July 16, 2013
The following article by reporter Maria Dinzeo chronicles the lengths to which our court leaders have gone to block the media and judges from obtaining public information. This important article should alarm every judge in this state because the Judicial Council and its bloated bureaucracy purport to serve the courts “for the benefit of all Californians.”
Last week we detailed Alliance director Judge Kevin McCormick’s quest to obtain a list of current contracts entered into by the AOC. Having provided that list in the past, the AOC now contends that this information is not kept in the “regular course of business.” Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, how does the second largest judicial system in the United States operate without a list of current contracts?
Perhaps this helps to explain the reckless spending of the AOC and Judicial Council. Who is getting taxpayer money that otherwise might be used to keep courthouses open and accessible to the public? “We can’t tell you that.” Really?
In the weeks to come, we will keep you apprised of the status of other requests made by the Alliance for public information. These include: Administrative Director Jahr’s compensation package; whether the top 30 AOC bureaucrats continue to have the taxpayers foot their entire pensions; what lifetime benefits are enjoyed by AOC staff who retire after 10 years of service; and how much it cost to fund last year’s Judicial Council meetings where AOC staff recommendations were routinely accepted.
If the past is any predictor, these requests will be placed on a slow track. Some may ultimately be handled by the chair of the Council’s Rules Committee who, if he should respond, insists that all correspondence be through the U.S. mail. We kid you not.
All of this is an assault on the public’s right to know how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. Everyone, including members of the media, should be concerned about the obfuscation and outright refusal by government officials to open their records to the light of day. Our Constitution and Rule 10.500 of the Rules of Court require that information requests be dealt with liberally, with a view toward disclosure, notwithstanding any policy of the Chief Justice and Council to the contrary.
Please forward this email to your colleagues. Every judge needs to understand the hole our leadership has dug to tarnish the reputation of our state courts. All judges should be troubled by this behavior and should join us in calling for the democratization of the Judicial Council.
________________________________________
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 the agency 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 a series of actions by the administrative office working with the Judicial Council that 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 to the press and public. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye lobbied against that requirement and Governor Jerry Brown struck it from the budget last month.
In another move, the Judicial Council passed efiling 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 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, Chad Finke, who directs court services for the administrative office, 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 had been instructed by the 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 of 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.”
Alliance of California Judges
P.O. Box 2877, Sacramento, CA 95812
Related articles
- Can We Get A Straight Answer? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Governor endorses near secret JC deliberations of the publics business. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- AOC: We’re cutting expenses, we just can’t prove it. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher
July 17, 2013
Mentioned briefly by Wendy Darling and confirmed in the private message window: it appears the AOC ended the contract with Apple One temporary services on July 1 by hiring all of their temps as FTE’s.
I’m sure all of you laid off court workers saw those competitive job vacancy announcements that appeared on the AOC careers site for all of a picosecond…..
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2013
Recently we had someone reveal to us who LoyalDragonSlayer is. Who is LoyalDragonSlayer? The producer of “Case Mismanagement: A chat about CCMS”
It’s a no-brainer to us that LoyalDragonSlayer needs a nom to the Hall of Fame as we haven’t had a nomination in quite awhile….. So we’re working on composing the back story behind the cartoon and hope to release it all in the near future. If you thought you might know who produced it….. you might be surprised to learn who really did…..
MaxRebo5
July 17, 2013
Darn. I missed my window (picosecond) of opportunity. Here is one laid off court worker who was let go after nine years of services due to the budget that is still waiting for the branch to create a rehire list. In the Executive Branch laid off state workers receive preference in recruitments but not so with the courts. Court employees laid off were supposedly valued, did nothing wrong, and it was just the “budget” that prompted the layoffs. If that was true then why not have rehire lists in every trial court office so those people who the courts hated to see go can get rehired first?
MaxRebo5
July 17, 2013
My other thought is where is the reciprocity between trial courts? If a trial court employee wants to take a job in another trial court they lose all of their vacation time, sick leave, and start all over as a brand new employee since each trial court is their own employer. In the Executive Branch an employee can move from one agency (say corrections) to another totally different agency (CA Lottery) and all oftheir vacation, years of service, retirement, you name it goes with them. This makes it great for state employees because there is a much larger pond to swim in for carreer advancement and you can move around without consequences. It also makes managers appreciate their staff because there is some healthy competition amongst the agencies to get/keep the good employees.
The courts suck for their employees in this regard. I get that trial courts want to be their own employers because they don’t trust the AOC/JC but my thought is if the Chief would democratize the JC then perhaps the trial court judges would be willing to give up their own employer right and it would be much much better for all court employees because the trial court judges could relax knowing they have representation on the JC for their viewpoints. The Chief would be giving up some power and so would the trial court judges. This seems like a possible compromise for the branch to move forward.
courtflea
July 17, 2013
This so crazy, any request for records by the public is going to create “additional work”, even if it is just a photocopy! The whole arguement by the AOC is just one big cluster fuck bunch of crapola.
courtflea
July 17, 2013
unionman575
July 17, 2013
Flea that is awesome!
😉
Wendy Darling
July 17, 2013
“Secrecy or incompetence”? Ummm, those two things are not mutually exclusive. It’s secrecy AND incompetence. With the latter driving the degree of the former in a perpetual loop, and a hefty dose of unethical behavior thrown in.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Think for a moment how much worse things would be in judicial branch administration if the Alliance of California Judges wasn’t around.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
July 17, 2013
Absolutely, WendyDarling. Amen! to everything you just said.
The ACJ is the only entity grounded in reality anymore and speaking truth to power. The other two branches, all CA law enforcement agencies, and the judges who stand silently by while the CA judicial branch is run into the ground by the feckless AOC/JC, are the poster children for “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” Useless, at best. Complicit, at worst. At this point the AOC tagline of “Access to Justice for all Californians” is nothing more than a taunt by a bully that no one is willing to stand up to.
Oh, and look at this load of crap I happened upon when Googling that tagline. HAHAHAHA.
http://accesstojustice.net/2011/03/23/california-aoc-head-bil-vickrey-to-retire-major-facilitator-of-access-transformation/
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 17, 2013
Always good to hear from you, Delilah. Is it just me, or does it seem like we have essentially spent the past several years screaming into a hurricane?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
July 17, 2013
Look back at the arguments for and against Proposition 220 which put into place court consolidation back in the 1990’s.
Bill Lockyer’s argument in favor of the proposition stated, in part:
“WILL PROPOSITION 220 IMPROVE OUR COURTS? YES! Unifying our courts will make more judges available to handle the explosion of criminal cases now clogging the system as well as expedite the disposition of civil matters which currently take as long as FIVE years to resolve. Nearly 70% of local jail inmates are criminals not serving sentences–but awaiting trial! Local governments are being forced to provide early release for such “lower priority” criminals as wife-beaters and drug sellers!
WILL PROPOSITION 220 SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY? YES! It costs state taxpayers nearly $1,000,000 for each new judgeship! Proposition 220 will allow local courts to combine their functions and reduce the need for new judges. A recent study by the National Center for State Courts found that unification in California would save a minimum of $16,000,000 by reallocating judicial resources, $4,000,000 from reduced judicial assignments, $3,000,000 in reduced administrative costs. Proposition 220 is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. ”
===================================
IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND AOC TAKING OVER LOCAL TRIAL COURTS IN THIS ARGUMENT????? NO!!!!!!!!
===================================
Those opposing Proposition 220, believed that it provided an undeserved pay raise to Municipal Court judges. The opposition noted:
“All of the claimed economic efficiencies of trial court unification now can be obtained under legislation which directs the consolidation of court clerks’ offices and the assignment of judges where needed. Giving exorbitant, unearned pay raises to judges at a time when non-government worker’s wages are stagnant or in decline, at the cost of abolishing the “people’s court”, is not court reform.
Proposition 220 will destroy a proven, effective, and efficient two-tier system of trial courts by abolishing the municipal court. The municipal court is truly the “people’s court.” Its judges are elected from small districts close to the people. To abolish such an important court to boost the egos of municipal judges with higher status and higher pay is not court reform.
Proposition 220 must be defeated.”
=====================================
AGAIN, NO MENTION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OR AOC.
=====================================
In the rebuttal to the argument against Proposition 220, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter, San Mateo District Attorney James Fox (ret.) and the Assembly Majority Leader Antonio Villaraigosa stated:
“DON’T BE MISLED BY THE OPPOSITION. An independent study concluded Proposition 220 can save taxpayers a minimum of $23,000,000 annually by making full use of all judges! The Department of Finance did NOT oppose passage of Proposition 220 when it was considered by the Legislature. The retirement benefits of retired municipal court judges are not affected by Proposition 220–NO INCREASE IS PERMITTED. And, for municipal court judges statewide, who already handle superior court cases, existing law requires that they be paid superior court wages.
Proposition 220 will allow California’s judges to be assigned to any case based on skills, abilities and training. It will hold the judicial branch accountable for the full and effective use of judicial time and resources. Education and training standards for hearing cases will apply equally to all judges. Proposition 220 ensures the highest standards for the future appointment of all judges.
Proposition 220 will provide flexibility to assign any case to local courts based on the availability of facilities as well as the convenience to the parties, jurors and other individuals. It strengthens the “people’s court” by treating all cases as important. Courts will have the flexibility to offer the public full services in every location. Proposition 220 will strengthen the impartiality of existing Superior Court appellate panels by assigning judges for specific terms.
Proposition 220 will eliminate duplicative administration, conflicting procedures, and barriers to the full use of judges.
IMPROVE OUR COURTS AND SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 220.”
======================================
ONCE AGAIN, NO MENTION IS MADE OF CONTROL BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OR AOC. Arguments for and against Proposition 220 focused on efficiencies of the trial courts at the local level and spending at the local level.
======================================
Many of us could see that the true focus for passage Proposition 220 was not on egalitarianism. The focus was really upon the needs of HRH-1, Bill Vickrey; and the fact that both men were megalomaniacs, each sharing an all consuming need to “control” the entire Judicial Branch.
Wendy is exactly right, secrecy and incompetence are not mutually exclusive. Those currently “in charge’ of the Judicial Branch are demonstrating themselves on a daily basis to be both incompetent and veiled in secrecy. The way both HRH-1 and HRH-2 govern is strangely reminiscent to the way in which Angela Corey oversees her position in Florida.
Minions are tolerated and some rewarded. Any level of dissent faces the nuclear option. (read: http://nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle?splash= )
Keep fighting the fight everyone. Hopefully some day the Legislature and citizenry will wake up.
unionman575
July 17, 2013
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_23677733/new-231-million-family-courthouse-breaks-ground-san
Wendy Darling
July 17, 2013
Ah, yes, General Woodhull. Once again, the past informs the present.
Thought for the day: If proposition 220 came before the California voters today, what would you say to educate the voting public?
Long live the ACJ.
Lana Lane
July 17, 2013
Secrecy………
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2013
In fairness: This article was released by the ACJ to concerned members and later to media titled “Which is it? Something to hide or Incompetence?”
In our minds something to hide was a given as was incompetence. Our judicial leadership isn’t the NSA. It isn’t running a skunk works or black ops program. But you couldn’t tell that by their behavior.
Regarding the new San Jose courthouse: That turned out to be an interesting carve-out of the budget where the courthouse was uniquely specified by legislation. Operating out of storefronts and other temporary space, San Jose has needed another courthouse going on 20 years, though we still question over a thousand dollars per square foot as being a fair price.
unionman575
July 18, 2013
unionman575
July 18, 2013
1. Effective August 26, 2013, the Superior Court of Tehama County will change its hours
of operation. The court clerks’ office and all other court administration and court business
offices will open one hour later and close for one hour, between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. This notices a reduction in hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Monday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Friday. This change applies to
all Red Bluff Court Office locations. A document drop box will be provided at all
locations to receive documents during the hours the court is closed to the public.
2. Effective September 23, 2013, the Superior Court of Monterey County will temporarily
close its King City Courthouse. Upon the temporary closure of the King City Courthouse,
all misdemeanor and felony cases will be heard at the Salinas Courthouse and all traffic
and small claims matters will be heard at the Marina Courthouse. (Attachment C)
3. Effective September 9, 2013, through September 13, 2013, and September 23, 2013,
through September 27, 2013, the Superior Court of Fresno County intends to temporarily
close the Family Support Courtrooms, located at the B.F. Sisk Courthouse, to allow for
training of Superior Court and Department of Child Support Services staff. The Family
Support Clerk’s Office will remain open.
4. The Superior Court of Riverside County will not close the Blythe and Temecula
Courthouses. The court previously provided notice regarding its intent to close or reduce
the hours at these two courthouses. Based on public comments received, the Blythe and
Temecula Courthouses will remain open, however, with the following changes:
Effective August 19, 2013, the Blythe Courthouse, located at 265 N. Broadway, will be
open 3 days per week. The Blythe Courthouse is currently open Monday through Friday.
The Temecula Courthouse, located at 41002 County Center Drive, #100, is currently
open Monday through Friday, hearing traffic, small claims, and limited civil matters. The
Temecula Courthouse will remain open five days per week as before, but its calendar will
change. Effective August 19, 2013, traffic, small claims, and limited civil matters will be
heard instead at the Southwest Justice Center (SWJC) located in Murrieta. Effective August 26, 2013, the Temecula Courthouse will begin hearing probate matters originating in the mid-county region. Unlawful detainer matters currently being heard at the SWJC will be moved to the Temecula Court. Effective August 19, 2013, the Southwest Justice Center, located at 30755-D Auld Road, in Murrieta, will begin hearing traffic, small claims, and limited civil matters that had been heard at the Temecula Courthouse.
5. Effective September 9, 2013, the Superior Court of Trinity County will reduce the hours
of operation for the clerks’ office. The new hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. A public drop box will be available for documents received after 3:00
p.m.
Wendy Darling
July 18, 2013
The true legacy of the previous judicial branch administration (Ron George, Richard Huffman, Vickrey, Overholt, etc.) and the current judicial branch administration (Cantil-Sakauye, Hull, Jahr, Patel, Soderlund, etc.): the branch is hemorrhaging “access to justice.”
But, hey, “CCMS is finished and it works” and the hiring spree at 455 Golden Gate Avenue continues full speed ahead.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 18, 2013
The OBT
July 19, 2013
Woodhull and Wendy you have made some very powerful points here that the legislature needs to see. The arguments for court consolidation never included the creation of an unelected tyranny that would override the California constitution. No where in the arguments for Prop 220 is there a single word mentioned about creating an institution that would grow by at least 5 times and that would waste billions of valuable California taxpayer dollars. Nor did the arguments in support of Prop 220 mention that the California judiciary would be run by a dictatorship appointed only by one person, the Chief Justice. The fact that these were left out of any and all arguments for Prop 220 totally support the idea to defund the Judicial Council and AOC. Indeed when Prop 220 was passed no one envisioned that HRH 1 and his minions would take over an entire branch of government and then upon his retirement extend that legacy to the incompetent and ineffective HRH-2 and her closed anti-democratic group of insiders who continue to demean the judiciary like Justice Hull.
Lando
July 19, 2013
Retirement is on the horizon and with the extra time and funds then available, it will be great to organize a comprehensive set of recall campaigns against the arrogant dictators of the California judiciary, HRH-2, J Hull, J Miller, and J McConnell. Once that is accomplished I will work full time to get reform measures before the voters to democratize the Judicial Council and reform the CJP. Lots to look forward too to help end the tyranny of all of the above and the legacy of Ronald George.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
July 19, 2013
Count me in too, Lando. After you retire please post contact information on this site or provide us with a way to sign on to your recall campaigns.
The OBT
July 19, 2013
Lando I will be right there with you. You left out on your recall list, Richard Huffman. His insufferable rule as HRH-1’s henchman is well known and documented including when he called a dissenting Judicial Council Judge a clown.
R. Campomadera
July 19, 2013
I’m in.
unionman575
July 19, 2013
I’ll be there too with you Lando.
😉
Michael Paul
July 19, 2013
I’m in as well.
unionman575
July 19, 2013
Hey I just found a spare copy of the JC/AOC Manual…
Lando
July 19, 2013
You are right OBT. Mirror Mirror on the wall who is the most arrogant of them all? It is a pretty tough call between Hull, McConnell and Huffman. Recall campaigns will be easy to organize for all three given their combined decades long abuse of power.
Wendy Darling
July 19, 2013
Me too. I’ve still got my clipboard, pens, and comfy walking shoes ready to go.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
July 19, 2013
Lando, always count the flea in.
Peppermint Pattie
July 19, 2013
Speaking of Richard Huffman, his namesake son, Richard Huffman Jr., is the subject of a lawsuit in San Diego, and a complaint before the California State Bar, for “professional negligence.”
Nothing like keeping it all in the family.
unionman575
July 20, 2013
http://courtindex.sdcourt.ca.gov/CISPublic/casedetail?casenum=201300036825&casesite=SD&applcode=C
😉
unionman575
July 20, 2013
unionman575
July 21, 2013
Long Beach courthouse on my mind (again)…
http://www.gazettes.com/news/government/new-long-beach-courthouse-nears-occupancy/article_d5615e4c-eff9-11e2-a465-0019bb2963f4.html
New Long Beach Courthouse Nears Occupancy
Posted: Friday, July 19, 2013 12:30 am
New Long Beach Courthouse Nears Occupancy By Jonathan Van Dyke
Staff Writer
Court is almost in session.
The Long Beach Courthouse is nearing completion, and officials said operations will begin there on Sept. 9.
“We’re actually ahead of schedule,” said Stephen Reinstein, CEO of Long Beach Judicial Partners. “The project is basically 99.9% complete.”
All that is left, he said, were procedural operations, testing and various inspections for the new complex.
“Our contract-mandated completion date was Aug. 31 and we’re likely to be occupancy-ready by mid-August,” Reinstein said.
The state’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and private entity Long Beach Judicial Partners (LBJP) completed a project agreement that allowed for a spring 2011groundbreaking on the new $490 million courthouse.
The Long Beach Courthouse will serve the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. It is part of a unique private-public partnership between the state and LBJP. The 35-year project agreement included design, construction, operation and maintenance. After the 35 years, the state takes full control of the facility.
Clark Construction built the courthouse on a 6-acre plot of land between Broadway, Maine Avenue, Third Street and Magnolia Avenue. The main building will be L-shaped and 531,000 square feet, with an emphasis on open space and calming atmosphere, designers have said. It will have two sections — five stories and four stories — with 31 courtrooms, additional space for offices and county justice agencies, commercial office space and retail space compatible with court uses.
“We’re very excited,” Reinstein said. “If you look at the renderings that were presented to the public back in 2010, we think the actual built product is equal to or better than them.”
The commercial retail space has been partially filled. There will be a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf along with a Subway. Reinstein said they are close to securing a convenience store, as well.
“The food court is accessible from the exterior of the building,” Reinstein said. “You don’t have to go through security. We welcome the public to patronize the food court. It has plenty of seating and a nice view.”
About 100,000 square feet of office space has been separately leased to Los Angeles County — specifically the District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, Sheriff Civil Management Bureau and Probation Department.
Reinstein said one of his favorite visual features of the building includes a striking canopy facing Magnolia that is made from Brazilian ipe wood. On the interior, he noted that people going for jury duty should be happy — with a substantially enhanced area for those people to congregate.
“It’s just a much more secure facility,” he said. “The whole project can act as a future catalyst for development in Long Beach, especially the western part of the downtown area.”
Jonathan Van Dyke can be reached at jvandyke@gazettes.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
unionman575
July 21, 2013
http://www.correctionalnews.com/articles/2013/07/17/stanislaus-county-select-site-new-courthouse
Stanislaus County to Select Site for New Courthouse
(07/17/2013)
MODESTO, Calif. — Though budgetary constraints continue to push the construction date of the new $277.2 million Stanislaus County Courthouse further and further back, the county has now identified a preferred site for future construction.
The project, which is funded by the state’s courthouse construction fund, was initially set for completion in mid-2016. However, current projections now set the courthouse’s completion date in 2018….
😉
unionman575
July 21, 2013
Meanwhile back at the ranch…less services for the public..
unionman575
July 21, 2013
Superior Court of California
County of Riverside
July 19, 2013
PUBLIC NOTICE – AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SERVICES
Due to several consecutive years of state budget reductions, the court is forced to reduce the services that it can provide to the public. Effective immediately, the court will offer limited in-person, and no live operator telephone service, for litigants with traffic cases. In place of in-person service, the court is automating many routine tasks through available computers, kiosks, and telephones.