As we’ve expressed many times before the broad exemptions to the state fraud, waste and abuse laws for construction activity means that the former AOC can run their business any way they choose to. If they want to hire their spouse to perform the work and pay them ten times what a project should cost, that is perfectly okay because only rules of court govern the AOC and nobody exists outside a courtroom to enforce the rules of court.
We have a list of specific items that should be looked into regarding the facilities program
1. Free trips to New England (paid for by the taxpayers) to visit VFA who they contracted with as a consultant
2. Jerry’s kids’ free trip to Disneyland (paid for by the taxpayers) to attend the prospector awards
3. Legacy friendships from years ago that turn into employment offers and contract positions reporting to managers who then ignore the ineptitude of their friends. (Of interest: all of the FMU leadership used to work with each other in the Air Force)
4. The MANY contract staff who have been hired FT to OCCM contracts who reside outside CA and commute to CA to cash AOC checks.
5. The justification for statewide travel by certain FMU managers who feel compelled to visit every courthouse in the state, without any legitimate business reason, who only stay at certain high end hotel chains (often further away than necessary) on the Court’s dime for the sole purpose of accruing hotel loyalty points they then use for their own vacations.
6. The fact that exorbitant or unconscionable contracts are frequently executed with the knowledge that the JCC is exempt from public contracting code.
7. How managers have found ways to counteroffer employee resignations with big incentives to make them stay.
8. How managers make inconsistent hiring decisions waiving requirements for their allies and justify firing or not promoting others for insignificant non-issues while blatant incompetence is overlooked – so long as you are a manager’s buddy.
9. How many staff also work other jobs and own businesses that they run during the work day.
10. Vacations that are not approved or announced until after people return – and they somehow don’t show up on time cards as use of accrued leave (freebie vacations are an issue across the AOC due to their time accounting system which amounts to filling out a time card once per month. Feel free to lie because you will never be caught or called on it.)
11. Staff who cancel their own home data plans and personal cell phones because they rely on AOC equipment 24/7 even for personal use.
Judicial Council Watcher 
LeahLeahLeah
March 6, 2015
Good questions. Ones that should initially be asked by a well run internal audit department. Unfortunately, apparently by design, none exists. Internal audit is run by an inept and unqualified individual who apparently is only kept around because though he shoots his mouth off, he has the good sense to shoot his mouth off about people who can’t hurt him too much.
CHP is supposed to investigate crimes within the Judicial Branch but then they too have been corrupted.
I said before nothing will change and I still believe that nothing will change until the public understands that their $250 jaywalking tickets and their inability to have even the most basic court services moved along at more than glacial speed are motivated by OCCM’s palace building
courtflea
March 6, 2015
An apt description of John Judnick.
courtflea
March 6, 2015
Another day in the AOC play book. Seems like not much has changed since I worked there in the 90’s. Maybe just a bit more blatant, on a larger scale, and some of the players have changed.
sharonkramer
March 6, 2015
JCW,
I don’t get this: “the broad exemptions to the state fraud, waste and abuse laws for construction activity means that the former AOC can run their business any way they choose to.”
Are you saying the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual (JBCM) updated in 2014, is inconsistent with the State Administrative Manual (SAM) and the State Contracting Manual (SCM)? If so, that’s a no no and the JBCM may be null and void under PCC 19204(d) and 19206 .
1. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jbcl-manual.pdf
Judicial Branch Contracting Manual
“PCC 19206 of the JBCL requires the Judicial Council to adopt and publish a Judicial Branch Contracting Manual incorporating procurement and contracting policies and procedures that JBEs must follow. The policies and procedures in the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual must be “consistent with” the PCC and “substantially similar” to the provisions contained in the State Administrative Manual (SAM) and the State Contracting Manual (SCM)”
2. If JBCM is consistent with SAM and SCM, yet its not being adopted in branch policies and procedures: then don’t SAM and SCM still govern the manner in which the branch enters into contracts?
CA Codes (pcc:19201-19210)
19204(d) Only until the Judicial Council adopts the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual required pursuant to Section 19206, judicial branch entities shall instead be governed by applicable policies and procedures in the State Administrative Manual and the State Contracting Manual, or policies and procedures as otherwise required by law to be adopted by the Department of General Services applicable to state agencies.
19206. The Judicial Council shall adopt and publish no later than January 1, 2012, a Judicial Branch Contracting Manual incorporating procurement and contracting policies and procedures that must be followed by all judicial branch entities subject to this part. The policies and procedures shall include a requirement that each judicial branch entity shall adopt a local contracting manual for procurement and contracting for goods or services by that judicial branch entity. The policies and procedures in the manuals shall be consistent with this code and substantially similar to the provisions contained in the State Administrative Manual and the State Contracting Manual.
3. Looks to me like they weren’t following the mandated practices and procedures as late as 2013 when the last audit on this came out. Has anything changed to indicate they are now or that they have developed some new loophole in the JBCM that is unlawfully inconsistent with the SAM and/or SCM?
Click to access 2012-301.pdf
we noted individual procurements where court managers approved transactions valued above established authorization levels. We also identified instances where courts did not justify using sole-source contracts or did not advertise for competitive bids. Moreover, none of the six courts had procedures to implement the Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise program, as required by the judicial contracting manual.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 6, 2015
The loophole is that it does not apply to the court construction program.
sharonkramer
March 6, 2015
Why doesn’t it apply to the court construction program? Where is that exclusion from proper contract procurement written into CA law/policy? (I mean real law. Not that hocus pocus that the JC and their staff write).
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2015
It’s called “selective enforcement.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Auntie Bureaucrat
March 6, 2015
Re: Number 5… add to that booking their own fighs and being reimbursed for them so as to rack up their air miles. There are lots of people taking some pretty lavish “free” vacations on the (former) AOC dime. Nobody bats an eye. It’s expected.
sharonkramer
March 6, 2015
JCW,
I think it seems pretty clear under the law that court construction procurement contracts and mandatory JC reports to the legislature & BSA regarding those procurement, are subject to BSA audit to see if they are telling the truth and wisely using funds.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pcc&group=19001-20000&file=19201-19210
PCC 19204(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), procurement and contracting for the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, lease, or acquisition of court facilities shall be conducted by judicial branch entities consistent with the relevant provisions of this code applicable to state agencies.
PCC 19204(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this part does not apply to procurement and contracting by judicial branch entities that are related to trial court construction, including, but not limited to, the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, lease, or acquisition of trial court facilities. However, this part shall apply to contracts for maintenance of all judicial branch facilities that are not under the operation and management of the Department of General Services.
PCC 19204(c) NOTE: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law”
PCC 19204(d) Only until the Judicial Council adopts the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual required pursuant to Section 19206…..,
PCC 19206 ….The policies and procedures shall include a requirement that each judicial branch entity shall adopt a local contracting manual for procurement and contracting for goods or services by that judicial branch entity. The policies and procedures in the manuals shall be consistent with this code and substantially similar to the provisions contained in the State Administrative Manual and the State Contracting Manual.
PCC 19208. Nothing in this part is intended, nor shall it be construed to permit, the application of provisions of this code that do not apply to state agencies and departments.
PCC 19209 (a) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, beginning in 2012, twice each year, the Judicial Council shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the State Auditor that provides information related to procurement of contracts for the judicial branch.
[19209 Does NOT say construction or any other type of contracts are to be excluded]
IS IT THIS REPORT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THAT NEEDS TO BE AUDITED BY THE BSA FOR BS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS?
(just for reference, GC cited above)
GC 10231.5 (a) A bill that, as introduced or amended in either house of the Legislature, would require a state agency to submit a report on any subject to either house of the Legislature generally, a committee or office of either house of the Legislature, or the Legislative Counsel Bureau shall include a provision that repeals the reporting requirement, or makes the requirement inoperative, no later than a date four years following the date upon which the bill, as enacted, becomes operative or four years after the due date of any report required every four or more years. If the bill requires that the report be submitted to either house of the Legislature generally, it shall also include a provision that requires the report to be
submitted pursuant to Section 9795.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 6, 2015
The all encompassing exception had been emboldened Sharon.
sharonkramer
March 6, 2015
JCW,
I’m reading the same thing you are. When the Section is read in its entirety, I THINK that what they are trying to say is that the new construction procurement contracts may be subject to additional requirements — not that they are exempt in anyway from requirements for maintenance and other types of contracts.
As an example. San Diego put the new construction out to bid under a policy not required for maintenance and other contracts.
Click to access oc13-June28.pdf
PPC 19209 Does NOT say construction or any other type of contracts are to be excluded from reports to the legislator or the BSA.
It plainly states, “…beginning in 2012, twice each year, the Judicial Council shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the State Auditor that provides information related to procurement of CONTRACTS FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH”
Read 10204(b)(c) together.
JusticeCalifornia
March 6, 2015
JCW and everyone, the information/backup documentation needs to get to the those on the CA Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees, and those on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
This is a hot issue.
Wendy Darling
March 6, 2015
Documentation of double-invoicing by 455 Golden Gate Avenue in the court-construction program was provided to the California Office of the Attorney General months ago. The AG’s office sent back a letter stating their office has no jurisdiction over unlawful activities taking place within the administration of the California judicial branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 6, 2015
They read this blog daily.
unionman575
March 6, 2015
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2015/03/06/223233_construction-of-los-banos-courthouse.html
Construction of Los Banos courthouse slated for summer
😉
By Corey Pride
cpride@losbanosenterprise.comMarch 6, 2015
Construction is slated to begin this summer on Los Banos’ new courthouse.
Keby Boyer, spokeswoman for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, said the project is in the architectual design phase.
In 2009, the state authorized $32.6 million to be spent in Los Banos on construction of a court building with two courtrooms, with room to expand to four. The latest state figures have the courthouse being built for $26.3 million.
In November, subcontractors were selected through the project’s bidding process.
The Robert M. Falasco Justice Center, where court is held now, occupies about 5,370 square feet of its 15,000-square-foot building. The one-courtroom structure is owned by Merced County and is shared by the Sheriff’s Department, probation department, the county clerk and the public defender. The district attorney’s office is in a portable building at the rear of the permanent structure. A feasibility report identified numerous deficiencies at the facility, which was built in 1980.
“I can tell you the current courthouse has significant problems which impede the court’s ability to provide adequate access,” Boyer said.
The Administrative Office of the Courts detailed some deficiencies of the facility on its website.
“The building lacks a jury assembly room, so current juror check-in and assembly take place in the hallways. The building lacks secure hallways and holding cells adjacent to courtrooms, so in-custody defendants use the same hallways as the public and court staff. The court’s space is also not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” the website states.
Merced Superior Court has compensated for some of the deficiencies by not holding jury trials in Los Banos. The West Side courthouse does hold arraignments, sentencing hearings and other proceedings.
In 2012, many courthouse projects were cut by state lawmakers, shifting about $600 million in Long Beach court expenses to the state’s courthouse construction budget. The projects that remained include new courthouses in Los Banos, Sonora and Modesto.
The Robert M. Falasco Justice Center has 330 visitors daily, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The new Los Banos court will be 29,511 square feet built near the intersection of G Street and Mercey Springs Road. The facility is scheduled to open in the second quarter of 2016.
unionman575
March 6, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/epmeetings.htm
March 9, 2015 Meeting – CANCELED
😉
March 12 – 13, 2015 Meetings
Day 1 of 2 (March 12): 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Day 2 of 2 (March 13): 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Public Call-In Number: 877-820-7831;
passcode 846-8947
(listen only)
😉
unionman575
March 6, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/collabjusticecomm.htm
Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee
March 11, 2015 Meeting (Teleconference)
12:15 – 12:45 p.m.
Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831;
Listen Only Passcode: 7505065
😉
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee will hold a meeting open to the public on March 11, 2015 from 12:15-12:45 p.m.
A portion of the meeting will be closed
😉
pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(d)(10). A copy of the agenda for this meeting is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
unionman575
March 6, 2015
Bend over and touch your toes and I’ll show you where the ”IT” wild goose goes…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ctac.htm
Court Technology Advisory Committee
March 16, 2015 Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference)
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831
Public Access Code # 4348559
(listen only)
😉
unionman575
March 6, 2015
March 17, 2015 Projects Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference)
4:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m
Public Call-In Number 1-877-820-7831 Public Access Code # 4348559
unionman575
March 7, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/28914.htm
Placerville Courthouse Re-Use, RFP# REFM-2015-02-DM
The Judicial Council of California (JCC) has proposed to build a new courthouse for the El Dorado Superior Court. If the new courthouse project is approved, the existing Main Street courthouse in downtown Placerville will be vacated and the County will retain ownership of the building.
The JCC seeks the services of a person or entity with expertise in the development of successful re-use strategies for historic buildings located in a historic district.
In an effort to assist with the re-use of the courthouse building, the JCC is partnering with the City of Placerville and the County of El Dorado to develop a realistic adaptive re-use strategy.
This RFP is for a re-use strategy that the city and county may use for future planning and decision making.
😉
Written proposals must be received no later than 5 P.M. on Monday, March 30, 2015.
A pre-proposal teleconference will be held on March 13, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Use the following telephone number and code to participate in the teleconference:
• Toll free # 1-877-820-7831
• Participant Code: 326556 😉
Questions or requests for clarifications must be submitted to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 5 P.M. on Friday, March 20, 2015.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Attn: Nadine McFadden – REFM-2015-02-DM
455 Golden Gate Avenue – 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in RFP No. REFM-2015-02-DM
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Click to access san-mateo-courthouse-hours-restoration-20150305.pdf
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Nothing like good customer service…come on down…with an appointment…
Click to access 02-27-15%20SDSC%20NOW%20REQUIRES%20APPOINTMENTS%20AT%20KEARNY%20MESA%20TRAFFIC%20COURT%20.PDF
San Diego Superior Court Moves to
Appointment System at Busiest Traffic Facility.
Scheduled Appearances Now Required at Kearny Mesa Facility.
sharonkramer
March 7, 2015
Unionman, I think this one could actually be a good idea. Expose’ by a friend regarding the harm caused by wasted time and effort in traffic court — because there’s no phone # to call:
A few months ago I was pulled over in Monrovia, CA by a motorcycle officer. He was nice but said he was giving me a ticket for talking on my phone — I wasn’t. He assured me it would not go on my insurance. I had the cell phone laying on the dash board and because the road was twisty I reached over and moved it to the passenger seat to keep it from sliding. — My phone bill would show I was not talking — or texting — neither of which I do. I didn’t argue and he thanked me for being “so nice.” That’s OK, he was nice too.
I went into the Pasadena Court House, stood in a long, long line to get a quicker court date and my license was still in tact.
BUT, not so fast — just before my court date I ended up in the hospital for a few days. I thought I would just call to say “I can’t be there.” — BUT there is no number to call to do that
So the date came and went. A bit later I received a “Notice” that my fine had now been raised to about “$1,200 — WHAT. Still no place to call.
So, I went back to Pasadena and stood in line for about two hours and was told I could come into court for a new date in two months!– BUT, my license was suspended — so, my insurance cancelled me. They did give it back to me for three times what I had been paying. WOW!
Now comes the first date and it is an arraignment in front of a commissioner. When I finally get up to talk and I ask to, “Please see a judge.” She says,
I am mandated to hear traffic cases,” and gives me another date — in a month — and calls her next case. OK, now I am not feeling like being so nice and say, “So, I will bring in my phone bill and you will dismiss it.” She responds, “We shall see.” and continues on with the next case.
I ask the Bailiff if there is 170 form at the clerk’s desk to disqualify the commissioner and he tell me get in the line in the hall. WTF ! The line is shorter so I get one and fill it out there and walk it back into the court and hand it to the Bailiff and leave.
Next month and it is my court date. I get inside the door and the Bailiff tells me, “Miss Stephens, you have been reassigned to Court Room ‘O’ down the hall. ”
O!
Down I go to “Criminal Court ‘O'” and I am last on the Docket. At long last — as I sit there a man walks up and rudely demands, “What are you doing here?!?” I ask, “Who are you?” — He gets louder and says, “OK. I’m through with you!” and walks away. I ask the clerk, “Who in the hell is that?” The judge, a very soft-spoken young Asian man with a nice demeanor says, “He is a Public Defender, but you aren’t eligible for one with only a misdemeanor traffic ticket.” (Like, did I ask for one?) He tells me I must return for a trial — in a month!
So, today, March 3rd at 1:30 I return — prepared for a trail. I am not on the Docket! The Bailiff goes in back and returns to says, “Yes, you are going to go to trial.” — of course they will hear a number of cases before mine. I notice the motorcycle officer is not there. I wait and then when I am called up the nice Asian judge tells me, “Well the officer was not available so I am dismissing your case.”
I look at him a little miffed. He says again, with a smile, “Your case is dismissed.”
I tell him, “I sorta figured that out when I didn’t see the officer, but you know I have been here four times in four months and that is very screwed up and I don’t think anyone cares!”
My license has expired, and how long will it be in DMV … O well my insurance will go back to its original price.
And so…. it goes…
LeahLeahLeah
March 7, 2015
But the CJ has a very nice floral display in her offices so you should feel glad.
Auntie Bureaucrat
March 7, 2015
In order to better serve the public… Do they think anyone buys this crap?
Auntie Bureaucrat
March 7, 2015
My comment was supposed to be in response to Uman’s post about San Diego traffic court.
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Behold the next huge boondoggle brought to you by the JC:
http://webcampub.multivista.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=aPublicWebcam.page&WebcamPublicPageUID=68481374-9D98-46A1-948D-AECE9BBC380C
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Click to access Odyssey_Notice_to_Public_Users.pdf
The Santa Barbara Superior Court is moving to a modern case management system which will introduce electronic filing of documents (eFiling). On March 16, 2015 we will turn the switch on Tyler Technologies’ Odyssey case management system…
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Click to access dobrowsky.pdf
unionman575
March 7, 2015
This is the problem:
Click to access Judicial-Branch-Facilities-Program-Oversight.pdf
JusticeCalifornia
March 7, 2015
Unionman, who or what is the IOC in this chart? Who pays for the consultant and to whom does the consultant answer?
It appears that the main problem point revealed in this chart is that the undemocratic JUDICIAL COUNCIL selects the court construction projects (based upon whatever criteria suits them, correct, flawed, biased or not), and everyone else has to take that as a given and proceed from there….
is that right?
unionman575
March 7, 2015
The main problem is every one is a dirty bird at the JC.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
March 7, 2015
LOL.
You mean the JCC? By the way, is that their new moniker, or has it been in use for awhile?
unionman575
March 7, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/clac.htm
Criminal Law Advisory Committee
March 11, 2015 Meeting (Closed)
😉
12:15 p.m.
unionman575
March 7, 2015
http://www.chp.ca.gov/offices/psd_jps.html
unionman575
March 7, 2015
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-mcclellin/29/36a/a81
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Howdy Doody
unionman575
March 7, 2015
Click to access System%20Enhancements%20Rev%2004.3r4%20-%20No%20Markups-Complete.pdf
Pg. 19
9. UHF System
9.1. General Overview.
😉
sharonkramer
March 7, 2015
OMG Unionman. You are on a roll today!
Am I reading this correctly? Except for the initial thought to build new courthouses, the legislature is to be informed every step of the way:
Click to access Judicial-Branch-Facilities-Program-Oversight.pdf
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Wink wink…time for some real oversight from the other 2 branches.
unionman575
March 7, 2015
http://www.chp.ca.gov/offices/psd_report_crimes.html
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Click to access tcbac-20150310-res-agenda.pdf
Consultants?
😉
Pages 191 & 109:
Information Technology Programs Projected FY 2015-16 FTEs and Consultants for IMF Funded Programs
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Pgs 191 & 192
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Governmental Affairs Advocacy Contacts
January 2015
😉
Click to access oga-advocacy.pdf
sharonkramer
March 8, 2015
“Governmental Affairs Advocacy Contacts” Shouldn’t that link go to JCW?
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Yes it should.,
No doubt about it.
😉
unionman575
March 8, 2015
Lando
March 8, 2015
The whole idea of taking over every courthouse in the state was flawed from the outset. Yet doing so was critical to HRH-1’s plan to take over every aspect of the California court system. What he overlooked was he bought into many failing and wrecked court facilities that needed to be fixed. Rather than come up with a sensible plan for dealing with failed buildings, HRH-1 and all the insiders since just keep throwing money down a rathole. Long Beach is the most stark example along with the courthouse in Plumas county that sits empty. What has HRH-2, Miller, Hull and company done to deal with any of this? Absolutely nothing. The courthouse construction fiasco is just one more incredible abuse of taxpayer funds sponsored by the arrogant insiders at 455 Golden Gate .
Lando
March 8, 2015
In the great words of Edwin Starr, 1970,” War what is it good for, absolutely nothing.” Now in 2015,” HRH-2, Miller and Hull, what are they good for, absolutely nothing.” These insiders have failed totally and completely. SEC reports, State Auditor findings and now a new Commission won’t rescue the 455 Golden Gate insiders and their arrogant administration of our once proud, strong and independent branch of government. .
katy
March 9, 2015
I agree with your understanding of the dire situation. Everyday, I become more convinced that the ONLY way to shut this down is by a criminal investigation for the “mismanagement” — that has lined some people’s pockets with stolen tax-dollars.
And BTW, I made the news today! Its tangental but related to unbridled corruption emitting from the helm of the Cal courts — causing harm to people all across the U.S.
03/09/15 WorkCompCentral re: the take-down of the ACOEM Mold Statement:
https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/workcompcentral-re-the-take-down-of-the-acoem-mold-statement/
(logged in as Katy — its Sharon)
unionman575
March 9, 2015
They are massive fuckups
Statesboro Blues
March 10, 2015
Joint Hearing Joint Legislative Audit Committee And Budget Subcommittee No. 5 On Public Safety
GIPSON, JONES-SAWYER, Chairs
10 a.m. – State Capitol, Room 4202 ( Listen to this hearing )
Committees: Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Budget, Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety
Hide Details
10 a.m. – State Capitol, Room 4202
OVERSIGHT HEARING
SUBJECT: The Judicial Branch of California, Audit Report 2014-107
Judicial Council Watcher
March 10, 2015
This is for Wednesday, March 11 at 10AM.
Statesboro Blues
March 10, 2015
Sorry for omitting the date! Thank you JCW!
LeahLeahLeah
March 10, 2015
I hope something comes of this. Reading this article and the subsequent comments I am struck by how hurt many people are who put their careers into the Judicial Branch hoping to do good, I came to work here 20 years ago and I remember how proud I was to work for a government entity who had such a far reaching impact into people’s lives. It didn’t take very long for me to see that while the powers that be paid lip service to the public it was really a place to feather their own nests without working too hard.
Many of us came here from places where we could have made much more money but money wasn’t our motivation. It appears that money motivators are the ones who got ahead.
I have little doubt those same powers are reading these postings and I am sure gloating and smirking as they shove their snouts deeper into the public trough. I suspect the current CJ is too young and likely too obtuse to know much about Rose Bird. Rose Bird lost her job because of the dictates of her conscience, if there is justice in this system the current Chief Justice will lose her job through the shear ineptitude of her tenure.
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2015
kudos to members, employees and stakeholders in all three branches who care about doing their jobs right because of the positive impact they are making in lives of the public they serve.
Sorry for being a pollyanna, but it really does make a HUGE difference.
MaxRebo5
March 10, 2015
Nice article by Courthouse News on the hearing tomorrow.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/10/audit-of-court-spending-set-for-wednesday-hearing-before-assembly-budget-committee.htm
I am stunned that this hearing is discussing the Improvement and Modernization Fund shortfall. That seems like a total tangent from the waste identified in the AOC Audit. What about Execs at the AOC being paid more than the Governor? Has anything been done about that? I’m not talking about their pensions, which were obscene as well, but the actual salaries for AOC Execs and court execs too……
Also, that Improvement fund is short mostly because the AOC failed on their workload projections for the branch. They projected fines and fees would be growing based on a failed analysis of the filing trends where workloads were ever increasing. In reality filings are way down due to crime being down to historically low levels and the AOC clearly could see this trend of less cases happening for some time. They are not drowning as the Chief portrayed it. So now the fund has to be back filled out of the General Fund and the AOC gets to act surprised? Forget that. Check them.
Hold them accountable! Gut the AOC first for their incompetence and only then is it reasonable for the AOC to seek more money to back fill the IMF from the General Fund. Team George was in charge for this entire time and it is all the same folks at the top (Jody and the Curts) who need to be called out before new funds are given. After CCMS the legislature sent a letter to the Chief demanding Vickrey resign and it worked. He is gone. The Legislature should do the same after this new scandalous audit of the AOC and demand Jody and the Curts resign before additional funding will be provided. Power and checks on it is the only thing they understand. The Chief’s administration must be checked here.
unionman575
March 10, 2015
Reggie, Reggie, Reggie…
😉
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2015
And speaking of branch members and court employees, good and bad. . . .
Re Kim Turner:
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150309/marin-superior-court-executive-officer-to-exit-in-june.
And her cheerleader Judge Roy Chernus:
Many expected more from Roy, but we have to factor in how he got his job…
http://www.coastalpost.com/06/11/01a.html
unionman575
March 10, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/rupromeetings.htm
Rules and Projects Committee
March 20, 2015 Meeting (Teleconference)
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831
Passcode: 4653278
(listen only)
😉
Start time: 12:10 pm
sharonkramer
March 10, 2015
Read both. Where’s the part about her recently getting caught falsifying court documents?
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2015
LOL Sharon. It takes outright scandals and protests to get coverage of court corruption in Marin.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/novato-ca/TBEBKV5VVB9GTCUQ6/p7
Turner harmed countless families in Marin by destroying their Family Court Services working files. And gleefully getting rid of court reporters (reportedly referred to by Turner as “pains in the ass”.) And who knows how many official registers of actions she has falsified, apart from those that have already been documented and reported?
And let’s not forget the historic advice of Turner and San Diego’s Mike Roddy to the Judicial Council, to play chicken with the legislature, right before those horrific budget cuts to the branch.
Yep, Turner sure helped the branch, Roy Chernus. She has helped completely humiliate the Marin County courts, the NCSC, and CA Judicial Council.
JusticeCalifornia
March 10, 2015
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20121103/former-marin-court-clerk-gets-75000-settlement-in-sexual-harassment-suit
Turner party liner Beseda — mentioned in this article– is fielding applications for Turner’s Marin CEO job.
And check this out.
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20140428/in-san-rafael-appearance-california-chief-justice-stumps-for-more-funding.
Here goes Marin’s party-liner Judge Roy Chernus again, this time defending Marie Antoinette:
“Judge Roy Chernus, one of several judges at the event Monday, said Cantil-Sakauye “is a straight talker and she accurately spoke of the consequences of the judicial branch’s severe budget cuts.”
ROTFL.
Not so funny: if Roy is speaking for the Marin bench in touting the performance of Turner and Sakauye, Marin is in real trouble. And so is the branch, if he is rewarded with Judicial Council appointments.
sharonkramer
March 10, 2015
“Kim Turner, executive director of Marin Superior Court, and Scott Bonagofsky, Hermann’s lawyer, both said the settlement terms were confidential and they could not comment. Hermann also declined to disclose the settlement amount. A copy of the settlement was provided to the Marin Independent Journal by the state judiciary’s Administrative Office of the Courts. The settlement money will be paid by the state judiciary, not the county.” Doh!