May 15, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
Alliance Director Judge David Lampe has penned a compelling and articulate editorial that ran in the Courthouse News late yesterday. We strongly encourage you to send this along to all of your fellow judges.
We also want to alert you that Alliance Director Steve White will address the Judicial Council at its emergency meeting this Thursday in Sacramento. Judge White will make the case for implementing deeper cuts to the AOC before further cutting the local courts.
You can listen live to the meeting starting at 11:00 a.m. by clicking on this link. We know that most of you are engaged in real courtroom work so you should know that by clicking on the link’s transcript you can read a rough draft of the council’s meeting.
Again, we appreciate your support and will continue to keep you informed on these important issues.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________________________
Legislative Action on Courts Now Needed
By DAVID R. LAMPE
The May Revise of the Governor’s budget has now been released. The California judicial system now faces overwhelming cuts that are shocking to many.
In addition to a permanent $350 million reduction originally proposed in January (part of an ongoing $653 million reduction since 2008), the new proposal provides for an additional reduction of $540 million, mitigated by a transfer of $290 million of construction funds.
Thus, the May revision calls for a net $250 million further reduction to the trial courts. In the face of this fiscal nightmare, all must recognize that the courts cannot continue to operate under the system of wasteful “imperial” centralized governance that has been the norm over the last 15 years. In that time, the judiciary has lost sight of its core mission — the adjudication of disputes, which is a local function. The time has come to reduce the Administrative Office of the Courts to its minimum core statutory functions and to send the resulting savings to the trial courts. It is time for “constructive decentralization.”
A little over two years ago, Chief Justice Ron George retired, proclaiming that he could “leave in good conscience” because of the financial health and stability of the judiciary. California Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos said Monday that the fundamental reorganization of the court structure carried out under former chief justice Ron George had exacerbated the financial difficulty for the courts.
The Alliance of California Judges, formed on September 11, 2009, has repeatedly warned — in letters to the current Chief, in editorials, in countless member communications, and in written and oral presentations to the Judicial Council — that the state’s finances were such that draconian cuts to our branch were not just a possibility, but were inevitable. Our unhappy predictions apparently fell on deaf ears.
Governor Jerry Brown campaigned on a promise to cut unnecessary programs, including within the judiciary. The Alliance took him at his word, and continued to press for an end to wasteful spending and for programmatic changes that would allow the core functions of the judiciary to be preserved when the cuts came. Business as usual would lead us to ruin.
The Alliance implored the Judicial Council to stop spending money on the Court Case Management System. Instead, even as trial courts were closing, the Council voted repeatedly, with only one or two dissenting votes, to continue pouring hundreds of millions into that now failed IT project. That money came primarily from trial court funds. Over the life of the project, over half a billion was wasted by judicial “leaders,” with nothing to show for it but another wasted $8 million recently authorized by the Council in an attempt to salvage anything of value from the ashes of the project.
Not only the Alliance saw this coming — the state auditor excoriated the project in February of 2011. Documentation supporting key decisions on scope and direction was absent. The AOC failed to structure the development vendor’s contract to control costs and repeatedly failed to provide the legislature — not to mention the state’s judges — with accurate cost estimates. In 2004, the project was estimated at $260 million. By 2010, the projected cost had risen to $1.9 billion.
In July of 2011 the Alliance appeared before the Council to ask that the latest round of cuts to the courts be fully mitigated by drastic reductions in the AOC budget. The council had available to it $81 million in allocation authority granted by the Legislature. Again, but for one lone vote, the Alliance proposal was voted down, while money continued to pour into CCMS. This occurred in the same month that the San Francisco Superior Court was forced to lay off a portion of its staff.
The Alliance asked that construction projects be reasonable, not two to three times the national average. We asked that money set aside for construction and major renovations not be spent on small projects disguised as large ones — routine maintenance and light bulb changes bundled and falsely portrayed as renovations.
We asked that the AOC be downsized. As of today, the report of a strategic evaluation committee, promised months ago, is still not completed and the head of the committee has stepped down. Rather than face the reality that no money would be forthcoming from the legislature, and making necessary cuts to our bloated statewide bureaucracy, our leaders organized street protests calling for a restoration of money. Round after round of resignations occurred at the AOC, but the programs continued in force.
The Los Angeles Superior Court has announced the termination of 350 additional employees, and the closure of 56 courtrooms. This level of reduction and much more will soon become commonplace for every court.
The Alliance didn’t simply complain, but came to the table with solutions. One was AB1208, a modest rewriting of the budget statutes to protect trial court operating funds while preserving the ability of the Council and AOC to ensure uniform statewide rules and policies and to undertake statewide projects with the consent of the Legislature or the courts. Rather than embrace AB 1208, our leaders wasted political capital fighting the bill and they insulted members of the Assembly after it was passed by that body, accusing the Assembly Speaker of acting in bad faith and accusing the bill’s proponents in that body of using lies about the AOC to obtain passage. These things were not said in private, in a moment of anger, but in a video posted on YouTube, prompting numerous headlines such as, “Chief Calls Out Legislature,” and “Chief Justice Slams Assembly Over Court Bill.”
AB 1208 would have prevented much of the waste that we have seen over the years, had it been law. How would the law have changed the outcome? By way of example, the Los Angeles Superior Court, the largest court in the world, receives approximately 28% of state operation funding.
This means that Los Angeles, a court that was never in favor of CCMS, would have as much as $140 million in additional reserves, enough to avoid a huge portion of its devastating service cuts. Before allowing their budgeted money to be spent on a project like CCMS, courts will be able to ask, “How much is this going to cost?” Courts were never given the option of opting out of the project. Under AB 1208, they could have.
The bill, having passed the Assembly, now awaits action by the Senate. The legislature needs to pass the bill.
What else can be done? We believe that the Legislature needs to conduct a full investigation into whether over $500 million of the public’s money spent on CCMS was properly appropriated and whether all or part of that money is recoverable under the law. Current law requires that before trial court operating funds are spent on statewide IT projects, the consent of the participating courts must be obtained, a point we likewise made in writing on more than one occasion to the Council and AOC. Let’s see if it was. On the eve of what will be more devastating cuts — cuts so severe that our leaders have already proclaimed that we are in a “constitutional crisis” and that any additional cuts will leave us with a “shell of a judicial system” — we note that the Judicial Council met on May 7 in a hastily-called emergency meeting. Judges and the public were not allowed to attend.
According to an advisory member of the Council who was quoted in the press immediately after the meeting, no plan exists and no decisions have been made to deal with the upcoming cuts.
Well, the Alliance has a plan, based upon the realization that someone must save our courts, and it must be the state’s judges. We understand there is no money forthcoming from the Legislature. We also understand that the AOC still maintains and operates a full-fledged “faux-news” studio, complete with cameras to film the puff pieces it regularly disseminates to judges and others.
We note that the AOC has over 100 attorneys on staff, at least some of whom are allowed to telecommute to work — one, we have learned, from Switzerland. We note that the AOC, which rarely if ever sends lawyers to court, prefers to contract for outside counsel. We note that the AOC still employs a well paid “scholar in residence” (who resides in Virginia) and, since 2006, a “Judge in Residence.” We note that the education division is still running at full strength with over 100 employees, and that 21 council members are flown into San Francisco for council meetings, and their room and board is an additional expense. We understand that the AOC still pays the National Center for State Courts an annual fee — well over $800,000 so far this year. As of last week, the 30 highest paid AOC executives were still contributing nothing toward their retirement.
AB 1208 must become law. The recovery of CCMS expenditures must be investigated. The Legislature must make a direct allocation of available funds to the trial and appellate courts so that the AOC is reduced only to functions mandated by law and to services which trial courts are willing to purchase from their own budgets.
There is a place for the basic functions of the AOC, but the Legislature must directly cut the AOC’s budget allocation very substantially and redirect the money to the courts themselves. The AOC legal department, education department, public relations and government affairs department, IT department, as well as its executive program, need to be substantially eliminated.
Regional offices need to be closed. Since construction funds have been swept, the AOC construction division needs to be eliminated accordingly.
If action is not taken soon, more and more courts will go under as the bureaucracy digs in to protect itself. The Judicial Council has failed to place the needs of the trial courts above those of the centralized bureaucracy. There is no more time for committee reports and rallies, for studies and vague promises from appointed leaders who have proven themselves unequal to the task. The time to act is now.
(David R. Lampe is a Judge of the Kern County Superior Court and a Founding Director of the Alliance of California Judges)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Reminder from JCW (& Unionman)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MEETING
Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.6(a))
Administrative Office of the Courts, Northern Central Regional Office
(Building with “University of Phoenix” Signage)
Fourth Floor, Veranda Rooms A, B, & C
2860 Gateway Oaks Drive • Sacramento, California 95833
Thursday, May 17, 2012 • 11:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m.
When you’re attending this Judicial Council meeting in this space, look around. This space was remodeled four times in three years. The reason for holding the meeting here instead of the star chamber is to create the appearance that the council can be frugal. It’s a frigging photo op. Oh, the irony….
Wendy Darling
May 16, 2012
Long live the ACJ.
And good luck and godspeed to Judge Lampe tomorrow, May the force be with you,
Wendy Darling
May 16, 2012
And may the force be with Unionman tomorrow, as well.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 16, 2012
Thanks Wendy. I am airborne at 6:00 a.m. to SAC.
Wendy Darling
May 16, 2012
Many, many, many of us go with you in spirit, Unionman. It should be an interesting JC meeting. Safe travels.
Long live the ACJ.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
May 16, 2012
Hear, hear!
JusticeCalifornia
May 16, 2012
CHECK THIS OUT. Cantil-Sakauye is trying to slip in a request for 3 advisory positions on the jc– on the down low, without advance explanation/announcement or discussion–for tomorrow’s jc meeting.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120517-itemA.pdf
This report was issued the day before the meeting, with no opportunity for comment or real consideration. This issue was not mentioned in the original “budget” meeting announcement.
That is not an accident.
I would love to sakauye wants to be able to make 3 appointments of the ACJ kind, but I am not naive. She used to refer to the ACJ as “that group”, AB 1208 is “her personal hill”, and she has never liked anyone who has challenged her authority or threatened her unrestrained power. (Even Justice Scotland exited her scene when his findings reportedly were not to her liking.) No, my thought is she is trying to build her ranks, and stock JC committees with loyal minions.
Once again, WTF? Why the subterfuge? The stealth? The blindside approach? This is wrong side of the tracks, gambling barmaid, can I slip you a mickey and grab your wallet kind of thing to do, not a dignified organized judicial branch “process” that Tani talks so much about.
Once again, she ain’t walking her talk. She is, however, living down to her “colorful” gambling barmaid background.
JusticeCalifornia
May 16, 2012
sorry, I left out the word “think” above. As in “I would love to think sakauye wants. . .”
I am just so increasingly disgusted. . . .
Wendy Darling
May 16, 2012
Business as usual, Justice California – palace intrigue and sniper fire from the perimeter.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 16, 2012
This item needs to be REMOVED from the consent agenda. The Judicial Council needs to be democratized and selected by the judges of this state, not stocked with lemmings by a ___________________ ( I can’t even write what comes to mind so I am wisely leaving it blank).
JusticeCalifornia
May 17, 2012
From today’s meeting:
Our gambling barmaid said:
“As to our agenda item, consent agenda item A passes. It was
not removed from the consent agenda so that brings us now to our
discussion agenda item B. . . .”
How did this tricky rhymes-with-witch (I’m sorry, I am as much or more disgusted by this as I was when she excused the child custody evidence destruction in Marin) get her way on this?
The report on Consent Item A was issued less than 24 hours before the JC meeting, leaving no opportunity for anyone on the JC to give the required 48-hour notice to move Consent Item A to the discussion agenda.
See:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/title_10.pdf
go to page 8, see:
“(1) Consent items deemed approved
All consent items are deemed approved without further action at the adjournment of
each council meeting.
(2) Moving consent items to discussion agenda
A consent item must be moved to the discussion agenda if a council member so
requests by giving 48 hours’ advance notice to the Executive and Planning
Committee, or if the Chief Justice moves the item to the discussion agenda.
You know how when someone steals from you, or lies, or tricks you, you simply cannot trust them after that? Remember how sakauye told the legislature she understood and thanked them for direction on CCMS– and then at the last JC meeting she and Herman slyly, at the last moment, converted option 3 to stopping DEPLOYMENT of CCMS rather than halting the program entirely?
Now this.
Every move this tricky rhymes-with-witch makes, every word out her mouth has to be watched, because she is not to be trusted. And EVERYONE — and I do mean everyone– should remember that.
Add “accomplished con artist/confidence tricks are my specialty ” to our cj’s resume.
Wendy Darling
May 17, 2012
Well, Justice California, following the rules, and the law, is pretty much a meaningless exercise for the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council. After all, who is there to hold them accounable?
One of these days some smart, gutsy, lawyer is going to take on the task of filing a writ of mandate against the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council. Until and unless that happens, following the rules, and the law, won’t matter at 455 Golden Gate Avenue and judicial branch administration.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
May 16, 2012
From today’s Twitter Feed at Legal Pad, a publication of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Capitol Accounts: Into the lion’s den? Finance Director Ana Matosantos to speak at Thurs. Judicial Council mtg. on $544M budget cuts, council spksman confirms
Ann Matosantos AND Judge Lampe!
Long live the ACJ.
anna
May 20, 2012
Wendy,
Just who do you think will rule on the writ of mandate? And how does that get beyond a summary denial? Just ask Phil Kay? Only the legislature can rectify this.
Wendy Darling
May 20, 2012
Anna: I agree that a legislative correction is necessary. And who would rule on a writ of mandate? The obvious answer is that it would be a judge of the Superior Court. Not all of the judges in California have flushed themselves down the sewer with the current judicial branch administration. But even assuming that one would get a Superior Court judge that has aligned themselves with current judicial branch administration, the simple truth is that if a public entity is not adhering to a public duty required by law, such as notice or public meeting requirements, the remedy under the law is to file a writ and request declatory relief. Such action would still require a hearing, and a record. If a judge then decides to ignore the law and give carte blanche to a public entity failing to obey the law, there would still be a public record of that decision. In the absence of such a record, I don’t think that there is a single person in the State Legislature that would do anything to “rectify” judicial branch administration blantantly failing to follow their own rules.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
May 20, 2012
You’re right, but the lawyer would have to present to a representative that the judiciary is not following the law. Also, the COA has been covering up for these ass@#$%$.
Wendy Darling
May 20, 2012
I don’t disagree with you, Anna. But if the rules, and the law, don’t apply to the judicial branch itself, then they shouldn’t apply to anyone else either. No one should be above the law, especially a public entity, and most especially the very branch of government charged with the public responsibility and duty of enforcing the law.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 21, 2012
COA suck-up coverup–Patricia Sepulveda.
versal-versal
May 17, 2012
The meeting in Sacramento tomorrow will be the ultimate test. Will the CJ and her supporters finally see that they need to overhaul their branch leadership. Will they wake up and see that the trial courts can’t sustain any further cuts? Will they wake up and see that the AOC is bloated and overstaffed? Will they wake up and see we need to cut back all non core judicial functions, such as ” Scholars in Residence” “Judges in Residence” , OGC lawyers living in Europe, a PR group complete with “broadcasting center”, hundreds of consultants,and new overpriced and undelivered gaudy courthouses The bottom line is that the AOC needs to be reduced by 50-75%. When that doesn’t happen , we need to take our case to the public . Recall the CJ and democratize the Judicial Council.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
Judge Steve White rocks. He really set it out well, summing up within five minutes allowed most of AOC’s ills and excesses (with teensy Tani curtly reminding him of the one-minute left mark). His remarks should be engraved on the fat bureaucrats foreheads until they get the hell out of our judiciary. Those who missed Judge White’s comments should look forward to seeing a copy.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
Here’s a ROUGH DRAFT of Judge Steve White’s comments:
>> I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you regarding the
budget crisis we are dealing with. I think that the best model
for understanding this crisis is a two layered cake the first
layer is something that we have no control over whatsoever and
that is the economic situation of the world, of the United
States, and particularly of California. That is the context
within which the budget which the governor has announced must be
dealt with. The second layer of the cake we have no control
over that first layer and anybody who thinks there’s more money
coming out of that first layer I think is sorely mistaken. And
is betting wrong if that’s going to be their strategy for going
forward. The second layer is the layer over which we do have
control. It’s how the money within this branch is allocated,
what the priorities are and how those priorities are decided.
For a decade and a half, those priorities have in the court’s
view — many of the courts in the alliance of California judges
for whom I speak has been the priority of the administrative
office of the courts. Sometimes good priorities, sometimes bad
priority but nonetheless a separate entity entirely not
constitutionally created, not mandated, not required that is not
the courts. And the judicial council — this body of people,
some of you personally who have sat on this council during those
times and some of you who I’ve spoken to you before has been the
cat’s-paw for the administrative office of the courts. The
administrative office of the courts has devised a strategy, has
set the values has concluded how the money ought to be spent and
this body has historically ratified the will of the AOC.
In December of 2010, I came before you as a presiding judge
as a Sacramento superior court and implored you not to
supervisor yet another $106 million from trial court funding to
the failed and now collapsed CCMS project. I told you at that
time incoming governor had announced that he would have
significant cuts. And those cuts would affect our branch as
well. But the people — many of you were on this council at
that time, some of you were new looked at me and said, no, that
isn’t going to happen. I also said the money shouldn’t be spent
on CCMS, whatever money there is regardless of what cuts the
governor imposes and the legislature imposes, but you concluded
that CCMS was a good priority. And the point I made at that
time to you was that in February of the coming year, only two
months away the state auditor was going to release a report on
CCMS and I thought and I was right it would be a very critical
one. This body concluded in favor of CCMS funding of taking
trial court funds and taking them out of trial courts and
putting them into CCMS which was a priority of the
administrative office of the Courts and not a priority of the
courts. I think that we were right, those of us who told you
that the budget crisis was going to be worse than ever and
continuing to worsen until we get out of the overall economic
doldrums and I think we were obviously right in what we said
about CCMS.
Over a half a billion dollars was put into CCMS and other
millions of dollars were put into other priorities that were not
the courts. Regardless of the arrant ways of the past and
regardless of the mistakes that have been made by this council
historically and simply being the hand maiden to the AOC, simply
doing the AOC’s bidding, the time has come to stop and change
that. The administrative office of the courts is not the
courts. A week doesn’t pass that we don’t read about courts
closing and people being laid off and dismissed in the states
courts. A week doesn’t pass that there isn’t a contraction of
the availability of courts for the people of the state of
California. You do not see that kind of contraction or
reduction or trimming back of the administrative office of the
courts.
>> Judge white, one minute.
>> Thank you, chief justice.
You still see house counsel of over 100 people and outside
contracts of law firms. You still see educational divisions of
over 100 people. The time has come to cut the administrative
office of courts to its core essential functions whatever those
are at least a 75%, at least freeing up $75 million to keep
courts running, eliminate the regional offices and focus on the
real courts. There will be intonations with speaking of one
voice. We’ve already heard some of this from the chief justice
today and I agree an abstract concept of speaking with one voice
but that will not happen in the judiciary until that one voice
is the voice of the judiciary and not the voice of the
administrative office of the courts. It will not happen until
we have a judicial council that represents judges rather than
represents the interests of the administrative office of the
courts. There’s no more money coming. We must find the best
way to spend and allocate the money we have. And every dollar
that goes to the AOC is a dollar that isn’t spent on running
courts and keeping courts open for the people of the state of
California. Thank you, chief justice, and members of the
council.
>> Thank you, Judge white.
Guest
May 17, 2012
So did the cj’s pet, Kim Turner really just point out to the State Finance Director that we have more money from civil assessments? It’s not bad enough that the governor finally found and took our reserves and courthouse money, Ms. Turner now wants to remind the state that there is more money the courts get that is available? Unreal how so many stupid people are in judicial branch “leadership”? We’re doomed!
wearyant
May 17, 2012
I tried to capture Miss Kim’s comments as they scrolled by on my computer screen — and here is a lesson I should have learned from the AOC. I was a piggy about it and tried to grab all her comments — and lost them all!
But I learn from my mistakes unlike the AOC.
Long live Judge White.
Long live the ACJ.
Recall Tani!
Pass AB 1208!
Wendy Darling
May 17, 2012
Yes, Guest, Kim Turner really did that. She is an idiot. This is not news.
And then they adjorned . . . for a catered lunch.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
I grabbed some excerpts off the computer screen during the realtime scroll and will post them for anyone’s interest. They’re rough drafts only. The first is Commissioner Alexander, I believe:
>> So if I understand this right, what you’re trying to
do is use this coming budget year to make that
transition. So in this budget year, you’re saying those
courts that have reserves are going to have their
allocation reduced. They basically spend all their
reserves this year to meet their operating expenses.
And then the following year, it would be limited to the
3% that would be allocated to the state who would
then — the judicial council would decide which courts
would get a portion of that.
>> The only pieces that there would be a 3% reserve
available next year as well
>> So you’re spending down to 3%.
>> We look at the local reserves as — these are — you
know, these are taxpayer dollars that are available in –
This is during Ana Matosantos’ presentation at the JC meeting.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
Judge Herman is next:
>> Judge Herman
>> I think that answers my question. Thank you on
behalf of the council for the educational session. It’s
helpful to us. Getting to the 20% discount. Did that
in any way take into account an evaluation of what funds
were actually restricted within the trial courts? For
example, a number of funds that are legislatively
restricted where without change in legislation, we’re
told we can’t spend these funds on operations or on our
local general funding.
Was that figure chosen, taken into account actual
reserves — actual restricted funds or is that just a
basically an overall shot at a discount for –
>> it was really looking at using a conservative
assumption on what we’ve seen in the past. If there’s a
sense –
wearyant
May 17, 2012
The next was a female questioner and I didn’t catch her name:
>> Just one follow up, if I may. In terms of individual
trial courts, if an individual trial court has
restricted funding in excess of the 20% in terms of what
you’re looking the council to do by way of allocation of
cuts and funding, is that a court-by-court analysis or
is it just each court is looking at operationalizing the
reserves net 20%?
>> We’re open to talking through how to make this work.
Our notion is we specify the reserve levels and direct
the offset of the amount.
Then if things arise, issues arise, if there’s
emergencies, that’s what this — the 3% hold-back it
would be available for.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
The last excerpt captured, and I again missed who the speaker was:
Did you consider looking to the AOC as suggested and the
courts of review?
>> Our thought is you have already made some reductions
and on going reductions in other areas of the budget.
You have achieved savings and on going savings with
supreme court. On going savings in the court of appeal,
the judicial council’s budget we see as having been
reduced by $13 million. 10% from 2010-11 to 12-13. And
we look at reductions. That’s are the specified $4
million the governor is proposing in the change of
retirement contributions for state employees that work
for the state court level.
I hope the foregoing excerpts are helpful to those who are missing this JC meeting.
Guest
May 17, 2012
So CEO and JC member Yamasaki just bumbled his way to restate what has been asked and explained for the last 2 hours. He may look pretty but once he opens his mouth, ouch! Like Turner, these are our “leaders”? Montasantos obviously knows her stuff and when Turner, Yamasaki and others follow it only makes us look really bad as a branch. No wonder Ms. Montasantos had to repeat her explanation over and over again. Please dump Turner, Yamasaki, Roddy and Patel from ever speaking in public again. It is our only hope to survive. Embarrassing.
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Yeah the DOF Director had to say it about a dozene times and a dozen different ways.
Hey look folks, if I could understand it, why can’t the JC? They are corrupt, arrogant and stupid.
Having seen the “Show” today live in person, that’s how I see it.
Wendy Darling
May 17, 2012
Published today, Thursday, May 17, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Structural Change to Court Funding Proposed by State Finance Director
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – At an emergency meeting of the Judicial Council Thursday, California’s finance director proposed a further centralization of court funding along with immediate layoffs and local budget cuts, proposals that judges viewed with great alarm. “We’re getting to the point where we’re are going to have to say uncle,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in an interview after the meeting. “The judicial branch has been really, really good, but we’re not that good.”
To offset a $544 million budget cut this fiscal year, Governor Brown’s plan will sweep the tenuous reserve funds set aside to keep courts operating from day to day, said State Finance Director Ana Matosantos told the judges.
She said her department now expects the courts to contribute $402 out of their reserves to make up for the cut, and will direct the Judicial Council to set up a statewide emergency fund of $80 million. That reserve fund will be administered by the council and courts will be expected to apply for money as the need arises.
However, the judiciary has not been told where this $80 million will come from, and there was strong concern among judges Thursday that the money will ultimately come from the local courts themselves.
“There is a profound structural change suggested in this budget. And it really changes and shapes the relationship of the courts to the council and the council to the executive branch,” said Judge David Rubin of San Diego in an interview.
Rubin, who is both a member of the council and president of the California Judges Association, added, “The Governor and the Legislature are faced with impossible circumstances. But they have a different philosophy than the courts have had. In a statewide branch, individual courts don’t keep reserves. What I heard today was an effort to create uniformity, but these county courts are unique. The branch doesn’t lend itself to one size fits all.”
For the local courts clinging to precious little resources for daily survival, the idea of giving up their reserves for a central pool of emergency money is staggering.
“There is going to be some push back,” said Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa Superior Court in an interview. She said some courts have saved for years to build up their reserves by cutting their operations and laying off staff, only to see those reserves swept away.
“They feel they are being penalized,” she continued. “Courts that have worked hard to get ready for reductions basically did so for naught. It’s really devastating. This really came out of nowhere.”
Cantil-Sakauye added, “Because of the current structure, courts are responsive to the needs of their communities. This change in the funding structure is startling, harsh, immediate and shocking.” The chief justice said that she agrees with the principle of more equal funding for all the courts, but not in the way the Governor has outlined.
“What this structure is going to ask is if equal access to justice has been delivered,” she said. “I know the Governor sees this as bring parity across the branch. I have no disagreement about that, but I have a disagreement with the means of getting there.”
“And we have 45 days to get there,” Justice Douglas Miller added.
During the council meeting, Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento also took issue with the tight schedule imposed by the Governor’s proposal, which could lead to the court laying off an additional 140 employees. The court has already lost 193 employees since 2008.
“The magnitude of the Governor’s proposal is so huge that I am not sure we have truly digested it yet. One thing I do know is it will be impossible for us to accomplish this mass reduction in less than a year, let alone 45 days,” she said.
Earl noted that the court had planned to use its reserves to get it through the next three years. “We are nearing the end of the first year of our budget plan. We have imposed layoffs, reduced expenditures and held our hiring freeze and we have spent reserves in doing so.Year two of our plan is to begin on July 1 of this year and it calls for a reduction of $14 million from our budget.”
“In pure staff costs that is 140 employees,” Earl continued. “Realizing that we could ill afford to lose 140 employees at once, our plan calls for the additional use of reserve funds as much as $8 million to offset the layoffs until the final year of our plan. However, on Monday we were advised that we would not have the reserve money to do so,” she said. “I am somewhat taken aback by the comment by Ms. Matosantos and she said it more than once and that is that this restructuring, the use of reserves, would allow courts to maintain operations. That will do anything but allow us to maintain operations.”
At a public comment period before the meeting, Judge Steve White of Sacramento called on the council to cut back on the court’s administrative office, a focus of anger and opposition from many trial judges around the state. He said the council has long served as “the hand maiden” to the bureaucracy and the time has come for that to change.
White pointed to the council’s recent decision to pull the plug on the Court Case Management System, a $500 million IT project run by the AOC whose total cost was projected hit $2 billion upon completion.
“Over a half a billion dollars was put into CCMS and other millions of dollars were put into other priorities that were not the courts,” said White. “Regardless of the errant ways of the past and regardless of the mistakes that have been made by this council historically and simply being the hand maiden to the AOC, simply doing the AOC’s bidding, the time has come to stop and change that.”
“The time has come to cut the Administrative Office of the Courts to its core essential functions, whatever those are, at least a 75%, at least freeing up $75 million to keep courts running, eliminate the regional offices and focus on the real courts,” White added. “There’s no more money coming. We must find the best way to spend and allocate the money we have.”
No action was taken by the council Thursday, but the Chief Justice said she will put together a small group of judges and court officials by Friday to negotiate the budget.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/17/46596.htm
Long live Judge White. And long live the ACJ.
Delilah
May 17, 2012
So did the JC acknowledge in any way the necessity of drastically cutting AOC excesses this time around, rather than telling the trial courts to bend down farther to grab their ankles and hold the position forever? (To use Unionman’s metaphor.) Don’t answer that. We all know the trial courts and their rank-and-file employees — and the public — will be screwed again.
Of interest:
Dark Days for CA’s Courts:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20645731/dark-days-californias-courts
First Amendment Cartoon Contest:
http://www.toacorn.com/news/2012-05-17/Schools/Madrona_Elementary_secondgrader_takesfrst_in_natio.html
And for those who may never have seen an example of the AOC monthly broadcasts offered to court employees as a way to receive cont’g education “credits,” (another AOC-created “requirement”), maybe you’ll find this interesting. Maybe not. Ponder for yourselves whether these multiple monthly videos (or encores) are, or are not, a wise use of public funds, brought to you by the AOC’s in-house video studio. Because the AOC is certainly the exalted entity to be writing, directing and filming high-minded videos about ways to enhance employee motivation, ethics, demeanor, etc. No?
AOC BROADCASTS – May 2012
Everyday Managing & Supervising – Employee Motivation An Encore Presentation
(75 minutes)
Professional Demeanor in the Courts An Encore Presentation (60 minutes)
Continuing the Dialogue – Collaborative Courts: Innovation and Justice (60 minutes)
January 2012
Continuing the Dialogue–Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Exemplary Leadership: Lessons for Court Personnel An Encore Presentation (60 minutes)
We’ve gone down the Rabbit Hole.
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Delilah – I was there in the meeting today and the JC did NOT acknowledge in any way the necessity of drastically cutting AOC excesses this time around, rather than telling the trial courts to bend down farther to grab their ankles and hold the position forever?
Wendy Darling
May 17, 2012
Also published today, Thursday, May 17, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Court Officials Air Concerns About Budget Cuts, with Few Solutions Seen
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — A sober gathering of judges on Thursday promised darkened courtrooms, mass layoffs and the elimination of basic public services if Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed $544 million in reductions to the judiciary stand.
“We cannot afford these cuts,” Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie Earl told the Judicial Council. “Furthermore, we cannot absorb these reductions in 45 days,” she said, noting the quickly approaching start of the new fiscal year.
Thursday’s emergency meeting of the Judicial Council marked judicial leaders’ first public forum since the governor on Monday sketched a bleak picture of the branch’s finances with the release of his revised budget. Brown’s plan would effectively drain hundreds of millions of dollars from individual trial courts’ reserves. It would also siphon $240 million from branch construction funds, halting work on dozens of planned renovations and new courthouses.
Judges and court workers filled the Administrative Office of the Courts’ regional office in Sacramento, some appearing shell-shocked, others frustrated with the governor’s plan.
“It’s like you are cutting off limbs and you’re trying to pick the limb you can live without,” said San Diego County Superior Court Judge David Rubin, president of the California Judges Association.
The governor sent Finance Director Ana Matosantos to Thursday’s meeting to explain his vision for a restructured, centralized judicial branch that will no longer consider financial reserves the sacrosanct domain of individual trial courts.
Matosantos said her office estimates that trial courts will have $402 million available in reserves at the end of the fiscal year, a figure that many court executives and judges suggested was inflated. The finance director also warned that budget language will likely include provisions penalizing any courts that engage in a flurry of last-minute spending or contracting to avoid or soften the reserves sweep.
A number of court leaders said the governor’s proposed reserves policy, which would put the Judicial Council in charge of a single statewide emergency account, would punish courts that have set aside money to deal with anticipated cutbacks.
“You’re transferring money from the people who saved money to the people who didn’t,” said Alan Carlson, chief executive officer of the Orange County Superior Court, which had one of the highest fund balances in the state last year.
After polite questioning by council members, Matosantos defended the proposed policy change as an appropriate shift in focus to taxpayer dollars instead of courts’ money.
“We’re stepping back and we’re saying, look, we’ve got a state-funded local court system,” Matosantos said. “How do we best fund this state-funded court system, and how do we do it in a manner that minimizes operational costs in light of the limited resources available next year? And that’s the direction we take.”
But the significant funding cutback may also threaten another component of the governor’s plan. Leaders of lobbies for California’s defense attorneys and plaintiff lawyers say they’re hesitant to agree to $50 million in new civil fees — something Brown’s budget is counting on — if the governor is shifting significantly more court money to the state general fund.
It’s “increasingly difficult” to sell the new fees to attorneys “if there appears to be no end in sight” to judicial budget cuts, said Jonathan Bacon, president of the California Defense Counsel. “The concern is the amounts. Is it ever going to stop?”
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she would appoint a small committee by Friday to lobby the Legislature against the cuts. But that appears to be a difficult mission. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, typically the judiciary’s biggest legislative ally, has said that while he’s concerned about the court cuts, he’s also troubled by severe cutbacks in health and human services, education and other areas.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202554444421&Court_Officials_Air_Concerns_About_Budget_Cuts_with_Few_Solutions_Seen&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 17, 2012
Teensy Tani plans to assemble yet another committee (to lobby for more funds) as an answer to this gigantic mess she and her ilk have created in attempting to preserve Team George’s legacy.
Judge David Rubin speaks about which limb to cut off and attempt to live without. I suggested the AOC limb be entirely done away with long ago. Well, keep your hand maiden and enjoy. Hope it’s worth it to you.
It’s truly bitter pain to watch the greatest judiciary go into the sewer!
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Yeah she was blowing smoke up our asses today big time. I almost needed a bucket right there as I watched it all unfold live.
Wendy Darling
May 17, 2012
“It’s truly bitter pain to watch the greatest judiciary go into the sewer!” At the hands of so few, all of whom have forgotten their public duty, to the detriment of so many who have remembered and honored their public duty so well.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Wendy, as always, thanks for all the news updates – you are an infomaniac just like me. LOL
unionman575
May 17, 2012
I must say Steve White spanked them good at the JC meeting today…he was a sight to behold! They (the JC) were squirming in their seats as he spoke. Priceless!
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/jerry-brown-budget-cuts-rekindle-california-judicial-civil-war.html
May 17, 2012
Jerry Brown’s budget cuts rekindle California’s judicial civil war
California’s judicial civil war — judge against judge over money and power — has been rekindled by Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised state budget.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye convened a special meeting of the state Judicial Council in Sacramento today to discuss Brown’s proposed cuts in state support for the courts. Right off the bat, a member of the rebel Alliance of California Judges berated the body for cutting money for trial courts while maintaining a bloated judicial bureaucracy in San Francisco and wasting money on a now-abandoned statewide computer system.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White delivered the broadside, pointing out that he and his colleagues had warned of continued cuts in state funding and complained that the judicial leadership — Cantil-Sakauye and her predecessor, Ron George — had ignored them.
“We were right,” White told members of the council. “The time has come to stop and change that.”
Cantil-Sakauye didn’t respond to White but cut him off after his allotted time had expired.
Brown’s revised 2012-13 budget includes another $544 million reduction in state financing for the $3.7 billion court system but proposes to offset it by tapping into local court reserves ($300 million), shifting money from a court construction program ($240 million) and making court employees pay more for the pensions ($4 million).
Ana Matosantos, Brown’s budget director, told the council that despite steady drops in court financing from the state general fund, overall spending has remained stable at about $3.7 billion due to increases in revenue from fines and fees and shifts from construction funds.
The new proposal to tap into an estimated $402 million in local court reserves, however, clearly irritated some judges because it would erode local courts’ financial flexibility and further centralize fiscal decision-making either in the Administrative Office of the Courts or in Matosantos’ Department of Finance, which would gain control over distribution of some reserves.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a new point of friction emerged in the form of a letter that the Judicial Council members and staff wanted all 58 local presiding judges to sign, expressing alarm about continued cuts in judicial financing and the loss of authority over local court reserves.
Several judges refused to sign, even though the letter underwent several revisions in the past few days, reflecting the Alliance’s position that the authority of the central judiciary administration over financial matters should be reduced, not enhanced as Brown’s budget proposes.
Categories: State budget
Posted by Dan Walters
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/jerry-brown-budget-cuts-rekindle-california-judicial-civil-war.html#storylink=cpy
unionman575
May 17, 2012
If we take a 402 mil reserve whack, trial courts will be absolutely fucked every which way to Sunday.
The geniuses at DOF don’t get it.
COURTS are different and here is how:
Different than agencies
Unlike state agencies, courts can’t turn to the state treasury when money runs short or funding sources dry out, and they count on reserves to make sure they can keep their doors open and meet their payroll, said San Francisco Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein.
“By eliminating reserves, they’re eliminating access to justice,” she said.
The impact of court funding reductions will vary statewide, in contrast to 2009-10, when the state Judicial Council ordered all courts closed one day a month for nine months to close a $100 million budget gap. The council could not order a statewide closure now because its legislative authority to do so has expired, but Cantil-Sakauye said, “I fear we will be having de facto and patchwork closures up and down the state.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/17/MNDP1OIGOI.DTL&feed=rss.pageone
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Alright folks I have to go on a short “communications blackout” due to FCC reg’s. My hand held has to take a nap for about an hour and twenty minutes. LOL
I enjoyed the show today in SAC. Yall have a nice evening!
Judicial Council Watcher
May 17, 2012
Thanks for the updates Unionman. It was all show today. All show, no substance.
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Agreed!
unionman575
May 17, 2012
Next time I am taking an empty 5 gallon bucket. I will need it when I heave.