As an aside from the below e-mail received from the alliance, we wish to point out that it is essential that everyone, not just judges, contact their legislators. We also encourage everyone to submit op-ed pieces and letters to the editor to educate the electorate about many of these serious issues. Speaking with one voice only results in the continued expansion of the AOC at the cost of trial courts. Don’t be assimilated by the collective.
January 10, 2011
Dear Members and Others:
We attach for your consideration an excellent column in today’s edition of the Courthouse News Service, penned by San Diego Superior Court Judge Tony Maino, a founding member of the Alliance of California Judges. Judge Maino takes aim at the mantra repeated by our branch leaders that we should all “speak with one voice”…that it, their voice.
As you know, the Alliance was formed when our branch leaders persuaded the Legislature and Governor to close all courts one day a month. This was done without a single dissenting vote from the Judicial Council. Since then we have all witnessed the disastrous consequences of this “one voice” creed: CCMS, outrageously expensive courthouse construction costs, wasteful maintenance contracts, phony AOC hiring “freezes” and pension spikes for the highest paid bureaucrats at headquarters, just to name a few.
We encourage all Alliance members to emulate what Judge Maino has courageously done: Write opinion pieces and submit them to your local newspapers and the legal press. It is important for the public to know that not all judges support the spending decisions and priorities of those who control the funds.
Finally, we want to remind you to contact your local Assembly member and urge support for AB 1208. The bill must pass the Assembly by January 31st, so time is of the essence.
Thank you for your support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_________________________________
Speak With One Voice
Our Chief Justice and now Justice Baxter have remarked that we must speak with one voice if we wish to preserve the judicial branch.
The obvious problem with “Speak With One Voice” ( SWOV), when an organization takes that position, is that there are different opinions among the members of the organization. In order to SWOV it means, by necessity, the suppression of dissident voices.
SWOV is not possible at this time for the judicial branch because it pretends there is “one voice” when everyone knows that there are “numerous voices”.
Let us look at some possibilities:
1) SWOV works when there is total agreement on one legitimate opinion. An example would be the opinion that judges should not take bribes.
2) What does one do when there are several legitimate opinions but all of the leaders of the organization only embrace one legitimate opinion?
This is an example of how the Judicial Council works. Because almost all members of the Judicial Council agree on an opinion they believe, as in 1., that this opinion is the only legitimate opinion.
As a result of this thinking, the Judicial Council finds it very difficult to acknowledge other views respectfully. SWOV is more important to them than admitting that other people may have a different but legitimate opinion.
Allowing opinion diversity is very hard for every organization.
In the typical business or military group there can be a diversity of opinion but when the boss or military leader makes a decision it is expected that everyone will fall into line. SWOV works for business and military groups.
SWOV, however, does not work for judges because we are not part of a business or a military organization.
We are loyal to the laws of the United States and to the laws of California and to the public. Our oath of office is not to an individual or to a judicial organization. The failure to understand this basic concept has caused much mischief.
I agree that internal disagreements within the judicial branch can undermine public confidence. Pretending, however, to SWOV when there is really a diversity of opinion also undermines public confidence in the judicial branch. The public knows we are not telling the truth.
Shall we pretend to the Legislature and to the public that we have had a robust debate about budget priorities when we have not had such a debate?
Shall we pretend to the Legislature and to the public that we have reached a consensus on budget priorities when we have not reached such a consensus?
I agree that inconsistent and dissenting voices within the judiciary should be avoided if this can be done without sacrifice of principle.
But the Legislature and the public can handle the truth.
They can handle the truth that different opinions as to budget priorities illustrate that the choices we face are difficult, uncertain, and imperfect. SWOV, when there is legitimate dissent, treats Governor Brown, the Legislature and the public as if they were unsophisticated schoolchildren.
We judges can best represent the public by being honest with them by admitting that we have different opinions as to how to handle our present and future economic difficulties. We do not best represent the public by pretending to speak with one voice when, in fact, there are numerous voices.
The letter above represents the opinion of Judge Maino only and should not be taken as the official position of San Diego Superior Court.
Wendy Darling
January 11, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, January 11, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Stuck
By BILL GIRDNER
This fall’s courtship dance between California’s court leaders and a billionaire drug magnate was all about the money, the many millions needed to pay for an IT boondoggle.
The dance failed and, now in winter, the leaders are looking for another way to pay the fees demanded by Deloitte Consulting to work on the system. They certainly won’t find it in the governor’s new budget.
The judiciary budget announced last week by Governor Brown has one and only one item that is not filled in with a dollar number. The box next to the IT project says “TBD,” which stands for “To Be Determined.”
That means that either the leaders are not telling where the money will come from, or they don’t know.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/11/42961.htm
Long live Courthouse News Service and Bill Girdner. And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
January 12, 2012
I don’t know if anyone already posted this:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-701.pdf
The entire recommendation is interesting, but here is an excerpt:
“Recommendations
To address the funding uncertainty facing the California Court Case Management System
(CCMS), the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) should work with the Judicial Council
of California (Judicial Council), the Legislature, and the governor to develop an overall
strategy that is realistic given the current fiscal crisis facing the State.
To ensure that financial implications of the statewide case management project are fully
understood, the AOC should report to the Judicial Council, the Legislature, and stakeholders
a complete accounting of the costs for the interim systems and CCMS. This figure should
be clear about the uncertainty surrounding some costs, such as those that the AOC and
superior courts will incur for deployment of CCMS. Also, the AOC should require superior
courts to identify their past and future costs related to the project, particularly the likely
significant costs that superior courts will incur during CCMS deployment, and include these
costs in the total cost. Further, the AOC should be clear about the nature of the costs that
other entities, such as justice partners, will incur that are not included in its total. Finally, the
AOC should update its cost estimate for CCMS on a regular basis as well as when significant
assumptions change.
To better manage costs of future information technology projects, the AOC should, among
other things, disclose full and accurate cost estimates to the Judicial Council, the Legislature,
and stakeholders from the beginning of projects.”
Now what is going to be VERY interesting is whether the CJ/JC/AOC will provide a “complete accounting” and what they state in writing to the Governor and Legislature about how much this project has cost and will cost. They have been admonished to be truthful and accurate, and in light of that pointed admonishment, their statements during these budget discussions should be carefully memorialized and scrutinized.
JusticeCalifornia
January 12, 2012
Don’t know why the formatting went haywire from cutting and pasting!
antonatrail
January 12, 2012
1. You know the CJ and the AOC’s JC will not be compliant or truthful. I don’t think the AOC is capable of distinguishing the truth at this point. As for the CJ, she thinks there are variations of the truth. Wow!
2. Where the hell have you been JusticeCalifornia? Missed you!
Wendy Darling
January 12, 2012
“Now what is going to be VERY interesting is whether the CJ/JC/AOC will provide a “complete accounting” and what they state in writing to the Governor and Legislature about how much this project has cost and will cost.” Well, of course they won’t. Why would they suddenly start being “truthful and accurate” now? No one but a fool or an idiot would believe that they’re even capable of doing any such thing at this point.
And as for “being admonished to be truthful and accurate,” that will likely result in another “admonishment” back to the state legislature, and the public, that being told, or even expected, to do so, is impermissible interference with their “separation of powers” and teflon status of a “co-equal branch of government.” Of course, it goes without saying that taking that position doesn’t also include “co-equal accountability,” “co-equal transparency,” or “co-equal honesty.”
Of course not.
unionman575
January 11, 2012
I hope every jurist that doesn’t see eye to eye with the JC and its misguided priorities steps up to the plate now.
For those that already have, I wish to thank you.