This afternoon we received a note mentioning a dozen surprise layoffs at the AOC today that we would like to confirm from other sources.
The reason we would like to confirm them is that a good portion of them exist in digital purgatory and are directly responsible for many of the issues that propelled the founding of this site.
If you have confirming knowledge of today’s surprise layoffs, please contact us at https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher and provide us those names in confidence.
Update: We have two emails that mention 5 individuals. One of those contains an additional two individuals. Both mention that 12 people got the axe today.
Posted in: Judicial Council of California
unionman575
June 20, 2016
It’s a party!
Surprise!
😉
unionman575
June 20, 2016
I heard it’s a baker’s dozen…
stacy with the light blue eyes
June 21, 2016
And so if no names, department?
Judicial Council Watcher
June 21, 2016
Now the number is up to 17 and comprises most of (if not the entire management team of) the facilities management unit. (Those that dealt with the overpriced work and unlicensed contractors)
We’re still trying to confirm the names as we only currently have 7 names. Most of the AOC is unaware of these changes as they happened rather quietly.
Meanwhile, right across the street from the AOC in the Judicial Council VS. Jacobs lawsuit, (the unlicensed contractor that had the central and southern portion of the state wrapped up) has heated up again with Jacobs trying to demonstrate substantial compliance with respect to contractors licenses when there was no effort at compliance whatsoever.
APPENDED:
Keeping in mind that hundreds, if not thousands of similarly titled documents are in the AOC’s possession, here is an example of substantial compliance shortly before Jacobs was sued by the AOC.
Link to generator-follow-up
This document cited above is an official estimate from “Team Jacobs” to the AOC. As an estimate of work to be done from a contractor to a client, there are some legal requirements that would define “substantial compliance”. A few examples would be the companies licensed physical address and contact information found nowhere in the document. Another would be a contractors license, also a legal requirement of a licensed contractor, found nowhere in the document. Similarly deficient “substantial compliance” documents can be found in courthouse filing cabinets and email boxes from the Bay Area to San Diego. This basic information is required on all business cards of a licensed contractor. The license # must appear in any solicitation made by a licensed contractor. None of these materials, dozens of which are posted on this site, meet the substantial compliance argument.
Note: we’re not naming any names until we can confirm them (and it is more difficult than it should be) and even then, only to strike the names out of digital purgatory.
Finally2016!
June 24, 2016
PRETTY RELIABLE SOURCE PROVIDED
Jerry Pfab
Ken Kachold
Patrick McGrath
James Kremko
Robert Perkins
MR Gaffil
Nick Turner
Sara Finney
Emily Johannaberg
Karen Baker (we believe)
Sayeed (engineer)