Last Thursday the management of the AOC held a meeting for supervisors and managers.
In that meeting, they outlined the AOC’s priorities for the new year.
__________________________________________________________________
Priority number one – Back a dead horse and support Curtis Child in his effort to lobby for budget restoration for the AOC.
Priority number two – Plan for a fiscal year 2012/2013 budget reduction to the branch (say, doesn’t that conflict with priority number one?)
Priority number three – Continue to move forward on new court construction and CCMS deployment
Priority number four – Prepare for the results of the Strategic Evaluation Committee
Priority number five – Work on improving the morale of AOC employees.
__________________________________________________________________
The reason we bring this priorities list up is that we think that anyone (and everyone) in the trial courts would have a different priorities list. Is this list serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians or is it serving themselves at the cost of the trial courts?
Further on in the meeting, the management discusses possible layoffs due to priorities number two (budget cut) and number four (SEC report). The general direction of possible layoffs is to ensure that they preserve the resources in building and maintaining courthouses and those that support CCMS, defining these as protected programs. In essence, the general direction of the AOC seems to be to save the boondoggles at all costs.
What would your top 5 priorities list look like?
_____________________________________________________________________
The following are someones’ meeting notes that were scanned and sent to us anonymously. Due to the size of the scanned files and our limited space for such documents, we will leave them up for a very short time. Note that most documents were scanned upside down.
AOC meeting0001 AOC meeting0002 AOC meeting0003 AOC meeting0004 AOC meeting0005 AOC meeting0006
Hot off the press courtesy of one of our many insiders
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Report from meeting of Council members and AOC management
Posted: February 21, 2012
Contact: AOC Executive Office, ext. 5-4235
Interim Administrative Director Jody Patel convened a special meeting on Feb 16 in our SF office for AOC directors, assistant directors, managers, and supervisors to give them an update and a chance to ask questions about issues facing the AOC and the judicial branch.
Jody invited 4 Judicial Council members to the meeting: Justice Douglas Miller (Executive and Planning Committee chair), Justice Harry Hull, Jr. (Rules and Projects Committee chair), Judge David Rosenberg (Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee chair), and Alan Carlson (Court Executives Advisory Committee chair). These council members shared their thoughts and helped answer questions.
NOTE: Due to our increased work demands and limited budget, AOC managers and supervisors in our regional locations joined the meeting by teleconference. In addition, the AOC Executive Office encouraged those in attendance to relay information shared at the meeting with their staffs.
Following are highlights of what information was shared at the Feb 16 meeting.
Jody thanks AOC staff for dedication, sets priorities for next several months
In her opening remarks at the meeting, our Interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel recognized our previous Administrative Directors Bill Vickrey and Ron Overholt for their extraordinary vision, work, and dedication to the AOC and the judicial branch. She also recognized her fellow directors and all AOC staff for their commitment and help through these challenging and transitional times.
Jody acknowledged that 2012 promises to be a year of change. But she also noted that even with the scrutiny and challenges that we face, the AOC has a great opportunity to become a better and stronger organization.
Jody shared her 5 priorities for the AOC over the next few months until we find a permanent Administrative Director:
- Advocate for budget restoration for the judicial branch
- Plan for anticipated AOC budget reductions for FY 2012-2013 ($17.6 million reduction for the AOC according to the Governor’s latest state budget proposal–that could increase if trigger cuts are enacted)
- Align AOC priorities with Judicial Council priorities for statewide initiatives such as CCMS (Judicial Council expects to decide on a strategy for CCMS by its April meeting)
- Prepare to respond to the SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) report on the AOC that we expect in April;
- Keep up AOC staff morale and remind us of the important work we do
Justices on the council stress the need for the AOC
Justice Doug Miller and Justice Harry Hull acknowledged that it’s natural to be anxious about the scrutiny surrounding the AOC and changes to our organization. They also emphasized that the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC are in this together. They know that the AOC does great work, has accomplished a lot, and is needed to help strengthen and maintain our independent branch of government.
Justice Miller stressed that the Judicial Council and its members are different than in the past. Members are more vocal, more engaged, and want to be more out front and take more ownership of judicial branch issues. The council needs our help to carry out objectives and its members want to know what we do so they can defend us when they respond to their courts’ questions.
In addition to agreeing with Justice Miller’s comments, Justice Hull provided an update on behalf of the search committee for our new Administrative Director. The committee is finalizing the recruiting materials and expects to make a recommendation to the Chief Justice on a new director by the June Judicial Council meeting.
Council members from the trial courts acknowledge “centralized v. local control” friction
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg and Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson told meeting attendees that they have confidence in the Judicial Council and the AOC and that most court leaders value our work.
But they recognized that the governance of the judicial branch–that combines centralized statewide oversight with local control at the court level–creates a “push and pull” dynamic as we try to decide where the boundaries lie.
They added that these different voices get louder and more vocal in lean budget times.
Branch leaders field questions about AB 1208, the SEC and A&E committees, staff morale
During the last half of the meeting, Jody and the Judicial Council members invited questions from the AOC managers and supervisors in attendance. The Q&A portion of the meeting covered a variety of topics, including:
Q: How will the Judicial Council continue to confront intrusion into judicial branch governance (AB 1208)?
A. The council has taken an official position against AB 1208 and will continue to advocate against it because the bill is not in the best interests of the judicial branch. The Judicial Council feels that the judicial branch should be able to address its own issues without intrusion from the outside.
Q. What is the relationship between the SEC, A&E, and our own AOC reorganization efforts?
A. The SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) is independent from the council and the AOC. The SEC expects to present its report on the AOC to the council’s Executive and Planning Committee in April. Council members are not sure what the report will contain. Some recommendations might be able to be implemented right away, some may go out for public comment, or some may not be advisable at all. The Chief Justice and the council will know more once they receive the report.
The council’s A&E committee (Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch) allows the council to do its own review of the AOC, its staff and budget so it can become more familiar with our work. The committee plans to follow up the initial overall report on the AOC it completed with a more in-depth review of each AOC division.
With help from staff, the AOC Executive Team is conducting its own review of our structure and programs. We’ve already made some changes and this reengineering process will help us prepare for any recommendations stemming from the SEC report. The AOC Executive Team realizes that our cuts to staff and resources have not always resulted in cutting back on our programs and services, which often means we’re doing the same with less.
Q. Can you tell us more about the idea to have Judicial Council liaisons for each local court and AOC division?
A. Before the budget cuts to the judicial branch, AOC staff would help coordinate periodic in-person visits from Judicial Council members to local courts so they could talk with judges and court staff about their challenges, concerns, and services to the public. Cancelling this program has affected our communication with local courts.
To gain back some of this perspective, the council plans to designate council members to serve as liaisons for a particular court. Those liaisons would rotate each year.
The council also plans to extend this strategy to the AOC, designating a liaison for each AOC division so they can get a better idea of our work and be better prepared to respond to questions they receive.
Q. What is the role and makeup of the AOC Regional Office and its 3 office locations?
A. Several months ago we condensed the 3 Regional Administrative Director positions that oversaw each location (BACNRO, NCRO, and SRO) into one Regional Administrative Director for what we now refer to as the AOC Regional Office. That strategy will continue with Chris Patton taking on that director position in addition to her role with the AOC Executive Office. We feel that this strategy is cost-efficient and manageable as we’ve found that some of the larger courts don’t need or use our regional office services as much as the smaller or mid-size courts.
Other than this change in leadership, the AOC Regional Office, with its 3 locations in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Burbank will continue. Each of these locations has a core regional office staff in addition to other staff from AOC divisions that provide direct expert services to the courts on a regional basis.
Q. What is the plan to address AOC staff morale?
A. Jody stressed that one of the best ways to address staff morale or anxiety is to communicate truthfully, honestly, and regularly. She said that she expects to continue holding regular meetings with AOC managers and supervisors and to get information shared at those meetings to staff as well. She also plans to supplement that with e-mail updates.
In addition, she expects that we’ll hold the AOC All-Staff Regional Meetings (that were postponed this month) later this year.
Jody and the council members added their desire to keep improving communications among and between the council, the AOC, and the courts. And that this time of reflection and transition provides us the opportunity to improve the AOC and the judicial branch in the long run.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
February 19, 2012
And the spending goes on and on – on crap we don’t want or need.
courtflea
February 19, 2012
1. Blow the place apart, fire every management/administrative/supervisory employee and offer them their jobs back (if appropriate) after a review of the organization by independent auditors/consultants. Fill the vacant positions with employees that want to serve the courts.
2. Democratize the JC
3. Ditch CCMS and cut our losses NOW. Use the money to supplement the trial courts budgets after budget cuts.
4. Give courts the control over their own budgets i.e. no mandatory designation of funds alloted to the courts by the AOC.
5. Ron O Bill V Jody Patel Curt Soderlund JC Justice Huffman kiss our collective arses (sorry folks for being insensitve) after all of these years of subjecting us to your arrogance, imeriousness, general disrespect and tyranny. May you forever be shamed and shunned for your actions.
Michael Paul
February 19, 2012
Assuming that # 1 and # 2 cancel each other out rather well, it appears courthouse construction and CCMS takes so much precedence over keeping the courthouse doors open that the latter isn’t even on the list.
courtflea
February 19, 2012
imperiousness was the word I was looking for 🙂
Judicial Council Watcher
February 21, 2012
The primary post in this thread has been expanded with additional information.
The Chief Justice, the AOC and the Judicial Council are acting as one team – Not as three separate entities.
JusticeCalifornia
February 21, 2012
Very, very interesting.
Blasts from the past for those who have been reading/posting for going on three years.
The flurry of AOC hiring, and continued focus on CCMS and new court construction in the face of budget cuts and massive layoffs.
The recycling and repackaging of Ron George hangovers, priorities and policies.
JCW, of course the CJ, the AOC and the Judicial Council are acting as one team– Team George.
The worst thing Team George can do for the branch is the very best thing Team George can do for court reformists — and that is continue steady on its failed course, which appears to have alienated pretty much everyone except those on the team.
Team George does not yet realize that there ain’t no going back to “the good old days” at this point.
Team George can’t believe it’s really over. Team George is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into a very different future.
And really– for Team George to pretend it doesn’t know what the SEC report is going to say is just silly. Team George always has lead time to make surface cosmetic alterations, so it can a) say it has already addressed the problem; and b) have their PR people engaged in full damage control months in advance.
Been there, done that. Same play from the same sorry failed playbook.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 21, 2012
Team George, indeed. We’ve said from the onset that the Strategic Evaluation Committee was rigged, starting with the name.
A strategic evaluation sums up what you want to be doing and defines what kind of resources that it might take to do it. You then and apply that evaluation to what you have to define better what you need.
Most members expect new courthouses and the AOC wants CCMS: a fair exchange for the.upcoming understaffed / underpaid strategic evaluation report.
Been There
February 22, 2012
Team George has already seen a preliminary SEC report and apparently did not like what it proposed. Result: exit Art Scotland and enter two more, um, agreeable judges. I am assuming Team George is substantially writing the revised SEC report.
Guest
February 22, 2012
We can all see the AOC “leaders'” priorities. Feather your own nests. Ron O gets a pay raise as interim and retires at a higher retirement. Jody gets appointed as interim with a pay raise and will retire at a higher amount. She promotes her buddy Curt as an interim (pushing aside Christine Patton who was already the interim) with a pay raise and will retire with a higher amount. All being done while the new Chief who is responsible for running the branch is signing off on these rats abandoning the sinking ship but in golden parachutes paid for by the trial courts.
anna
February 22, 2012
While some might consider it a golden parachute, others not so naive, would call it “hush money”. Or insurance, against the truth coming out. So, if there was an investigation, the incentive would be to “I don’t recollect, or skip the state”.
unionman575
February 22, 2012
Newsflash: All the folks at the top will have failing memories as teh ship sinks. You can bank on that.
Wendy Darling
February 22, 2012
There is actually a phrase for it within the AOC and the Office of General Counsel: convenient loss of memory + revisionist history = plausible deniability.
Long live the ACJ.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
February 22, 2012
Office of General Counsel Training Video 🙂 🙂
unionman575
February 22, 2012
Yes Wendy I have heard that often.
unionman575
February 22, 2012
It tis the season to spike one’s pension BEFORE walking the plank.
AOC Tracker
February 23, 2012
How does the AOC explain CCMS as a top priority when even theoretical early adopters, like San Diego, are moving forward with cheaper and more innovative paperless systems that can be implemented without regard to the AOC ten year + disaster (aka CCMS). See the following link for an example of what the San Diego District Attorney’s Office has implemented that is changing how business is done:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-SharePoint-Server-2010/San-Diego-County/San-Diego-County-Expects-Annual-ROI-from-E-Case-File-System-to-Exceed-100-Percent/320000000081
It seems that the San Diego “justice partners” are managing their own destiny in tough economic times without any regard for the AOC’s offer to assist. The criminal justice system is adversarial at its core. The inherent conflict within and between all of the agencies whether District Attorney, Public Defender, Sheriff, City Police, Probation and the Court are understood by everyone but the aristocracy leading the AOC most of whom have never set foot inside a real courtroom.
San Diego, a purported early adopter, never had buy in from the so-called “justice partners” relative to CCMS despite the AOC’s version of reality that early-adopter status was right around the next corner. The AOC is simply telling lies when promoting the vision that CCMS is the e-filing, paperless product that will save time and money. While the AOC was spinning tales of the plans they were making with the San Diego/Ventura/SLO justice partners, the justice partners were handling their own business, locally and within their county budgets.
The San Luis Obisbo District Attorney’s Office has recently published a Request for Proposal for a vendor to upgrade their IT system, with or without CCMS.
Readers, start to research what is really happening at the local level with law enforcement agencies and you will see that the AOC is a mysterious acronym with no relevance and CCMS is a mirage.
unionman575
February 23, 2012
San Diego is run by the AOC’s boy, Michael Roddy. What a champ there!
Attractive Dissenter
February 24, 2012
Between the Deloitte CCMS cluster and the low end San Diego IT department who can’t even figure out Microsoft much less CCMS the DA, et al doing their own thing. And Roddy is so clueless he actually takes credit for “modernizing”.
Attractive Dissenter
February 24, 2012
Between the San Diego IT department that can’t figure out Microsoft much less CCMS and Deloitte milking billions of dollars the San Diego DA et al figured it is easier to just do it themselves. All while Roddy takes credit for “modernizing” the Court. An award and promotion to the AOC should be the reward for good AOC performance.
unionman575
February 23, 2012
I predict one or more new Taj Majal’s for the AOC’s other boy out in San Bernardino, the old AOC Budget Director Steve Nash.
unionman575
February 23, 2012
Someone help us in the Trial Courts as we vast numbers are about to perish in mass ongoing layoffs in every court throughout CA.
The CCMS & the court construction boondoggles must stop now.
unionman575
February 23, 2012
Steinberg put on your thinking cap and let that bill move forward. Now!
unionman575
February 23, 2012
You know the best AOC work takes place in a 5 star hotel!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17054.htm
Trying to Keep It Real
March 13, 2012
Do you note on the RFP that the maximum room rate that is allowed is $140 per night? Do you realize that this rate has remained at $140 maximum (and that’s only for four CA counties, $110 everywhere else) for at least six years?! You try to find a hotel in SF for that amount. But don’t let the truth get in the way of your outrage.
Michael Paul
March 13, 2012
Procuring common goods and services by uncommon means will inevitably drive the price up.
“This is a new process for sourcing hotels and meeting locations………..”
unionman575
March 13, 2012
They can do their public buiness at a public building that we all pay for. So there you have it man!
unionman575
February 23, 2012
OMG get me a bucket…
Here’s another plan for MORE 5 star AOC accommodations!
Let’s all meet in the hotel bar to discuss AOC “business”.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17039.htm
Been There
February 24, 2012
I may have missed it in the attachments, but I did not see any reference as to whether or not responders to this RFP need to employ unionized (or more accurately, represented) workers. The AOC rules were, at least at one time, that only unionized hotels in SF could be contracted with for meetings/ events. This rule did not apply outside the City and County of SF. So, have the rules changed, or the fact that they are only reserving sleeping rooms change the equation?
unionman575
February 24, 2012
The AOC is non-union when it comes to hotel selection. All that matters is that they have first class accomodations.
Justice94111
February 24, 2012
I feel like I just watched the Powerball winner’s check acceptance press conference interview:
Ed McMahon: “So now that you won the $400m lottery, what are you going to do with the money?”
CJ: “Put in a HEATED in ground pool behind the trailer and repair the T-tops and get new rims for the Trans Am. Finally pick up that fancy ACER computer I had on lay away at K-Mart since 2002.”
CourtObserver
February 25, 2012
The wasting of money may be academic or political games to some people hearing about it but there have been layoffs of clerks and more are apparently coming. This not only punishes clerks who had no hand in all this, it will hurt the courts in the long run. Clerks have a lot of valuable experience that cannot be easily replaced. If anyone is going to do anything to stop this, now is the time to get started. Can’t the chief justice be removed in the November election?
Wendy Darling
February 25, 2012
The current Chief Justice won’t stand for “retention” in a California election until 12 YEARS after she took office, which will be in 2023. Yes, 2023. In order to remove the current chief justice from office before that time, she would have to be impeached. And FYI, being an abysmal administrator or engaging in really poor and incompetent management regarding the Chief Justice’s administrative duties for the judicial branch is not grounds for impeachment. Which essentially means that unless AB 1208 passes, we, as citizens and taxpayers, have another 11 years of the current Chief Justice dragging the California Judicial Branch through the proverbial sewer, and the trial courts being dragged along as well.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
February 25, 2012
Correction: the current Chief Justice won’t stand for “retention” in a California election until 2022. Note to self: avoid doing math in the morning until after having coffee.
Long live the ACJ.
CourtObserver
February 26, 2012
Some clerks and a research attorney tell me the chief justice is subject to voter approval at the next “gubernatorial election” and that would be in 2014, wouldn’t it? They said it’s in the Elections Code.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 26, 2012
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-general/08-18-sov-summary-pages.pdf#page=9
The chief justice was subject to voter approval in the last gubernatorial election, which gives us all 12 years of more of the same.
anna
February 26, 2012
no
anna
February 26, 2012
This was in answer to Court observer asking the question “can’t the CJ be removed in the next general election”.
AOC Tracker
February 25, 2012
On the upcoming Judicial Council agenda, CCMS is front and center. Expect to see Judicial Council authorization for even more CCMS expenditures and a push for additional deployments. Deloitte is the heir apparent deployment vendor. It’s time to take down names and keep score. Each judicial member of the Council who votes to keep CCMS alive and funded should lose their job. A recall campaign could end Tani’s judicial career. She could never handle the pressure.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 26, 2012
We launched a recalltani site last year. Maybe we should be working it a bit more. The “Thomas Paine” article hits home in a historical perspective manner.
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
March 19, 2012
Work it more JCW!
unionman575
March 19, 2012
As I sit back and ponder it all…
I left a lucrative career on Wall Street because I wanted to give back to the people of this great state. The people that paid for my world class education at a UC. The people that gave me an opportunity to succeed in life.
I eventually became Union Man after I saw court management trample the rights of hard working people in my court. Playing favorites has done nothing good for this branch, whether it’s in a Trial Court, an Appellate Court, or the Supreme Court.
I have come to realize that we the people that staff all the courts statewide are not valued by those at the Death Star for the professional services we provide day after day, year after year. I know the work I do is worthy of every public dollar expended. And, I know the work that each and every one of you do is worthy too.
Now we have massive new buildings built at astronomical prices per square foot, a computer system, CCMS, that is a huge boondoggle by any IT standard.
We have totally non-responsive judicial branch leadership in the JC and in the Death Star AOC bureaucracy staffed by the world’s worst executive management group (take note AOC Directors & up you all need to go out the door NOW).
The time has come to unite behind a recall Tani campaign. The time is now. The Chief Justice and her colleagues on the High Court and the entire Judicial Council will not implement change until they see that failure to change has a cost to THEM.
Let’s get this show on the road and recall Tani.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
And the AOC bat goes on…
You know I think we all need to stay in a hotel on the AOC’s dime, or is that Trial Court funding $ ?
I find that when I stay in a hotel on the public’s dime, my thought processes are enhanced. How about you?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17255.htm
Institute for New Court Professionals Room Block RFP ASU TD-010-SS
The Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Conference Services Unit seeks proposals from hotels for a room block, June 4 – 7, 2012 in San Francisco, California.
This is a new process for sourcing hotels and meeting locations and for this program we will be conducting a Pre Proposal Conference Call to answer any questions regarding this specific RFP and the new process. Please call into the number provided below in order to ask your questions in a public conference call. It is strongly recommended that you use this opportunity to ask for clarification on the process, as it is completely new.
Pre Proposal Conference Call: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 11:00am.
Please call these telephone numbers:
Local Number: 415-396-9613
Toll Free Number: 800-644-1484
Any questions not asked and answered during the Conference Call must be directed to solicitations@jud.ca.gov by end of business day, Pacific Time, Thursday, March 22, 2012.
Proposals must be received by END OF BUSINESS DAY, Pacific Time, Thursday, March 29, 2012.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP No. ASU TD-010-SS
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in Request for Proposals (RFP) No. ASU TD-010-SS.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
Time for some new hardware up there at the old Death Star. What the heck money grows on trees! Get me a bucket…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17290.htm
Dell Hardware/Equipment per Specifications for IFB-ISD-031912-AA
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is seeking firms to provide bids for certain Dell hardware and equipment as detailed in the invitation to Bid # IFB-ISD-031912-AA, Equipment will be inside delivery/shipped to four of our office locations in San Francisco, Burbank and Sacramento, California.
NOTE: Questions regarding this IFB should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by Thursday, March 20, 2012, at close of business (PST).
Proposals must be received by Thursday, March 22, 2012 no later than 12:00pm
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, IFB-ISD-031912-AA
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further specific details regarding the solicitation and equipment requirements are set forth in IFB-ISD-031912-AA and related documents provided, below:
Invitation to Bid
unionman575
March 19, 2012
And the AOC construction boom continues as we starve to death in every trial court in the state…What the heck, time for one more brand new shiny Taj Majal folks! Who will staff these buildings? Not us. We will all be laid off before that son of a bitch is built!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17249.htm
Request for Qualifications and Proposals for Preconstruction Services and Construction Management at Risk Services with a Guaranteed Maximum Price for Design and Construction of the New Red Bluff Courthouse
RFQ/P No.: OCCM-2012-02-BR
The AOC seeks to retain the services of a qualified Construction Manager (CM) with expertise in all phases of preconstruction and construction of public buildings as described herein, for the Project as described in article 3, Project Description & Site Information of the RFQ/P attached below. Subject to the conditions prescribed by the AOC and provided herein, the AOC is hereby soliciting Qualifications and Proposals for furnishing Preconstruction Services and Construction Management at Risk Services with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMAX) for the Project, as described in this RFQ/P. The selected CMR will apply their expertise to all aspects of the Project in collaboration with other project participants to produce a court facility that provides notable value to the state judicial system. Selection will be made on the basis of a combination of qualifications and price. The AOC intends to award the CM at Risk contract and issue a Notice to Proceed in a timely manner following the selection process.
Written proposals must be received no later than 1 P.M. on Tuesday, April 10, 2012.
Requests for clarifications or modifications must be submitted to OCCM_Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 5 P.M. on Tuesday, March 27, 2012.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden – OCCM-2012-02-BR
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in RFQ/P No. OCCM-2012-02-BR