Take a look at the AOC’s Org Chart here (link). On the left hand side of the org chart, you’re going to run into an organization that is under a position called Chief Operating Officer called Court Operations Services.
Here is a description of the work they do:
Court Operations Special Services Office
- Provides direct services, resources, and program support in the following areas: Administration and Planning; Assigned Judges Program; Court Language Access Support Program; Divisional Budgeting/Appellate Court Services; Court Research; Promising and Effective Programs; and Physical Security, Personal Security, and Emergency Planning
Now please turn your attention to this document and ask yourself: Does this sound like a contract for a direct service, resource or program related to court operations? http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lpa-courtcall.pdf
Each year divisions across the AOC make the request for Master Agreements that they can enter into so that courts don’t have to put stuff out for bid. Theoretically. they can just place an order under the master agreement under the theory that the AOC has already negotiated the best price. When our affiliate asked the AOC about who requested this master agreement with courtcall, they responded in record time indicating they had no records (less than 3 1/2 hours to be exact)
Stripping a comment from a previous post, we’re going to let you be the judge.
2015 California Rules of Court
Rule 10.104. Limitation on contracting with former employees
A trial or appellate court may not enter into a contract for goods or services for which compensation is paid with a person previously employed by that court or by the Administrative Office of the Courts:
(1)For a period of 12 months following the date of the former employee’s retirement, dismissal, or separation from service, if he or she was employed in a policymaking position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period before his or her retirement, dismissal, or separation; or
(2)For a period of 24 months following the date of the former employee’s retirement, dismissal, or separation from service, if he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by the court or the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(b) Administrative Office of the Courts contracts with former employees
The Administrative Office of the Courts may not enter into a contract for goods or services for which compensation is paid with a person previously employed by it:
(1)For a period of 12 months following the date of the former employee’s retirement, dismissal, or separation from service, if he or she was employed in a policymaking position at the Administrative Office of the Courts in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the 12-month period before his or her retirement, dismissal, or separation; or
(2)For a period of 24 months following the date of the former employee’s retirement, dismissal, or separation from service, if he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
If you happen to manage the division that requested this Master Agreement, were you, in fact “any part of the decision-making process” ?
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
July 30, 2015
Once a liar, always a liar. No surprise there.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 30, 2015
Scumbags.
sharonkramer
July 30, 2015
I think it would be wise for someone to look at the current Master Agreement between the AOC and CourtCall. Contract dates and signature dates seem relevant to the matter at hand.
Looks like these Master Agreements between the AOC and CourtCall are two year contracts which begin on July 1st every other year.
The one attached to this post has no date of when it was signed, but it began on July 1, 2011 and ended on June 30, 2013. So the next one probably would have been July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015.
Is there a current one that began on July 1, 2015 — Mr. Child’s first day with CourtCall?
If so, when was it signed and by whom on behalf of the client and behalf of the vendor?
Has Mr. Child spent any of his new employment time negotiating a Master Agreement with the AOC on behalf of CourtCall?
Is there compensation that is directly proportional to the dollar amount of Master Agreements? I.e. does CourtCall pay a percentage of the sale as commission and are there residuals?
BTW, App C Para 8B of the 2011 contract states, “…A Court may terminate a Participation Agreement with or without cause by providing Contractor with 30 days prior written notice.”
sharonkramer
July 31, 2015
More from Kamala: “And I’ve fought to ensure that those who take advantage of our system – whether they are violent criminals, diploma mills, polluters or those who prey upon California families – face the justice they deserve.
This campaign is bigger than me – it’s about all of us standing together for leadership in Washington that makes life better for Californians. This campaign is about sending leaders to Washington who aren’t afraid to shake up the status quo. [Huh? I thought she wanted us to vote for her]
“Together, we can take on the obstructionism and dysfunction that pervades our nation’s capital.”
Michael Paul
July 31, 2015
Hahahaha! Just never you mind the obstructionism and dysfunction that pervades her office. 😉
sharonkramer
July 31, 2015
Yep. Sounds like more “Child-ish” behavior of assuring oneself they’ve done nothing wrong — when clearly, they have.
Michael Paul
July 31, 2015
With respect to the underlying post: I would hope that every court is taking a good, hard look at making purchases under MSA’s as some of the time, it is no deal at all.
With respect to technology assets and licensing in particular: The AOC’s agreement under an MSA might give a court the right to purchase, for example, a router or a UPS at a certain percentage off of the list price. What is not disclosed by either the AOC or their MSA vendor is that the list price might be 200 times more than a price that an item is typically sold for and when I worked at the AOC, I found this to be true all over the place in the items that I dealt with. So in essence, if you purchased a UPS through an MSA you might be paying (even after the MSRP discount) 150% more than you could purchase the same item elsewhere.
The key to obtaining a good price is to ask any other vendor that is not a part of the MSA to not disclose that the bid you are seeking is not directly tied to your court. Ask the vendor to use a project number rather than a courthouse and you will get a real competitive, private industry price for the goods or services.
It might be less than half as expensive as the best price the AOC can come up with under an MSA.
I found the AOC’s MSA’s for certain technology items a total ripoff and demonstrated that total ripoff to my coworkers, supervisors and managers.
wearyant
July 31, 2015
“I found the AOC’s MSA’s for certain technology items a total ripoff and demonstrated that total ripoff to my coworkers, supervisors and managers.”
No good deed goes unpunished.
Long live ACJ and JCW.