There goes our promised ten years of funding!
On September 9th, the Jacobs cadre of companies rushed their custom crafted legislation into court arguing that they should not be held accountable for being unlicensed and should not be required to pay the people of the State of California back.
For twenty one days it appeared that this position was uncontested by the judicial council. Our primary financier extended the judicialcouncilwatcher.com name for an additional four years and notified us that it appears checks were on the way to support base operations for another ten years because the position was uncontested and it looked like the judicial council was intent on throwing in the towel. And then last Friday, the council finally did respond and it was posted to the courts website this morning.
In our own analysis of the law, it appeared that the new laws four prongs could not all be met by the Jacobs cadre because corporations are people too and one companies license should have no effect on another companies lack of license. And so, we endorsed the new and final changes that were passed by the legislature and signed by the Gov. It appeared that Jacobs was arguing indirectly that corporations should not be considered as individuals – but as one big happy family that met the new threshold.
Certainly, leading up to the new law, the legislature considered and rejected modifying other prongs of the law that might have permitted the Jacobs cadre to wiggle free of responsibility which would have created a huge mess for those already convicted of operating without a license ala the retroactive provisions of the new law. These changes are what the Jacobs cadre sought – to gut contractors licensing laws retroactively for their own benefit.
In their response, the judicial council focused on just the one company that held the contract and never renewed their license – Jacobs Facilities. They (rightfully) argued that Jacobs Facilities never made any attempt to renew their license. And in doing so, should the judge buy their argument, the council will prevail and we lose the promised funding (which is fine by us – we’d like to wind down when it looks like the council is on a proper course)
Hopefully this case will be wrapped up by next month so stay tuned.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Michael Paul
October 3, 2016
Standard contract language on the back of every state contract:
This Agreement is not assignable by the Contractor, either in whole or in part, without the consent of the State in the form of a formal written amendment.
That includes affiliates, parent, sister and child companies.
Dennis Leung
October 3, 2016
I can confirm that Michael Paul observation on the back of the AOC Facilities Agreement is correct! Every contract that requires HVAC systems recommissioning of the courthouse facilities by Team Jacobs included clause.
Michael Paul
October 4, 2016
Didn’t you know? Team Jacobs doesn’t exist Dennis and if they did, this case would have been wrapped up years ago in the AOC’s favor.
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 6, 2016
Hey kids! Back for a couple of days to resupply before Winter sets in. Seems like someone at Team Jacobs forgot how to properly grease the skids to continue working for those within the Crystal Palace.
On another note, check out the website: transparentcalifornia.com
There’s something fishy when Christine Patton’s retirement payments reportedly exceed those reported for Mr. Vickrey???? At least Tonto is drawing from both the AOC and CoCoCo. Make sure you check out the salaries and benefits for all those still working at the Crystal Palace….lots of cash and prizes still being handed out.
Can anyone explain how Mr. Hoo-shino made $142K plus in “overtime” when he is an exempt “executive” classification that is not entitled to overtime???? $399,991.06???? I’m sure he’s worth every penny. Nice to see so many at the AOC, er um JC that make more than the very judges that they are there to “support”.
Wendy Darling
October 6, 2016
“There’s something fishy when Christine Patton’s retirement payments reportedly exceed those reported for Mr. Vickrey????”
2 word answer: Confidential settlement.
Always good to hear from you General.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 6, 2016
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2015/state-of-california/martin-n-hoshino/
unionman575
October 6, 2016
Click to access JCspec-3011.pdf
unionman575
October 6, 2016
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcc-salaries.htm
Nathaniel Woodhull
October 7, 2016
Thanks unionman! Good to see that we are paying Clark J. Kelso $19,992 per month ($239,904 per year) as the Federal Court Consultant. This on top of Kelso’s pay as a “professor” at McGeorge and whatever other State add-ons he gets.
There is a Retired Annuitant position being paid $21,000 per month and Special Consultant (Executive) paid $21,100 per month. Vickrey is obviously one of the latter.
Maxrebo5
October 7, 2016
That would be amazing if true. Is there any way to find out who the Special Consultant (Executive) is? Or who the Retired Annuitant is?
unionman575
October 6, 2016
Click to access JCspec-3070-3071.pdf
unionman575
October 6, 2016
https://www.glassdoor.com/job-listing/chief-administrative-officer-sacramento-and-san-francisco-judicial-branch-of-california-JV_IC1147229_KO0,57_KE58,87.htm?jl=1953681009
Pay and Benefits
SALARY RANGE: $14,834 – $16,514 per month
Job Description
Overview
The Judicial Council of California is seeking a dynamic chief administrative officer to join its executive leadership team in serving the largest judicial system in the United States.
THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH
The California judicial branch comprises 58 trial courts (one in each county), six intermediate appellate courts in nine locations, and the Supreme Court, with more than 2,100 judicial officers and approximately 17,000 employees. The judicial branch has an annual budget of $3.7 billion dollars, including capital improvement projects. Trial courts range in size from two judges to more than 450 judicial officers.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
By an amendment to Article VI of the State Constitution in 1926, the citizens of California established the Judicial Council. The Council is responsible for improving statewide administration of the California courts.
The Judicial Council of California is the policy setting body for the state court system and has constitutionally conferred statewide rule-making authority. This authority includes developing, advocating for, and allocating the judicial branch budget. A majority of Council members are California state justices and judges; however, the Council also includes lawyers, legislators, and court administrators.
The Judicial Council collaborates with the courts and justice system partners in shaping branch-wide policy in order to create innovative programs essential to advancing the administration of justice, and to provide direct services to the appellate and trial courts.
The Council functions with the assistance of multiple advisory committees, task forces, and its staff arm. The staff, comprised of more than 700 fulltime employees, is organized into three divisions with 19 offices across three locations in California: San Francisco, Sacramento and Burbank. To learn more about these divisions and offices, please visit: http://www.courts.ca.gov/12926.htm
By enhancing its role as a leadership, knowledge and service resource for the judicial branch, the Judicial Council’s staff organization seeks to continue to evolve as one of California’s most dynamic public service entities, focused on improving access to justice for all Californians by innovating and responding to the changing needs of the courts and the public.
.
Responsibilities
Reporting to the Administrative Director and the Chief of Staff, the Chief Administrative Officer serves as a member of the executive leadership of the Council’s staff organization. The Administrative Director, Chief of Staff, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief Operating Officer are accountable for providing the highest level of programmatic, operational, and service support to benefit the Council, the courts, and the state of California. They implement Council-prioritized short-and long-term strategies for the judicial branch by leading the Council’s staff in accomplishing its goals and priorities.
This executive position is involved in critical decision making related to the overall administration and operations of the Council’s staff, and its programs and services. Key responsibilities of the Chief Administrative Officer include:
• Works closely with the Administrative Director, Chief of Staff, and Chief Operating Officer to ensure coordination and accountability on issues related to the Judicial Council and the judicial branch;
• Assists the Administrative Director on the development and implementation of strategic goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and work standards that support Judicial Council policies and priorities;
• Assists the Administrative Director and the Council in activities related to judicial branch fiscal resources development, allocation, and advocacy;
• Directs aspects of budget, programmatic, and service operations within the organization;
• Oversees a portfolio of statewide programs and projects that provide support to the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and trial courts to meet the diverse, current, and future needs of the state court system and its constituents;
• At the direction of the Administrative Director, builds consensus and problem solves on issues of mutual concern with leadership of the courts; other departments of state and local government; state, local and specialty bars; labor unions; other state court systems; and other justice system partners and stakeholders;
• Interacts with the five chairs of the Judicial Council’s Internal Committees (Executive and Planning, Litigation Management, Policy Coordination and Liaison, Rules and Projects, and Technology) on a continual basis providing information and advice in a consultative manner;
• Oversees the Human Resources and Labor Relations programs providing assistance to the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Superior Courts and the Judicial Council;
• Works with the trial courts via the Trial Court Administrative Services office in providing financial/payroll-benefits services to the Superior Courts;
• Assists the chair of the Technology Committee in the administration of the judicial branch’s technology programs in collaboration with the courts; and
• Oversees the maintenance and repair of all the courthouses/facilities (543) working with the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee in a multi-million dollar program.
.
Qualifications
THE IDEAL CANDIDATE
The ideal candidate will be a “hands on,” innovative, results-oriented executive, who is comfortable operating in a dynamic environment and committed to achieving progress on an array of complex topics impacting the California judiciary.
The position requires someone who is politically astute with strong interpersonal and communication skills, demonstrating a comfort level in interacting with members of the judiciary and diverse stakeholders. This position should have a broad background concerning administrative functions including, but not limited to budgeting, accounting, audits, business services, human resources, labor relations, technology, facilities management, and capital construction.
The ideal candidate should have a strong track record of success and leadership in:
• Financial operations, including large-scale fiscal management and budgetary control;
• Dynamic service-delivery, improvements, and efficiency;
• Performance management;
• Strategic planning and the ability to assess continuing changes to budget and staff, and capitalize on innovations to promote ongoing assessment and improvement of the administrative operations of the judicial branch.
In addition, the ideal candidate should have the ability to:
• Collaborate with the Judicial Council, judges, and staff leadership to achieve the Council’s mission, within budget limitations;
• Manage employees through multiple levels of supervision;
• Develop effective work teams and motivate individuals to meet goals and objectives and provide services in the most effective and efficient manner;
• Balance oversight of multiple and diverse programs; and
• Establish, develop, and maintain good working relationships with other public governmental organizations, federal and state legislatures, private organizations, community groups, and the communication media.
QUALIFYING EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
The ideal experience for this position would include a minimum of eight years of increasingly responsible experience in a relevant field, including a minimum of five years of increasingly responsible management experience in state administration or as a generalist in the public sector. Generalist candidates will also need to demonstrate a keen understanding of the California judicial system and court operations and procedures in order to be competitive. Knowledge of and experience with state budgetary and legislative processes is desirable.
OR
Three years as an executive with the judicial branch or other California government entity.
Education: A bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university is required.
Review and Evaluation of Qualifications: The Judicial Council will give serious consideration to all qualified candidates that apply who have a proven track record of success. The review and evaluation of qualifications will be at the discretion of the Administrative Director, based on the most appropriate combination of experience and education that fits the needs of the California judiciary.
The selected individual must be able to travel between Sacramento and San Francisco on an ongoing, regular basis.
.
Other Information
• If you are selected for hire, the Judicial Council will require verification of employment eligibility or authorization to legally work in the United States.
HR Disclaimer: Classification and Compensation Study
In an attempt to remain an employer of choice, we consistently review our practices, policies, and procedures to ensure we are current and comparable with other similar employers. To that effort, the Judicial Council recently completed a top to bottom classification and compensation study through a third party vendor, Fox Lawson and Associates.
A classification and compensation study is primarily designed to focus on the internal and external equity of both the structure by which employees are compensated and the way positions relate and compare to one another across the organization. The study has resulted in some changes to employee’s job titles, duties, FLSA status and salary. These changes will be implemented on January 1, 2016.
Based on the results of the classification and compensation study, this position has been allocated to the new Chief Officer Zone 1 classification, with a salary range of $12,328.00 – $18,492.00. To ensure all candidates are able to make a well-informed decision about employment with the Judicial Council, we are informing all potential new hires of this study during the recruitment phase so that if you are selected as the successful candidate, you are fully aware of the changes to this position, effective January 1, 2016.
Therefore, the successful candidate hired for this recruitment would be reclassified on January 1, 2016 to the Chief Officer Zone 1 classification.
.
How To Apply
This is a confidential recruitment and will be handled accordingly throughout the various stages of the process. Candidates should be aware that references will not be contacted until mutual interest has been established. Candidates are encouraged to apply immediately, with the first review of resumes to begin following the closing date of November 21, 2015. This recruitment is considered open until filled. Electronic submittals are strongly preferred and should be submitted to felizia.nava-kardon@jud.ca.gov at the Judicial Council Human Resources office. Submissions should include a compelling cover letter, comprehensive resume, salary history and professional references.
.
Pay and Benefits
SALARY RANGE: $14,834 – $16,514 per month
Some highlights of our benefits package include:
• Health/Dental/Vision benefits program
• 13 paid holidays per calendar year
• Choice of Annual Leave or Sick/Vacation Leave
• 1 personal holiday per year
• $130 transit pass subsidy per month
• CalPERS Retirement Plan
• 401(K) and 457 deferred compensation plans
• Employee Assistance Program
• Basic Life and AD&D Insurance
• FlexElect Program
• Long Term Care Program (employee paid/optional)
• Group Legal Plan (employee paid/optional)
.
Equal Employment Opportunity
The Judicial Council of California is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Company Info
Website http://www.courts.ca.gov
Headquarters San Francisco, CA
Size 10000+ employees
Founded 1926
Type Government
Industry Government
Revenue Unknown / Non-Applicable
Competitors Unknown
The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent … Read more
anonymous
October 6, 2016
This is just the beginning. All of that new budget money is going to hire 60 new employees by the end of the year at AOC headquarters in San Francisco.
Mycotic
October 10, 2016
You guys should get a kick out of this one! Huffman rendered a PUBLISHED opinion on Sept 22, 2016, in which there were “inflammatory allegations of criminal conduct”.
Seems the attorney being accused of criminal conduct by Huffman entered into “at least five lawsuits” on behalf of a “suspended corporation”.
Ya know, Huffman, who was Chair of the Executive & Planning Committee for the Judicial Council when those building and maintenance contracts with unlicensed contractors were being awarded — and Michael Paul got retaliated against for exposing the fraud, waste, and abuse occurring from lack of effective oversight.
http://inewsource.org/2016/10/10/cory-briggs-court-conduct-paul-pfingst/?utm_source=Master+List&utm_campaign=db15a008cf-Briggs_Heat_nIn_10_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c99e73181c-db15a008cf-134722357&utm_expid=64692203-5.SB8Zv__WTKexu4BFPAmvcw.0
Michael Paul
October 10, 2016
….two statewide contracts with unlicensed contractors is criminal too. But of course everyone got a free pass except the person that pointed it out.
Mycotic
October 10, 2016
Yep, Michael, and now there is case-law (courtesy of Huffman) that those who retaliated against you for blowing the whistle (Huffman et.al.) should not be held responsible for all the money that they cost the tax-payer by entering into contracts with unlicensed contractors.
To quote from the above link:
The appellate court reversed a lower court’s decision to award Briggs more than $258,000 in attorney fees on the matter. Publication of the opinion means it can be cited as legal precedent.
Paul Dostart, an attorney fluent in nonprofit, corporate organization and tax dispute law,told inewsource it was extremely rare for published opinions to suggest that an attorney has engaged in unethical or unlawful conduct. That three appellate court justices did so unanimously, he said, was “extraordinary.”
According to the court’s [Huffman’s] opinion, Briggs Law Corp. entered into at least five lawsuits on behalf of its client knowing it was suspended, and later offered “no explanation for its improper conduct” to the court.
Instead, Briggs “blames the City for failing to discover earlier that SDOG was a suspended corporation.”
http://search.aol.com/aol/video?q=church+lady+video+how+convenient&s_it=video-ans&sfVid=true&videoId=6835B51E31D16CFC10716835B51E31D16CFC1071&v_t=keyword_rollover
Mycotic
October 16, 2016
This is what happens when judges collusively case-fix and then jail people who refuse silence of what they have done.
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/16/contra-costa-judge-jails-judicial-reform-advocate-who-discussed-divorce-online/
Eastbay Times “California judge jails man for discussing divorce online”
The judge, Bruce C. Mills, insisted in his decision that “matters that are put into court pleadings and brought up in oral argument before the court do not become public thereby” — a position that lawyers say fundamentally misunderstands the nature of court records.
Sweeney is a judicial reform advocate who in March testified to state lawmakers, arguing for an audit of the body that disciplines judges, the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). The state Legislature voted to audit the CJP in August, two days before Mills jailed Sweeney.
Sharon Kramer
Judicial Council Watcher
October 18, 2016
Update: The Judge has accepted, in part the Jacobs argument about applicability of the law that is supposed to go into effect next year and is retroactive.
It must be nice to be able to afford your own law.
He appears to also have accepted the AOC’s position that even with the new provisions, Jacobs may still be in violation of those new provisions and has requested briefs from both parties on this subject.
As you might have noticed above, there were enough changes in the new law to still condemn the unlicensed contractor so we indicated that we were fine with the final amendments that passed and became law. Now it’s up to the AOC’s lawyers to bring it home.
Mycotic
October 21, 2016
What court is this happening in? Huffman is establishing case law from down here in San Diego which appears to be:
“I don’t think the Supreme Court wants a bright-line rule saying under all circumstances, no matter what, an attorney can not represent a suspended corporation,” Pfingst said.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-briggs-ruling-20161020-story.html