While we remain unsure of the scope of change, here is what has been communicated to us by multiple sources. Consistently, everyone indicates that there were more than a dozen let go at the AOC and that the facilities management unit was hit the hardest.
- We won’t be seeing anymore pfabulous boondoggles or taxpayer trips to disneyland. Unfortunately, we also won’t be making anymore word puns over his name either because Gerald Pfab who headed FMU got the axe. So did his right hand, Pat McGrath.
- All 3 regional managers, (those right below the senior management) MR Gafill, Nick Turner* and Ken Kachold were also axed.
- Names we won’t divulge are alleged to include all of the support engineers and other support individuals, including those working on the misguided “baby baldridge” award.
In essence, the entire senior management team of FMU (those that maintain existing courthouses) got the axe, which is entirely appropriate when two different court cases basically indicate that they illegally hired and spent nearly 28 million dollars on unlicensed contractors to perform work on nearly every courthouse from the Oregon border to the Mexican border and kept on using them after they knew that they were unlicensed.
It appears that Martin Hoshino is the first AOC Executive Director willing to do the right thing for a change, something that none of his predecessors was willing to do in spite of a long train wreck of information that should have resulted in terminations more than 5 years ago. Most of this management team’s names sit on the wall of shame we call digital purgatory.
We mentioned we had a few more names and we do and they’ve been adequately confirmed. However, we don’t have enough information to adequately confirm others to be able to understand the scope going into the new fiscal year so if you can aid us in supplying those additional names from multiple sources, please contact us at the ultra secure https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher
Thanks in advance for your support!
*edited to correct an obvious mistake
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
June 22, 2016
Yeah baby! Time to start the housecleaning!
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
June 22, 2016
A point of discussion: The AOC has announced layoffs as they have occurred when they were downsizing.In this case, there has been no announcement of either layoffs or downsizing ergo there is speculation that these were not layoffs.
Wendy Darling
June 22, 2016
At 455 Golden Gate Avenue, this type of “layoff” is cleverly referred to as “layoff in lieu of termination with waiver” and it goes something like this” employee is informed the AOC is exercising the “at will” element of their employment with the Judicial Branch, and you can either be terminated (Door Number 1) or resign (Door Number 2), or (Door Number 3) you can sign a waiver and release of all your rights (such as your right to sue) with a “confidentiality agreement”/muzzle clause on the spot, and instead of being fired, your separation from employment will be designated as a “layoff”, and any future employer will be told you were separated from employment by ‘layoff.” Depending on how dirty you are (such as the infamous Ernie “Bluto” Fuentes and Little Ernie/Ken “Sofa Man” Couch, and likely Mr. Pfabulous et al.), the waiver and release will also include a chunk of money (usually $25,000 – $50,000) to buy your silence and make sure you keep your mouth shut. Of course all of this is highly illegal and in violation of the California Government Code regarding State employment. But, as we all know, the AOC doesn’t follow those rules, or the law. You know, because they’re so special and no one can touch them or do anything about that.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
June 22, 2016
Wonder if any JC “clown” will be retiring in the near future.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 23, 2016
Although enjoying life and the occasional cocktail with olives (not at taxpayer expense,) I still get calls from my former colleagues who like to keep me posted on the current goings on within the California judiciary. It seems that as time goes on, Governor Brown has been consolidating and exercising more and more power over the Judicial Branch. As the old story goes, power abhors a vacuum. Since HRH-2 demonstrates on a daily basis the feckless nature of her “leadership”, the Governor’s job has become easier and easier.
Everyone was so thrilled to see Vickrey and his trusty side-kick Tonto leave town that no one seemingly paid attention to his replacement. Martin Hoshino is a complete loyalist to Governor Moonbeam. At first, his installation was seemingly designed to demonstrate an olive branch between the branches, and it certainly provided a direct pipeline of information to the Governor. It became evident, if it wasn’t before, that HRH-2 has little apparent interest and/or ability to manage the branch. Other sycophants of the Governor have been installed in key positions within the Judicial Council. Jim Humes, an extremely ambitious person with eyes on the Supreme Court, was appointed to the First District Court of Appeals by Governor Brown. Hume’s had been serving as the Governor’s Executive Secretary of Legal Affairs. Humes was quickly elevated to become the Presiding Justice of Division One. Queen Feckless than appointed Humes to the Judicial Council and placed him on the Executive and Planning Committee. From there, Humes has been advancing many proposals that can be traced back to the Governor.
Together, Hoshino and Humes are openingly doing the Governor’s bidding. It doesn’t take much investigation to connect the dots…
Wendy Darling
June 24, 2016
Speaking of Queen Feckless’ readily apparent lack of interest and/or ability to “manage the branch” and the intimately related issue of her Minions of Darkness, it appears that while Beth Jay may have left the building at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, she may not yet escape unscathed for so willingly doing the Queen’s wet work. Published Monday, June 20, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Arbitrator Revives Dunn Claims Against State Bar, Holden
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
An arbitrator Friday revived claims brought against the State Bar by its former executive director, Joseph L. Dunn.
Edward L. Infante, who dismissed all of Dunn’s claims in April but granted leave to amend with respect to three of them, overruled demurrers to two of the three amended claims.
The arbitrator, a former chief magistrate judge of the Northern District of California who now works for JAMS, ruled that Dunn has now sufficiently alleged that the State Bar terminated him in violation of the Labor Code whistleblower provision, and that it breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in his employment contract.
He also overruled demurrers by former State Bar President Craig Holden and Beth J. Jay, former principal attorney to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to an amended claim that they intentionally interfered with his contractual relationship with the State Bar.
Infante, however, rejected Dunn’s breach-of-fiduciary duty claim against the State Bar, which was dismissed without leave to amend. The arbitrator had previously dismissed, without leave to amend, breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against Holden and the Board of Trustees.
Right to Terminate
Dunn, a former trial lawyer, state senator, and chief executive of the California Medical Association, was the State Bar’s top administrator from September 2010 to November 2014, when the organization announced it had exercised a clause in his contract giving it the right to end his employment on 30 days’ notice.
He was a Democratic candidate for the Orange County-based U.S. House seat that Rep. Loretta Sanchez is giving up to run for the U.S. Senate in the June 7 primary, apparently finishing fourth. The count of provisional and late vote-by-mail ballots is continuing, but as of late Friday, Dunn trailed Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen by nearly 2,000 votes for the right to face former state Sen. Lou Correa, the clear frontrunner, in November.
Nguyen and Correa are also Democrats. Republican Bob Peterson was in third place, 856 votes ahead of Dunn.
Dunn sued the State Bar almost immediately after he was terminated, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for complaints about various improprieties at the State Bar. Those included the falsification of statistics purporting to show that a backlog in disciplinary complaints had been cleared up, as well as wasteful spending and an alleged conflict of interest on the part of Munger Tolles & Olsen, the law firm hired to investigate an internal complaint brought against Dunn by Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim.
Dunn alleged that Kim had brought the claim in retaliation for his identifying her as the person responsible for falsifying the backlog statistics.
A Los Angeles Superior Court ordered the case to arbitration based on a clause in Dunn’s contract.
Whistleblower Claim
In his ruling Friday, Infante said Dunn has now pled a whistleblower claim against the State Bar and Holden under Labor Code §1102.5, by alleging that he reasonably believed that the conduct he reported to the State Bar may have violated two sections of the State Bar Act, along with a Government Code section dealing with misuse of public resources.
The State Bar Act provisions are §6106, which provides for suspension or disbarment of attorneys who engage in “moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption,” and §6068(a), which demands that lawyers “support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.”
If Dunn reasonably believed that Kim was violating those sections by falsifying the backlog statistics, Infante said, and was fired for reporting the alleged violations, the whistleblower statute applies, even though they are not criminal statutes and there is no remedy other than State Bar discipline.
“There is no requirement [under §1102.5] that the statute, rule, or regulation impose a particular type of remedy or punishment,” he explained.
In addition, if Dunn reasonably believed that “internal reports were altered to unlawfully remove cases from the statutory backlog,” as he alleges, his alleged report of such conduct amounted to a claim of violation of Government Code §8314, Infante said. The statute makes it unlawful for a public employee “to use or permit others to use public resources for…personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.”
Bad-Faith Claim
Dunn’s amended claim for bad-faith termination also survives demurrer, Infante said, because he has now alleged that his firing was a pretext to deny him some contractual benefit beyond continued employment. He contends that as a result of the Munger Tolles report, which he claims is false, as well as tainted by a conflict of interest, the Board of Trustees used a contractual morals clause to deny him severance pay.
He also claims that he lost an annual performance bonus and retirement benefits as a result of the bad-faith termination.
¬Infante rejected the amended claim that the State Bar breached fiduciary duties by leaking portions of the Munger Tolles report to the press, and by inadequately investigating the leak. He concluded that the State Bar has sovereign immunity because there is no statute that specifically authorizes such a claim.
As for the tortious interference claim against Holden and Jay, Infante rejected Jay’s and Holden’s reliance on the litigation privilege. The amended allegations, including that Jay had “regular secret meetings with Jayne Kim and [Trustee] Jim Fox to set in motion plans to” fire Dunn, do not describe privileged conduct because the alleged meetings did not relate “to a proceeding that was actually contemplated or to a lawsuit that was anticipated,” he said.
Infante also rejected Holden’s claim of sovereign immunity to that claim, saying Dunn has now adequately alleged that Holden participated in the claimed meetings before he became president.
http://www.metnews.com/
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 23, 2016
Bend over and cough…
🙂
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 24, 2016
JCW,
Check out the most recent email sent out by the Alliance to trial judges regarding the CJA’s action to support Governor Brown’s trailer bill that amends the language of the Government Code section that controls judicial salaries. This bill was in response to the trial court decision in Justice Mallano’s class action law suit. Because the CJA made such a big deal that they supported the trailer bill, the Legislature passed it, thinking that the judges of California were in support of it. The bill is now awaiting Governor Brown’s signature.
CJA had no involvement in the lawsuit, nor did they have the courtesy of letting Justice Mallano know what they were doing in assisting the Governor and JC to get this trailer bill passed. The CJA certainly had no authority to speak on behalf of the members of the class, which represents all sitting and retired judges in California. When signed, this bill will have a significant negative impact on judges unless it is thrown out by the Appellate Courts…(ha, ha, ha…fat chance of that.)
There are LOTS of questions regarding collusion between the CJA Executive Board and the JC regarding the drafting of this bill, who was involved, and the timeline of the involvement of CJA officers, members of the JC staff, and Department of Finance officials. There is a lot more to this story that will be coming out soon…
Nat
Judicial Council Watcher
June 25, 2016
We might not be privy to their latest email as we tend to get press releases.
Wendy Darling
June 24, 2016
Always good to hear from you General. In related news, published yesterday, Thursday, June 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo.
And really, no one should be surprised by any of this, especially the State judges. Unless you have been living under a rock on Mars, for at least the last 7 years, “secret meetings”, spiteful retaliation, special deals, and various other forms of deceitful and unethical behavior/”leadership” has been (, and continues to be, standard operating procedure at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and Judicial Branch administration. It’s not exactly news.
Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that.
Politics, Pensions & Judges All Bound Up in Bill
6/23/2016 1:16:00 PM, Maria Dinzeo
(CN) – In the next few days, Governor Jerry Brown is expected to sign a new law on judges’ pay, an issue that pits the law against politics.
The amended statute will effectively quash a judgment won by a class of 3,400 active and retired judges and justices in Mallano v. Chiang, where a Los Angeles court ruled that judges should have been given pay raises between 2008-2013 and are entitled to recover what they are owed at ten percent interest.
In the case, now-retired Justice Robert Mallano said judges and justices had taken pay cuts at the height of the state’s fiscal crisis in 2008, but never received the raises to which they were entitled when state employees were given raises of between 0.10 and 0.97 percent since then. Likewise for retired judges, whose pensions are tied to judicial salaries.
The state has appealed the ruling.
Not liking the idea of a ten percent judgment payout, Brown decided to repeal Government Code Section 68203, which ties judicial pay to the average of what state employees earn. The California Judges Association met with the representatives for the governor’s finance department over the last few weeks to mitigate that proposal, arguing that it would force judges to politicize their salaries by having to beg the legislature and governor for raises in the future.
What resulted was a compromise trailer bill clarifying some of the language in the code section to say that judges’ pay will be offset by state employee furloughs. It also adds a section that effects the Mallano judgment by changing the interest calculation to the Pooled Money Investment Account rate, which currently floats somewhere between 2 percent and 0.2 percent; much less than the 10 percent rate that the judgment ordered.
“The proposed amendment seeks to all but wipe out the legal interest we are entitled to under the law,” Mallano wrote in an email statement. “If the state employees sue for their raises and win, they get 10% pre-judgment interest; if judges sue and win, .05% at today’s rates. Pure and simple anti-judge discrimination. The prejudgment interest is approximately $5,000 per judge.”
He said, “This legislation is garbage: spiteful retaliation by the Department of Finance,” and urged judges to oppose it.
But the trailer bill passed both houses in the Legislature along with the budget, and is now on Brown’s desk.
Mallano was unreachable through his attorney Raoul Kennedy with Skadden Arps in Palo Alto, who did not reply to email and phone requests for comment.
Brown spokesman H.D. Palmer said he expects Brown will sign the trailer bill into law sometime next week. “The Administration supports the change because it ensures that any furloughs of state workers are taken into account when calculating raises for judges,” he said.
Palmer also noted that the PMIA rate “reflects the state’s interest earnings and is the same way we calculate interest owed in many other state matters.”
But judges across the state felt betrayed, as they learned after the fact that the CJA was involved in negotiating the deal with Brown.
“What developed here was done in secret. It was at the behest of the Governor’s office and the Department of Finance,” said Judge Steve White of Sacramento Superior Court, head of the judges group The Alliance of California Judges.
“There was a concerted effort to ensure that the bargain which was reached- an agreement designed to bargain away thousands of dollars of interest payments which the court ruled are owed to virtually ever California judge — was made without consulting with the plaintiffs in Mallano and without with giving any notice to the plaintiffs.”
Agreeing that the repeal of Sec. 68203 would have been a disaster, White argued strongly that the judges of the state should have been informed of Brown’s plan, which would have forced judges to go hat in hand annually to the Legislature to ask for pay raises.
“If you have the executive branch threatening to repeal a statute, the express purpose of which is to take the salary setting of judges out of the political process, you don’t just lay down and agree to whatever terms are presented to you. You share that information with the judges you represent,” White said.
“If you’re going to do something that dramatically implicates the interest of judges,” White concluded, “you’ve got to put the judges in the room.”
In a video message put out by the CJA, lobbyist Mike Belote said that while he knew the compromise would be controversial, Brown’s plan was a real threat Sec. 68203, which has worked to de-politicize judicial salaries for 37 years.
“Some judges said ‘the legal rate is what a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to, and we’re entitled to it.’ And that’s absolutely true. But it’s also true that the executive and legislative branches can work together to amend the statute or repeal it. It can be done in the budget, it can be done quickly, and if that happens, the public policy ramifications and the ramifications for judges would be enormous because of this issue of politicizing judicial salaries,” Belote said.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Czuleger, a former member of the CJA board, said he had spent the last week fielding angry calls from judges. He can understand their anger, he said, but ultimately he believes that under extreme duress and a short timetable from Brown, the CJA made the right call.
“As judges we’re taught to think within the confines of the law but this is about politics. Those I think that are upset say, ‘Hey we filed a lawsuit, we won the lawsuit, and the appeal should play it out.’ Then there’s politics.”
“They sat down and came up with a compromise and for the most part it saved 68203. It does impact the interest on the judgment, but that gets it back to the dichotomy of law versus politics.”
“It doesn’t let people feel good to find out after the fact,” he added. “And it’s a matter of confidence.”
For some judges, such as those in the Alliance, the mistrust stems from a past gambit by the Administrative Office of the Courts, now called the Judicial Council staff, which involved slipping an amendment into an under-the-radar trailer bill during the Legislature’s 2008-2009 session that would have seized authority from local courts over the selection of their presiding judges and court clerks.
Czuleger said this situation is different, and that he’d spoken with those who thought Belote did a good job.
“Given that hand, and you know the Legislature is going to put this whole thing together by June 15, you have a limited time to work in. He took them from compete repeal to saving most of the bill. Was it a backroom deal? Well how are most bills negotiated in Sacramento? A lot is done behind closed doors. You’re just thankful they’re talking to you. They could have just done this as a trailer bill without giving notice to anybody.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
June 25, 2016
Re: Terminations – Long, long overdue.Re: CJA lobbyist negotiating for everyone else without their consent – I’m guessing quite a few more CJA membership cancellations and ACJ additions.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 25, 2016
You are correct Michael! I know of at least two dozen former colleagues that dropped their CJA membership as soon as they heard of this “deal.” Can’t figure out why the CJA Board is so thrilled to have Belote working as their lobbyist. Take a look at the clients his firm represents and count the number of conflicts, I came up with eight on my first glance.
Well kids, I’ve enjoyed the time in town, but it is time to retire back up to the mountain lake so I’ll probably chat again in a few months…
Gen. Woodhull
wearyant
June 26, 2016
I’m just thankful The General has access to olives from his secure bunker.
Long live the ACJ!
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 26, 2016
wearyant,
Thanks for the acknowledgment. My amphibious plane has been delayed because of mechanical problems until Tuesday morning. FYI, I can still get Mezzetta Imported Spanish Queen Martini Olives, 10 Ounce size, with the Royal Bamboo Knot Cocktail and Hors’ D’oeuvre Picks through Amazon sent care of General Delivery to the nearest point of civilizaton which I can access often enough to keep me in supply. I alternate between gin and vodka to ensure that I am not burned out on taste.
As you well know, as does Wendy, the OBT, and unionman575, one has to set priorities in life. Having an olive with the proper acid balance, brine and firmness is essential. For a mass produced product, I like the Mezzetta olive. We could probably discuss for hours what constitutes the proper olive, let alone the proper gin, vodka or vermouth. All I know is I enjoy the end result. It is also worth expending the limited resources available to produce the ice necessary for the proper cocktail.
Take care my friend. See you in a few months.
General
Lando
June 27, 2016
Hoshino has surrendered the third branch of government to the Governor. Totally shameful. And where by the way is Queen Feckless? Has she left the building ? Thanks Ronald George . Things ran just fine prior to 1998.
sharonkramer
June 27, 2016
It has been six years since King George left the Crystal Palace. Who is still there?
Hint: “a member of the California Judicial Council from 1997 to 2011, [who] served as chair of its Executive and Planning Committee. He is [was?] chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, and [former] chair of the Financial Accountability and Efficiency Committee for the Judicial Council. He has also served as co-chair of the Tribal Court/State Court Forum, chair of the Riverside Criminal Backlog Reduction Task Force, chair of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee, a member of the Appellate Advisory Committee, and chair of the Task Force on Photography, Broadcasting & Recording in the Courtroom.”
sharonkramer
June 27, 2016
Peshaw to the thumbs down. Ya can’t solve a problem while burying your head in the sand that an age old problem still exists.
unionman575
June 27, 2016
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/06/27/california-council-oks-6-9-million-for-tech-and-plans-for-multiple-e-file-managers.htm
Delilah
June 29, 2016
Yolo judge to chair Judicial Council working group
By Enterprise staff June 29, 2016
Yolo Superior Court Presiding Judge David Rosenberg has been appointed chair of a California Judicial Council working group charged with developing a competitive grant program supporting the council in awarding funds to courts for innovative and efficient judicial branch services and programs.
“The California judicial branch found creative ways to preserve and improve access to justice even during the depths of the fiscal crisis,” California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye said in a news release. “This grant program will reinforce those efforts, recognize worthy innovations, and create models capable of being replicated.”
The 2016-17 California budget provides $25 million for grants to improve access to justice for court users and the public.
The funding, to be used over a multi-year period, will support innovations in collaborative courts; self-help, family and juvenile courts; and other efficiencies in the trial and appellate courts. Consistent with the statutory requirements, the programs selected must have measurable results or benefits that have a demonstrated impact on the court and the public it serves.
“I commend Governor Brown and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye for their foresight in launching this program,” Rosenberg said. “Innovative court programs can save taxpayer money and can allow courts to serve the public more efficiently and effectively. We will get right on this.”
Other appointees to the working group include Justice Andrea Hoch of the Third Appellate District, Kings Superior Court Presiding Judge Steven D. Barnes, San Diego Superior Court Judge Presiding Judge Jeffrey B. Barton, Riverside Superior Court Judge David M. Chapman, Alameda Superior Court Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley, Court Executive Officers Alan Carlson of Orange Superior Court and Teresa Risi of Monterey Superior Court, and Court Clerk/Administrator Charlene Ynson, Fifth Appellate District.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/yolo-judge-to-chair-judicial-council-working-group/
Judicial Council Watcher
June 29, 2016
donotreply@hushmail.com brings us this little tidbit:
“The ultimate grand screw-up worthy of the all time hall of fame: someone leaked the names of those being terminated a week early. So word circulated and the short-timers heard unofficially days before they heard it officially. So the grand dramatic escort out of the facility wasn’t so shocking for those eliminated. And yes they really did escort the folks out, one at a time.”
Of course we could not ask donotreply if these people read it here first before they did the walk…
It’s alleged that 10 people represent staff reductions which is curious when you have a maintenance backlog of over two billion dollars. Two were not staff reductions. We don’t think any of these eliminated positions were the boots on the ground in trial courts. But they were the management above them that inflated satisfaction and eliminated criticism before it worked its way up the AOC food chain.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 30, 2016
A few unlucky individuals learned of their separation through the AOC grapevine well before they got the axe and some were able to read about it here the day before they got the axe.
Have to agree with the ultimate grand screw-up. The whole matter is being framed as a reorganization with 12 positions eliminated and two positions to be announced.
It’s no surprise to us that none of the 12 was permitted to stick around and apply for the new positions, given the unlicensed contractor debacle and epic cover-up they all engaged in.
Crooked Yamasaki
July 25, 2016
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_30164311/60-million-south-county-courthouse-now-virtual-ghost