CCMS before a workable product was even delivered? Or an embezzlement of public funds that no one was ever held accountable for? Being administratively “irresponsible” has been raised to an art form in current judicial branch administration.
455 Golden Gate Avenue will get a free pass on this too. And a free pass on quo warranto. Some of us have sat in meetings at the AOC where it’s been openly discussed that “the law” is what the AOC interprets it to be, because there is no one to stop them. And so far they’ve been right.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
January 2, 2013
Yes, we’re aware of what the AOC might do but it appears that the department of finance is refusing to be a party to this. No price tag in the documentation? REALLY?
Wendy Darling
January 2, 2013
Yes, really, Michael Paul. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 2, 2013
Summary of 2012 Senate and Assembly Election Results
and Redistricting Seat Changes (as of December 5, 2012)
Legislature Begins 2013-2014 Session with 39 New Legislators
The November 6 statewide general election resulted in 39 first-time legislators: one Senator and 38 Assembly members. Office of Governmental Affairs advocates will meet with incoming legislators during January and February to acquaint them with the Judicial Council and with OGA’s role and responsibilities, and to offer to serve as a resource on judicial branch matters. …
😉
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%20got%20to%20be%20shitting%20me
The OBT
January 3, 2013
Oh my. Long Beach on my mind. Thanks Unionman for that real time up to the minute link of one of the JC/AOC’s biggest public policy failures. I can picture a better worksite. When the JC/AOC , CJP and all the rest get to move to a public building in Sacramento that charges reasonable rent. And maybe when they move the state can reduce its bloated debt by auctioning off the Ronald George crystal palace complex and William Vickrey Conference center to the highest bidder .