In yet another twisted turn of events the AOC released a series of documents and email to MetNews indicating that they have been cutting expenses. They’re just unwilling to prove it. Some of our contacts tell us that it would take all of ten minutes to key in the data that would generate the report that Judge Kevin McCormick is looking for. But because the document does not already exist as an already produced document and that rule 10.5 speaks to existing documents, anything in an AOC database is not a document and therefore the AOC does not need to respond to the request.
Transparent….and accountable? You be the judge.
In the second part of the request addressing contractors, salaries and start dates going back 3 years, Chad Finke responds with this missive:
“As to contracts responsive to your request for certain individual contractors’ salaries and start dates, we will begin our efforts to assemble those records. As noted, we anticipate that assembling these records will take approximately three months. In addition, as we begin assembling those records, we will be back in touch as to any storage retrieval fees that may be required.
Storage retrieval fees? Where does it state that a state judge should be treated just like for profit media who might be able to sell an ad or two to pay for storage retrieval fees? I must have missed that memo.
In short, the AOC’s response does not engender continued confidence in the agency or the process and it would appear that the AOC is attempting to stonewall what is an obvious issue of a 300% increase in lodging expenses while simultaneously declaring that they’ve cut expenses based on TEC’s or Travel Expense Claims. Of course over the past couple of years they have a new way of making expenses disappear in events where no TEC is necessary.
Related articles
- Can We Get A Straight Answer? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Governor endorses near secret JC deliberations of the publics business. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Another AOC back room deal underscores yet another boondoggle (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The Arrogance of Unchecked Powers (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Budget Trailer Bill: Another audit of the AOC that does not go far enough (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Artificially increasing the odds of “Not Reasonably Likely”….. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
courtflea
July 12, 2013
This is such bullshit it is beyond bullshit. When you have an agency that has almost 1,000 employees and god knows how many temps, data collection for a records request is going to take some work. duh. While AOC general counsel forces trial courts to give up records no matter what to avoid lawsuits, the AOC can shuck and jive and try to dazzel folks with bullshit to avoid releasing information. disgusting. Someone needs to sue the AOC for not turning over requested records.
Michael Paul
July 12, 2013
A dozen judges and justices would be managing that litigation against the AOC into oblivion, much like they’ve done with other litigation. Regardless of the merits of your case, you will lose when they figure out which judge to send the case to and try the case on their terms and on their turf. They’re legally invincible from state civil actions and can shape the outcome of any litigation against them.
wearyant
July 12, 2013
We should believe the AOC is cutting expenses because they say it is so. Nuh-uh, I don’t think so. I wouldn’t believe the AOC if they said the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Their credibility has been shot for years now. You may find it down a rabbit hole.
Three months to assemble the records requested? 😀 Have these brilliant people heard of Quicken? Simple household Quicken. You use categories and classes and such like. Give Stevie Nash a call. Maybe Ana will come over from DOF. Helpless little darlings. Storage retrieval fees. You mean from boxes? They haven’t heard of computer entry now. Good grief, Charlie Brown!
The best one of all. The AOC doesn’t have enough people! Wow! They may have to call in temps and incur more expense to answer that bully Judge McCormick who is asking for simple, straight answers. With that horde of a bureaucratic army. Un-effin’-believable.
Defund those bozos now! Hooray for Judge McCormick. Long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
July 12, 2013
Chad Finke and the AOC, et al, are just following the policies and tactics approved by the Office of the Chief Justice. This is her “leadership”. None of this happening without her approval and consent. If it wasn’t, she would stop it. Anyone see that happening? No. Instead, it just keeps repeating itself. This is her choice, her vision, her “leadership”. This is the example that she sets and EXPECTS to be followed.
She embraces, endorses, and demands an administration that is rooted in deceit and deception. Just like her predecessor.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 12, 2013
Shit flows from the top…
courtflea
July 12, 2013
file in federal court and prove a conflict in state courts.if that won’t work go the state route and eventually if the outcome is unfair, appeal to the 9th circut
Wendy Darling
July 12, 2013
“and can shape the outcome of any litigation against them.” That includes the federal court and the 9th circuit, Flea. Some have already tried that route.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
July 12, 2013
It is obvious that we have reached the point where criminality at the highest levels will never be prosecuted or punished. I’m so sick of it all.
And I have no idea what this tidbit means or if it even matters. Full article requires a subscription.
http://www.theunion.com/news/7265051-113/nevada-county-courthouse-aoc
wearyant
July 12, 2013
I think Nevada City is no longer full scale partaking of AOC Kool-Aid. It looks like the AOC is losing their grip there, they’ve lost credibility, as they rightfully should. This story has state-wide interest and appeal. Too bad it is subscription only. The Union would do well to publish this one for us all.
unionman575
July 13, 2013
Here is the link for the leaking for the Nevada City Courthouse roof…
note it takes about 2 minutes to load…but it DOES load. Ok? Glad to be of service…
😉
Click to access 30%20Courthouse%20Annex%20Roof%20Coating%20Project.pdf
June 17, 2013
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Eric Rood Administrative Center
950 Maidu Ave.
Nevada City, CA 95959
DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 2013
SUBJECT: Resolution approving construction documents and authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to solicit bids for the Courthouse and Annex Roof Coating Project.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.
FUNDING: Funding for this project is included in the FY 2013-14 Capital Facilities
budget and will be partially reimbursed from the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC). A budget amendment will not be required.
BACKGROUND: The roof at the Nevada City Courthouse and Annex has been leaking
for the past three to four years. With the possibility of moving or the replacement of the
Courthouse it was not reasonable to replace the roof until now. The roof degradation is
now at a significant point to potentially cause interior damage and costs during the next
winter season and beyond.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has put the courthouse replacement
project on indefinite hold status. Since the Courts will continue to use this building in the
near future, possibly five or more years, we are recommending the installation of a roof
coating system. If the AOC decides to build a new Courthouse elsewhere, the AOC
funding to do this project may waver.
The AOC has approved funding for their percentage of this project based on allocated
square footage as outlined in the Joint Occupancy Agreement. The estimated cost for
this project is $90,000, with the AOC paying approximately 55% of the project cost. The
Capital Facilities Subcommittee has recommended moving this project forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen T. Monaghan
Chief Information Officer
…………………
unionman575
July 13, 2013
Click to access nevada_city_draft_eir_appendices.pdf
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
NEW NEVADA CITY COURTHOUSE
State Clearinghouse No. 2011032009
unionman575
July 13, 2013
P.S. Ant there is work around for just about any subscription info…you can always get it from another source for free..
My IQ remains the same as my shoe size….10 1/2
😉
wearyant
July 13, 2013
Thanks for your service, Unionman575! And your IQ still must best those of the AOC management 😉
unionman575
July 12, 2013
Champagne And Caviar …
😉
wearyant
July 13, 2013
After looking over the massive contract that does take two full minutes to download mentioned by Unionman575, all the attention to detail, the scrupulous attention to minutia therein concerning the contracting out of this courthouse roof and contiguous building — oh, my — can we PLEASE defund the AOC?! The AOC has no business in construction work. Get them OUT of that industry. All the feverish wheel spinning done … can the judicial branch get back to restoring court services to the public? A good start would be doing away with the AOC completely. No, that isn’t acceptable? Okay, then implement the SEC recommendations immediately. And long live the ACJ.
Umm, can’t we do away with the AOC for six months and see if they are even missed by anyone?
unionman575
July 14, 2013
Here’s the tip of the day Ant…the AOC never gives us or the ACJ access to Contracts…BUT…you can obtain them from the COUNTY in which a shared use courthouse building has COUNTY tenants in it like the DA, PD, County Counsel or Sheriff etc.
The Counties do HONOR Public Records Requests.
You can read their County Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes and decide what looks good and then request the Contract(s).
i.e.. https://secure.mynevadacounty.com/nc/bos/cob/Pages/PublicRecordRequest.aspx
Enjoy!
😉
wearyant
July 14, 2013
Thanks, Unionman575. I’m thinking too about how to do away with the statute of limitations on certain crimes. Tired of thinking about those thugs sittin’ on their toad stools waiting for time to pass …
😉
fifth amemdment
July 14, 2013
The AOC will probably have to put out bids on who is going to retrieve the files or form a focus group before they actually start “retrieving the files”. Count on about a year based on their track record. That is if they don’t have to form a committee to over see the person who is going to get hired to walk downstairs and pick up the files.
R. Campomadera
July 15, 2013
AOC: You want to know where we’ve hidden the travel expenses? Betcha can’t keep up with us!
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2013
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide, hide as much as they can. Especially when they have the informed consent, and the protection, of the Office of the Chief Justice to do so. Published today, Monday, July 15, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Battle Fought for Info on Court Bureaucracy’s Outside Contracts
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – What started as a seemingly simple records request from a trial judge has exploded into a four-month battle over how much information the judiciary’s bureaucratic arm should provide to trial judges who want to know how it spends public money.
As part of a long-running challenge to the size and spending of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Sacramento Judge Kevin McCormick wants a current list of the office’s contracts with outside businesses, how much the contracts are worth and where the money is coming from.
The office’s refusal to provide such a list, said the judge, “appears inconsistent with the concept of transparency.”
The administrators have answered by saying that it is extra work to update the list of contracts. They said a rule that requires them to give access to administrative records, California Rule of Court 10.500, does not require them to do extra work to put information together.
The latest battle for information follows close on the heels of a series of actions by the administrative office working with the Judicial Council have been criticized by legislators and newspapers for working against transparency in government.
They include a bill to impose a $10-per-file fee on the right to review court files, successfully opposed by California’s newspapers and open government groups. Court administrators argued that it was too much work to bring files to the counter.
After rejecting the $10 fee, legislators then placed a condition in the budget that required the Judicial Council to open its committee meetings the press and public. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye lobbied against that requirement and Governor Brown struck it from the budget last month.
In another move, the Judicial Council passed e-filing rules late last month that rode over opposition from the state’s newspapers, including the L.A. Times, the Bay Area News Group and the California Newspaper Publishers Association. Written into the rules were comments that could be interpreted by local bureaucrats to delay access to new court filings until they are no longer news.
The current controversy over contracts stems from a history of wasteful spending by the administrative office, for example, spending a half-billion-dollars, primarily through contracts with private vendors, on a software system that was subsequently scrapped. Legislators and many trial judges reacted with an attempt to control the spending by the bureaucracy and cut down its power.
In that long campaign, McCormick in 2011 asked for, and was provided, a list of the administrative office’s open contracts with vendors. Earlier this year, he asked for an update of that list. And that is where the trouble began.
In a lengthy explanation by email, Finke argued that the report McCormick wanted would require extra work to create a computerized report that his office did not normally use, and said he has been instructed by the courts’ rule-making body, the Judicial Council, to only provide reports kept “in the normal course of business.”
He pointed to his initial 2011 exchange with McCormick in which he said the report was “created from scratch.” But in that same exchange, he also said the Finance Department was able to create the report promptly.
“They have assured me that they can rebuild and rerun the query tomorrow,” he told McCormick at the time. “If it truly had been as simple as printing out a report in a format that we regularly use, I’m confident we could have gotten it to you by close of business today.”
In last week’s email, Finke argued that the earlier exchange made it clear that generating the report required additional work. “As you can see, then, the document requested was not something the AOC maintained (or currently maintains) in the regular course of business.”
He said doing extra work to create the report is something “which we have been instructed by the council not to do.”
He was referring to a directive from the rule-making body for California’s courts, the Judicial Council, which said the administrators should stick tightly to a literal reading of Rule 10.500 and in particular Part B of that rule which says the administrative office does not have to create a record.
“From this day going forward the council has directed staff to comply strictly with the requirements of the rule and not to go beyond the requirements as set forth in the rule,” said Justice Douglas Miller in a 2011 council meeting. Miller heads the most powerful committee on the council, the Executive and Planning Committee.
In an interview and in answer to email questions, McCormick said the narrow interpretation Rule 10.500 runs contrary to the terms of the rule itself, which says it “must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.”
“They have chosen, rather than to provide this readily accessible information in the previously provided format, to provide 400 pages of raw data,” he said. “This interpretation would appear to be inconsistent with the concept of transparency and also the Rule 10.500 edict that the section be interpreted broadly.”
The rejection of McCormick’s request brought a withering blast from the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group that counts 400 judges in its membership.
“We write about a troubling practice of our branch leaders that appears to be getting worse over time: the use of a Rule of Court to obfuscate and refuse to make available public records which reveal how public funds are being spent,” said the Alliance in a statement last week. “We cannot discover and call attention to wasteful spending if our court leaders continue to hide the records that may reveal it.”
“Are we to sit by quietly and simply accept that the public’s money is being spent prudently when we know from past experiences, as well as the Chief Justice’s own Strategic Evaluation Committee, that this is a bureaucracy run amok?” said the Alliance. “Is there any doubt why the AOC would resist an audit of its functions as it did recently, citing the cost as a reason not to be audited even while a number of local courts were being audited at their own expense?”
The evaluation committee in a report last year recommended wholesale changes in the way the administrative office is run, but the adoption of those recommendations has proceeded slowly.
“The Alliance will not accept business as usual at the AOC, nor will we be deterred by persistent refusals to accept oversight” said the blast from the judges’ group. “We will keep you informed as we persist in seeking the information needed to stop wasteful bureaucratic spending at the expense of the trial courts and the credibility of the judicial branch.
Justice Miller explained in an interview Friday the reasoning behind his original directive ordering a tight interpretation of the rule on providing access to administrative records.
“We said look, with regard to compiling and assembling new types of reports, that is a broad interpretation that doesn’t fit into 10.500 Part B. You should narrowly interpret it when it comes to creating some type of new record and issuing a report. We wanted [staff] to broadly give them records but not broadly spend time creating a new type of record.”
“I want to give them more documents then they do want, to make sure we’re not accused of hiding information. I don’t want to say give them 1,000 pages of stuff, but give them anything and everything the [AOC] thinks responds to it.”
Miller said he was not familiar enough with McCormick’s request to judge whether the administrative office has been unresponsive, but if judges are not satisfied with the information, he said, they should work with staff to reach an understanding. He added, “They need to work it out as to what they want and better define it so they can provide it.”
Request by judges for information have, since December of last year, been given special attention.
A rule adopted last year, Policy 2.8, sends their requests along their own path, separate from requests by the press, legislators or the public. If the judge’s requests is deemed “outside the regular scope of business,” it goes to a chief justice appointee specially for such requests.
McCormick and other judges have complained that their special path is in fact a dead end.
The current appointee to handle judge requests for information is Justice Harry Hull, chair of the council committee on rules and constructions projects, another very powerful committee on the Judicial Council.
In his fight for the current list of contracts, McCormick said he wrote to Hull, but received no substantive response. Hull did not respond to a request for an interview.
The council is due to revisit the Policy 2.8 this year. In a status update presented at the last Judicial Council meeting in June, the administrative office said the rule had no doubt saved time but “it is impossible to quantify the exact level.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/15/59377.htm
“McCormick and other judges have complained that their special path is in fact a dead end.” Exactly right. A dead end to nowhere.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2013
Speaking of hiding things, the AOC’s HR just hired 20 “temp” employees as full time AOC employees effective July 1st. Also, the AOC is paying San Francisco geographical pay differential to a number of AOC employees who are assigned to Sacramento. Maybe the ACJ could ask for those records.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
July 15, 2013
” Hull did not respond to a request for an interview”. That says it all for the new transparent and reformed Judicial Council and AOC.I keep asking, where in any of these public access statutes or rules does it provide for a Justice of the Court of Appeal to selectively respond or not respond to only certain judge’s requests for public information? This would be the perfect subject for a legislative oversight hearing.
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2013
“This would be the perfect subject for a legislative oversight hearing.”
Unfortunately, Lando, pigs will probably fly first, and hell will freeze over, at the same time, before that will happen.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
July 15, 2013
Dear State Legislators and Governor Brown: these clowns are making you look like impotent fools. You need to stop enabling them. It is up to you to bring them to task.
The arrogance of the State Judiciary’s “power elite” in general, and Justice Hull in particular, is simply staggering. No other subdivision of government could get away with wasting hundreds of millions of the taxpayers’ dollars, having its leaders give one-fingered salutes to anyone and everyone (including fellow judges) who dare to question the status quo, and not be held accountable.
They’ve had their chance to clean up the branch and have utterly and miserably failed — it should now be clear to everyone that reform will not come from within.
It is time to take hold of the reins and impose leadership and management reform on the California Judiciary, starting at the very top.
Wendy Darling
July 15, 2013
Quote of the day: “You need to stop enabling them.”
Amen.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
July 16, 2013
The solution is really quite simple. No constitutional amendments or sending out volunteers to stand in front of supermarkets to get signatures. The legislature has seen everything we have. They saw when J Bruiners showed up to lobby against an audit of CCMS claiming all was great with their half a billion dollar fiasco. They can see the total arrogance of J Hull and his efforts to block access to information regarding further AOC waste. They witnessed the Chief Justice’s inappropriate tantrum when 1208 passed. They can see as Wendy just pointed out, that the AOC just keeps hiring people at will when the trial courts contract and reduce services. The legislature needs to ask why hasn’t the SEC report been implemented ? Why is the AOC wasting so much more money on hotel expenses in the last fiscal year? Why has the Chief Justice refused to democratize the largest Judicial policy making body in the world in light of all the above. The solution I advocate is that the legislature simply defund the Judicial Council and AOC. They should send 95% of all funds allocated to the courts directly to the trial courts and let the Judicial Council and AOC have the rest. Once that occurs, the AOC would be forced to return to their statutory role as policy advisors and the insiders at 455 Golden Gate like J Hull would become largely a chattering class.
The OBT
July 16, 2013
As for J Hull, rather than a legislative oversight hearing, his actions should be the subject of a full CJP inquiry, or recall campaign. Jaded as I am I find his arrogance astounding.
Wendy Darling
July 16, 2013
Hull is only as arrogant as the Chief Justice permits him to be.
R. Campomadera
July 16, 2013
Good point, WD. They should both be recalled from office for gross abuse of power and position and violation of the public trust.
It’s high time they were shown who is the boss. Unfortunately, however, you are right: hell is still hot and pigs still haven’t figured out how to fly, so like gangsters who have the police in their back pockets, they will continue to do whatever they want with impunity.
Sad to say, but things are going to have to get worse before they get better. And therein lies the best hope for change….arrogant so-and-so’s always wear out their welcome and eventually get their comeuppance.
Frankly, I hope they continue to give one-fingered salutes to everyone who comes along and questions the status quo…one of these days they’re going to flip off the wrong person (who knows, maybe they already have), and that person(s) will say something to the right person and finally the Legislature and/or the Governor will take an interest. Once that happens, they’re toast.
Jojococo
July 16, 2013
Kirri Torre is having a $75.00 per plate retirement dinner invitees include the entire coco county courthouse.
unionman575
July 17, 2013