We haven’t heard much out of the Alliance of California Judges but by this note put out to their members, it appears they’ve been really busy. Please note the attachments at the bottom of their letter.
From all of us at Judicial Council Watcher to you, your family and your friends, we want to wish you a warm and joyful holiday season. As you probably might have guessed, the end of the world doesn’t happen in four days but the end of the Mayan calendar does. The turn of the year will also bring with it the year of reckoning. It might not be readily apparent but there is some uncommon resolve going on out there in the trial courts and the legislature and it’s all good. Keep up the fine work!
The Alliance has always desired to be given a meaningful voice within the existing governance structure of the Judiciary. We have made many overtures to be included. Unfortunately, the current structure allows no room for alternate viewpoints. Recently Judge Steve White, an Alliance director, wrote the Chief Justice in the hope that our organization might be considered for an advisory position on the Judicial Council. We attach a copy of Judge White’s letter and the response, which “speak for themselves.”
Because there seems to be “no room at the Inn” for our views within existing judicial leadership, we will move forward independently with the Legislative and Executive branches next year to have our views considered. Our experience in achieving last year’s budget trailer bill enacting the major financial provisions of AB 1208 shows that we will be heard.
The Alliance has also prepared a comment to the recent judicial ethics opinion that proposes rules restricting the behavior of judges seeking the assistance of attorneys in opposing budget cuts negatively affecting their courts. The Alliance believes that the draft opinion is (1) overly broad, going beyond the questions presented; (2) confusing and contradictory in the guidance given to judges about what actions are and are not ethically permissible; and (3) unduly restrictive, preventing judges from acting and speaking in ways that are entirely ethical and in the best interest of their respective courts. We will share this opinion with you in a few days once it has been submitted.
The Alliance board has also met to install next year’s officers. Judge Steve White of Sacramento has been elected President. Judge Tia Fisher of Los Angeles will serve as Secretary and Judge Kent Hamlin of Fresno will be Treasurer. Outgoing President, Judge David Lampe, will serve as an “executive” director, to continue to oversee the development of the organization and coordinate its activities. We cannot overstate the work that Judge Lampe has done on behalf of the Alliance of California Judges and the judges of this state over the past three years. He has been an unrelenting voice for judicial independence, fiscal responsibility, and local control of our courts. But for his efforts, the reforms now embodied in Government Code section 68085 would never have been enacted, for they were bitterly opposed by branch leadership, past and present. Judge Lampe, thank you for your hard work, clear vision, and unfailing honesty in tackling the problems that beset us.
On another note, we have previously informed you that legitimate requests for information by the Alliance receive “special” treatment by AOC central office staff and Council members. Further evidence of this came to light at last Friday’s council meeting where new procedures and rules will govern how requests from judges will be handled. We attach an article from Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News that details this policy change. We also link for your information the actual Byzantine rule that will permit our branch leaders to continue their “special” treatment of Alliance and, presumably, all judges’ information requests. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121214-itemX.pdf It appears that central staff’s repeated actions of stonewalling and refusing to release public information, as detailed by the State Auditor and the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee, has now been blessed by the Council.
Finally, we ask you to Save the Date! The Alliance will be conducting its first ever statewide get together for judges at an educational conference beginning Friday, March 1, 2013, and concluding on Sunday, March 3, 2013, at the Sheraton in Palo Alto. Travel and accommodations will be provided for the first 120 enrolling participants. Enrollment is open to all judges of the state, but priority will be given to enrolled Alliance members. A portion of the program will be in conjunction with George Mason University on Law and Economics. We plan a balanced presentation, including presenters and keynote speakers who will also discuss the new Code of Judicial Ethics. We hope Stanford Law School Dean Elizabeth Magill will kick off our educational conference on Saturday morning with a welcome to the judges and comments on the state of law school education in 2013. By that time, we hope to also have a well-versed panel to present an overview of the budget issues the courts will likely be facing for the 2013- 2014 budget year.
The next year will be a momentous one in the life of the California court system. The Alliance of California Judges will continue to advocate for the most fundamental principles for access to justice: open courtrooms, sufficient staff, and local administration by the judges who are directly responsible to their constituents to provide the core function of the courts–the adjudication of cases and controversies.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
CA Judicial Council Lays Out New Terms for Public Info Requests
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s Judicial Council on Friday changed its policy on information requests, in response to growing interest from judges in the judiciary’s financial affairs .
The council will now play a larger part in dealing with requests pertaining to council policy, and staff for the Administrative Office of the Courts must defer to council members on how to respond. The battle over information plays out as part of a larger confrontation between a powerful court bureaucracy and trial court judges critical of the policy and spending choices made by that bureaucracy. ”It wasn’t until we were realizing the hundreds of hours that were being expended in answering the types of requests that we were seeing, that were, honestly, some people have a lot of time on their hands,” said Judge Mary Ann O’Malley.
Skeptical of the new policy, Judge David Lampe called it “an example of unwarranted bureaucratic complexity.” Retired Judge Charles Horan from Los Angeles, who fought a lengthy information battle with the court bureaucracy earlier this year said rules on information requests were being subverted to withhold information. He said he would have to wait and see on Friday’s policy changes. ”Any system is only as effective as the good faith of the people running it,” said Horan. “That’s what it will boil down to.”
The language adopted by the council on Friday consists of guidelines on how the administrative office staff should apply the council’s Rule of Court 10.500 titled “Open Access to Public Information.” The preamble to that rule states, “The intent is to clarify and expand the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.” The guidelines put in place Friday will send requests for information under Rule 10.500 along different paths, primarily based on who is asking.
If a question comes from the governor or a legislator, it will go to the court lobbyists. If a question comes from the press and has to do with policy-making, such as why the director of the court bureaucracy sits on the Judicial Council as a non-voting member, it will by answered by the press liaison. When faced with such a question from a judge, the new guidelines say, “Refer to Director of Court Operations, Special Services Office, who will consult with Chief’s appointee(s) to determine whether request is within the regular scope of judicial business. If yes, appropriate staff will be notified and should respond. If no, refer to Chief’s appointee.” If a member of the public asks a question concerning policy, such as why is the administrative office employs attorneys in China, and if that questions “appears to present a legitimate issue or be appropriate for response,” the guidelines say, “refer to direct of Court Operations, Special Services Office, who will consult with Chief’s appointees(s) to determine whether to respond.” ”Otherwise,” the guideline continues, “a response is not necessary.”
Most of the requests for information over the last year came from the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group that has pushed for greater oversight of the bureaucratic agency. Judge Lampe of Kern County is a director of the Alliance and retired Judge Horan is a member. The Alliance judges point to the language of Rule 10.500 that went into effect in January 2010, saying the rule should be broadly interpreted to give all citizens access to public information. At Friday’s meeting of the Judicial Council, Justice Harry Hull argued that the staff was flummoxed by many of the questions, such as how many days former judges Roger Warren and Leonard Edwards worked as “scholars-in-residence” for the judicial branch. At first glance, the question of how many days a particular person worked for a public agency might not seem overwhelming. The question concerned a program that paid substantial salaries to “scholars,” whose precise work was unclear. It was attacked by the Alliance judges as a waste of money when trial courts were cutting their operations to the bone in the face of the governor’s budget cuts.
“Last spring, it became known to some of us on the Council that the AOC did not really know how to handle some of the requests that have been coming to them and how to respond to certain requests,” Hull said during the council meeting. He said the questions asked staff to justify council and administrative staff policies, so Hull then took on the job of answering them.
An example of a question that was referred to Justice Hull was one from retired Judge Horan who asked, “I have been told the AOC will reimburse appellate justices 300 to attend the CJA conference this year. Is that true.” ”Is AOC also reimbursing for judges,” asked Horan. He also wanted to know who made the decision.
The conference has been a forum for debate on policies of the court bureaucracy and the council, and those who attend would influence the tenor and outcome of those sometimes heated discussions. Horan’s inquiry ultimately sought to find out if some of those attending the conference were favored with travel expenses.
His questions, most calling for yes or no replies, were not answered. During Friday’s council session, Judge O’Malley of Contra Costa County, a council member who worked on the original information access Rule 10.500, defended the new guidelines. ”These requests when posted to staff were really difficult to determine,” she said. “For instance, and this is coming from another judicial officer, it really puts staff in a very awkward position. They did try to deal with it for months and months and months. It was amazing what it was they were asking for; some were possibly legitimate requests and some I could not see any logic whatsoever in the request. It got to the point of absurdity. It really did.”
Chad Finke, Director of the AOC’s Court Programs and Services Division, said, “As Justice Hull pointed out at some point or other, not only did the amount of time become an issue, but the issue came up — is this really appropriate for staff to be responding to these types of questions?” The council will revisit the new method in six months, as suggested by Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County, to determine whether judges are getting the information they need.
Reacting to the new guidelines, Lampe suggested the council should have instead kept it simple. ”The council should simply adopt a policy that says, ‘all staff of the AOC shall respond to requests for information, not privileged, from any constitutional judicial officer as soon as can be reasonably accomplished,” said Lampe, “and to keep the requesting judge informed of the process of gathering information if there will be a delay.’ “ Horan also said the process did not need to be complicated. ”This could be worked out if they behave reasonably and really try to be transparent. This was never an insurmountable problem.” Horan said that since its adoption, the council has interpreted Rule 10.500 “very narrowly with a view toward withholding information.” He added, “They’ve not been interpreting that rule the way it was meant.”
He accepted the AOC’s complaint about some questions being beyond its purview, such as “questions as to the Judicial Council’s mental processes,” but noted there were many requests that staff could have answered and didn’t, particularly if they originated with the Alliance.
Horan said the attitude of council and AOC leadership, including director Judge Steven Jahr, will determine the policy’s success. ”It’s up to them to make it happen,” he said. “We’re not hard to satisfy. If the Chief Justice and Judge Steve Jahr make it clear that the duty of the Judicial Council and the AOC is to fully cooperate with any lawful request for information, it will get done. It starts at the top.”
ACJ Attachments:
(Note that the descriptions of these letters were provided by JCW and not the ACJ)
SWhite.103012 Blow-off letter to Judge Steve White from Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye
DOC008 Letter from the Alliance of California Judges signed by Judge Steve White to Chief Justice Cantil Sakauye – a must read.
20121210200947 Preserving Justice for the Citizens of California, by Judge David Lampe
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Program note. This is your only warning. The conspirators in the back room are planning to launch an April Fools Joke on you in 2013. You’ve been warned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Checking with Michael Paul – Regarding the new policy regarding the release of public information, Mr. Paul has received nothing from the Administrative Office of the Courts and it has been 12 calendar days since his request. Surely a 2.3 billion dollar state contract is available for public scrutiny.
From: Michael Paul <pragmaticengineer AT gmail dot com*> (*change requested by the author after consented publication)
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Subject: Project agreement for Long Beach
To: Pubinfo <pubinfo@jud.ca.gov>
Hello Pubinfo,
This is a three part request.
Wendy Darling
December 17, 2012
“It might not be readily apparent but there is some uncommon resolve going on out there in the trial courts and the legislature and it’s all good.”
Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is for this to be true.
Love, Wendy Darling
P.S. Please leave coal in all the stockings of judicial branch “leadership” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. You know who they are. They have all been very, very, naughty, and not in a good way. And if they leave any Kool Aid out for you on Christmas Eve, make sure you don’t drink it. It’s poison.
Wendy Darling
December 17, 2012
To Judge Lampe, Judge White, Judge Fisher, Judge Hamlin, and all the directors and members of the ACJ: you are heroes that walk among us.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 17, 2012
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 17, 2012
I like that info request Michael Paul.
unionman575
December 17, 2012
After reading your 3 part info request Michael I must say I feel good…
courtflea
December 17, 2012
Yowza ACJ you rock! When I thought we lost you, you came back with guns blazing! Far frickin out. Great work and you have this fleas undying gratitude. May all of your/our wishes come true this new year.
Mr. Paul, can’t wait to hear about the response you get from the ministry of missinformation.
wearyant
December 17, 2012
It will take “months and months and months” for the bird brains to formulate answers to Mr. Paul’s straightforward questions! And the AOC has a veritable horde of employees, plus do-nothing managers and supervisors and directors, sitting about, only concerned with their own well being! The trial courts serve the people. The AOC/JC/CJ serve themselves.
And a merry Christmas to you all!
unionman575
December 17, 2012
Michael you will get your answer When Hell Freezes Over…
Wendy Darling
December 17, 2012
And when pigs fly, Unionman . . . at the same time.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 17, 2012
unionman575
December 17, 2012
How about those AOC hogs feeding at the Trial Court Trust Fund trough?
Wow I need to refill my Vodka Tonic BRB…I am on a rant tonight.
unionman575
December 17, 2012
“The question related to item 3 is this: Did the AOC secure a line-item appropriation for the long beach courthouse from the state legislature a) prior to the commencement of this project or b) any time since the commencement of this project?”
Answers we already know..but WE want to hear it from the Death Star…
A) “No”
b) “No”.
There you have it…but the Death Star will remain silent.
Lando
December 18, 2012
The letter the Chief Justice sent denying the Alliance a seat on the JC is quite remarkable and proves the point. No one ever intended to put total power for branch governance in the hands of one person. While she implies anyone who dissents isn’t civil just take a look at the actions of the embroiled Justice Hull , or Justice Huffman before him who called critics of the crystal palace ” clowns”. The double standards and arrogance of those in the tower at 455 Golden Gate are rather incredible.
unionman575
December 18, 2012
It is a double standard indeed.
Michael Paul
December 18, 2012
Unionman is right. Question #3 everyone already knows the answer and the likely reply back will be that is not a request for an administrative record under crc 10.500.
That is if there is any reply back. The new procedure has my request going to the dark overlord overseeing the ministry of truth and public enlightenment and unless he indicates a response is necessary, us serfs aren’t entitled to any response.
A request for public records is available to everyone but the public.
To borrow something from Lando, you can’t make this stuff up!
Lando
December 18, 2012
Thanks Michael and that dark overlord is Justice Hull who is totally embroiled in his role as gatekeeper and enforcer for the crystal palace at 455 Golden Gate
unionman575
December 18, 2012
Speaking of “enforcers”…I think of all the Trial Court & AOC WORKERS (NOT managers) when I read this…
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/12/16/workplace-bullying-common-could-lead-to-medication-use/
Dec 16, 2012 7:00am
Workplace Bullying Common, Could Lead to Medication Use…
unionman575
December 18, 2012
Another conversation is also evolving, said the chief justice — that of how the judiciary spends its money. Two years ago, it was assumed that the Legislature would stay out of how the third branch spends its money. But after a costly statewide court computer project was scrapped earlier this year, the judiciary’s spending is being watched carefully by the Legislature.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/17/53194.htm
Monday, December 17, 2012Last Update: 7:00 PM PT
Chief Justice Gives Wide-Ranging Views on Courts in Press Meeting
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a meeting with reporters Monday, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye addressed a sometimes contentious relationship between the courts and the other branches of government, the financial disparities between individual trial courts and the rhythm of the job.
The foremost topic of the press briefing was budget cuts to the courts and a recent meeting with Governor Jerry Brown on that issue. “The meeting with the governor was productive, it was congenial, it was pleasant, and it’s preliminary,” said the chief justice.
The chief justice said the principal item at the meeting was the question of whether the governor will go forward with plans to take $200 million from the trial courts’ reserve funds in order to fund ongoing court operations. Those funds have used by trial courts to meet unexpected expenses and help get them through lean years.
The governor’s Department of Finance last month proposed taking almost all that was left of those funds in the trial courts to help fund next year’s overall court budget.
“We have to try to persuade Finance not to include this idea in the January 10th budget plan,” said the chief justice. “We feel that once the concept is put into the Governor’s budget plan it will be that much more difficult to persuade the Legislature and the Governor not to follow that course of action.”
“It’s critical, it’s devastating to the trial courts,” Cantil-Sakauye continued. “We already knew that fiscal year 13-14 would be incredibly difficult and we were seeking restoration, and if not restoration, at least no more further cuts. And we view this use of trial court fund balances to supplant general appropriations to the judicial branch as a cut.”
“So it’s very, very, very concerning,” she concluded. “Courts are on pins and needles.”
The year has been harrowing for the courts. Compounding the governor’s funding news was the recent word from the Legislature that it will not put up any money for a costly courthouse in Long Beach — forcing judges and administrators to come up with the promised funds from other courthouse projects.
In recent months, courts in San Joaquin, Fresno, San Bernardino and Los Angeles have announced staff layoffs and shuttered courtrooms.
Cantil-Sakauye said she has an “emotional response” every time she hears of another courtroom closure.
“It’s unbelievable,” she said. “Take San Bernardino; they’ll be closing actual facilities, so people those communities once served will now have to drive three to four hours to get to court. And we’re talking about people who don’t have the kinds of resources where they can just get in the car and drive there. So the fact that that’s happening in counties with such rural breadth like San Bernardino and Fresno really means we’re denying those people their day in court.”
“And in fact those two examples I brought up with the Governor and he was surprised to hear it and he was concerned about it,” said the chief justice, “and we hope that has an impact on how he considers funding the branch.”
Now entering her third year of piloting the judiciary through the narrows of California’s fiscal crisis, Cantil-Sakauye said she is becoming acclimated to the round-the-clock nature of the job.
“I can say that I feel much more comfortable in the second year than I did in the first, only because I’ve been exposed to a wider array of issues. There will always be crises, but there is ultimately a solution to it,” she said. “The rhythms of the year have made themselves more evident. I know I will always have budget crisis December and January, May and June. ”
“So budget never goes away, it just recedes until it comes back again,” she added. “I sleep a little more now, not as much as I used to, but I’ve come to enjoy it and expect it. And I have my own rhythm and I realize now that this job is really 24 hours and I don’t mind that it’s 24 hours. I like the noise. I’d like it to be different noise; I’d like it not to be budget all the time.”
Ultimately, said the chief justice, she would like to move away from politics, an area she described as “uncharted territory” for the judiciary. “I’d like to think this is situational because all of California suffers from financial issues. I’d like to have the budget situation resolved, some stability in funding, and then be able to not be as active over the branch issues in the Capitol as we’ve had to be in the last two years.”
While Cantil-Sakauye said the governor did not point out any particular problems with the way the judiciary uses its budget, and talked generally about competing demands on California’s overall budget.
But the governor’s financial officials have expressed concern about the funding gaps between between different local courts, in the face of complaints from judges that some small courts are made poor and others made comfortable by budget allocations.
“They have expressed a concern, and I have that same concern that there might be an impact and affect of disparate treatment of public resources amongst 58 courts,” she said, citing the historically battered San Joaquin Superior Court, which has already shuttered its regional courthouses and is on the brink of doing away with civil cases altogether.
“You can’t deny that San Joaquin has very difficult financial challenges, looking to close small claims and all civil, or so they say.” Meanwhile, she said, “you have others that are paperless, and seem to be not good — but surviving better than San Joaquin. So those are the kinds of conversations we have with Finance.”
Cantil-Sakauye said she hopes the presiding judges will be able to come up with a way to achieve some equity in funding.
“Now you could have that discussion,” she continued. “The presiding judges are very aware now of the disparity amongst sister courts and I believe they’re looking at several ways to fix the disparity.”
Another conversation is also evolving, said the chief justice — that of how the judiciary spends its money. Two years ago, it was assumed that the Legislature would stay out of how the third branch spends its money. But after a costly statewide court computer project was scrapped earlier this year, the judiciary’s spending is being watched carefully by the Legislature.
“We have to get away from the fact that we say things like, ‘This is our money,’” Cantil-Sakauye said. “Because when there isn’t money we all start looking around at who has it and why did they lose it and who was good with it — and those are all ugly questions that we never really answered expect maybe in the last two years.”
“So I just start from the point of view that we all have to affirm that this is public money, that we’re judicial officers and we have an oath and people expect us to be efficient with it.”
Cantil-Sakauye said that was her underlying logic in commissioning a 14-judge Strategic Evaluation Committee to evaluate the Administrative Office of the Courts, the staff agency criticized by lawmakers and judges for mismanaging the computer project.
“That goes a long way toward setting an example about looking at our staff and how we operate and whether we can do that more efficiently,” she said. “We need to do it regularly. And if we do it regularly, maybe we will operate differently. And the other two branches, when it comes to looking for money and second guessing values and how money was spent, we’ll then have a record of what we’ve been doing and how we’ve been doing it when the time comes to start looking for reductions.”
unionman575
December 18, 2012
May I add Chief, your spending is being watched by ACJ, JCW and numerous others all concerned with the graft,waste and corruption at your HQ.
Wendy Darling
December 18, 2012
From today’s Capitol Accounts, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
“On KGO this a.m., Ch. Justice Cantil-Sakauye compares CA judiciary today to soup lines of 30s. Adds she’s only seen Judge Judy “in passing.”
http://twitter.com/CapitalAccounts
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
December 18, 2012
What a horrible press conference. That woman could not talk her way out of a paper bag. I could only imagine what was said to the governor. Scary. Scary for the fate of trial court funding.
Wendy Darling
December 18, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, December 18, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Jackie Fuchs:
Judges Critical of Committee Draft Opinion on Budget Advocacy
Los Angeles Superior Court, CJA Raise Free-Speech Concerns
By JACKIE FUCHS, Staff Writer
A Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions draft opinion on the manner in which judges may ask attorneys for assistance in advocating against potential budget cuts is drawing fire from judges.
Comments on CJEO Draft Formal Opinion 2012-001 were due Dec. 19, and a host of judges and courts weighed in with criticisms over guidelines deemed restrictive and confusing.
The California Judges Association and the Los Angeles Superior Court were among the critics.
The committee, formed by the California Supreme Court in 2007 to provide independent advisory opinions on judicial ethics, sought to address itself to the question of whether a judge may “invite partners of law firms in the county to attend a meeting at which the judge makes a presentation concerning potential budgets cuts and ask that the attorneys help the court in whatever way they believe is appropriate,” and whether a judge may “at the same meeting ask attorneys to write or meet with legislators in Sacramento on the court’s behalf.”
Fears Raised
The committee said that while the Code of Judicial Ethics does not prohibit judges from asking attorneys to “help the court,” any solicitation for such help is “fraught with the possibility that the attorneys will believe they will be disadvantaged if they do not provide assistance or will gain special favor or influence by providing assistance.”
To address the problem, the committee said that invitations should not be limited to a “select few”, and a judge may not ask attorneys to help in “whatever way they believe is appropriate,” as such a request may be “too broad, may imply or invite too much, and potentially crosses the line of what is permissible.”
Judges may, however, according to the draft opinion, ask attorneys to write letters or meet with legislators, provided that the judge ensures “that the attorneys’ actions are voluntary.”
The committee recommended that judge’s invitations to presentations not be limited to partners of law firms, saying that “the narrower the list of invitees, the more likely the appearance that those attending are in a special position to influence the judge.” In certain circumstances, the committee said, such as where the invited attorneys are friends of the judge, it would be better for judges not to call such a meeting at all than to risk actual or perceived coercion.
‘Vague and Overly Broad’
The Los Angeles Superior Court criticized the guidelines as “vague and overly broad” and said they would lead to “unintended consequences.”
The court found particular fault with the committee’s suggestion that judges should be wary of inviting lawyers to seek particular results that benefit the judge’s court to the detriment of other courts, such as requesting that an attorney ask a legislator to move courthouse construction funds to general trial court operations.
The court said that such a restriction had “no basis in the cannons of judicial ethics” and “should be eliminated to avoid potential First Amendment issues” and “to avoid the implication that judges cannot express their views about what they believe to be in the best interests of the court system.”
The court’s comments were drafted by a working group chaired by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr. The group was made up of 10 judges plus Court Counsel Fred Bennett, and its recommendations were adopted by the court as a whole.
CJA Views
The California Judges Association shared many of the same views, saying that “the opinion contains language that goes beyond what is necessary to answer the question presented and which could be interpreted as restricting the conduct of judges advocating for their courts beyond what is warranted by the Canons.” Like the Los Angeles court and a number of individual judges, the CJA took issue with the suggestion that judges “can only take positions that inure to the benefit of all the courts in the State. The Opinion offers no authority to support this assertion and we are not aware of any such authority.”
The CJA also expressed concern over the requirement that judges “ensure” that attorneys’ actions are voluntary and don’t arise out of a feeling of compulsion or expectation of favoritism. While agreeing that such a requirement expressed an important principle, it said that the opinion offered no guidance as to how a judge was to do so.
“Presumably,” the CJA said, “the CJEO does not want to create new duties on judges to follow up on attorneys’ outside activities. The Opinion should take care to make clear that judges do not have any obligation to monitor the activities of lawyers outside the courtroom context.”
Full texts of the Draft Formal Opinion and the comments received can be found on the state courts’ website.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
December 18, 2012
Dan Walter’s take today…
SacBee – December 18, 2012
Rebel judges will continue battle with California chief justice
California’s civil war of the judges apparently will continue, even though a rebel organization scored a major victory this year.
A “trailer bill” to the 2012-13 state budget incorporated many provisions of legislation that the breakaway Alliance of California judges had sought over the opposition of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in a quest for more local control of court funds..
However, with Brown administration apparently seeking further cuts in state support of the courts, the alliance has elected one of its most combative members, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White, as its president.
It also declared in a letter to its members this week that it will independently lobby the Legislature on budget and other matters, saying that management by Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, both of which are controlled by Camil-Sakauye, “clearly has been a failure.”
The Alliance has accused the San Francisco-based court bureaucracy of wasting money on a failed computer system and on itself, while local courts are starved for funds and have been forced to curtail operations.It’s also been critical of a multi-billion-dollar courthouse construction program.
In October, White reiterated those criticisms in a letter to the chief justice and sought an advisory seat on the Judicial Council for an Alliance representative, similar to one held by the California Judges Association. She didn’t promise such a seat but said she is “open to expanding representation.”
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/rebel-judges-will-continue-battle-with-chief-justice.html
[Today is Day 648...]
wearyant
December 18, 2012
Steve White takes a stand, he points out the obvious, e.g., CCMS is a failure, and he won’t back down from the truth of what’s been goin’ down in the third branch. Then the term “most combative” rears up? Suggesting other “rebel” judges are also combative, a rather negative word. Those other Alliance judges are heroes. Does Danny Boy have to spice up his writings to get readers? This bizarre tale of King rGeorge’s reign that’s been spinning for over a decade has me on the edge of my seat. Stay tuned to “As Tani’s World Turns.”
unionman575
December 18, 2012
Keep fighting Judge White. You and the ACJ are in the right. Please continue to speak out.
wearyant
December 18, 2012
Dear Tani: “Truth can only be experienced. It cannot be described and it cannot be explained. …truth will dawn upon you of itself.” T-p.150
courtflea
December 18, 2012
Weary ant, it is more like as the stomach churns
wearyant
December 18, 2012
Well said, Flea!
unionman575
December 19, 2012
And now a word from the CA DEPT OF FINANCE…
http://www.dof.ca.gov/finance_bulletins/2012/december/documents/Dec-12.pdf
The OBT
December 19, 2012
After that dreadful press conference, Tani needs to resign.
Lando
December 19, 2012
I totally agree. Maybe justice Hull can do everyone a favor and do the same.
JusticeCalifornia
December 19, 2012
Sakauye said:
“I can say that I feel much more comfortable in the second year than I did in the first, only because I’ve been exposed to a wider array of issues. There will always be crises, but there is ultimately a solution to it,” she said. “The rhythms of the year have made themselves more evident. I know I will always have budget crisis December and January, May and June. ”
“So budget never goes away, it just recedes until it comes back again,” she added. “I sleep a little more now, not as much as I used to, but I’ve come to enjoy it and expect it. And I have my own rhythm and I realize now that this job is really 24 hours and I don’t mind that it’s 24 hours. I like the noise. I’d like it to be different noise; I’d like it not to be budget all the time.”
Once again Sakauye’s statements reflect her egocentric, insular view of life. In the above single paragraph she refers to herself at least 15 times. Sakauye and her magnificently compensated gang of three (Patel, Soderlund, Child), can sleep at night because they are not feeling the pain of the budget cuts. I’m sorry, she sounds like she’s playing a game of poker– a game of sport she enjoys– rather than like a leader of the largest judiciary in the Western Western dealing with issues that affect millions of lives.
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2012
One would think that if she truly perceives her job to be 24-7 that (a) she would be doing a better job and (b) some of those “issues” would actually be resolved in a responsible manner.
Serving herself to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, December 19, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Alliance Elects Sacramento Judge White President
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Tia Fisher to Serve as Secretary
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Superior Court Judges Tia Fisher of Los Angeles, Steve White of Sacramento, and Kent Hamlin of Fresno have been elected next year’s officers of the Alliance of California Judges.
White will take over as president, Fisher as secretary, and Hamlin as treasurer, the group’s directors said in a letter sent to members and others on Monday. The directors said the outgoing president, Kern Superior Court Judge David Lampe, will continue to serve as an “executive” director to oversee the development of the organization and coordinate its activities.
Fisher, 54, was appointed to the court in 2006 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Last year, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye appointed her a member of the state’s Judicial Council.
Fisher previously served as a court commissioner for six years with the Los Angeles Superior Court and for three years with the now-defunct Santa Anita Municipal Court. Before that she was a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles.
White, 63, is a former inspector general of California’s correctional system and a former Sacramento district attorney. He was appointed to the bench in 2003 by then-Gov. Gray Davis. He is also a past executive director of the California District Attorneys Association.
Hamlin, 57, first became a judge in 1999. He is a former member of the California Judges Association and a chairperson of its Criminal Law and Procedure Committee.
The alliance said it would be conducting its first ever statewide educational conference for judges from March 1 through March 3 at the Sheraton in Palo Alto.
Enrollment is open to all California judges of the state, with priority given to enrolled alliance members. The group said a portion of the program will be taught in conjunction with George Mason University, and that it plans “a balanced presentation, including presenters and keynote speakers who will also discuss the new Code of Judicial Ethics.”
Monday’s letter also detailed a series of grievances:
•Central management of the court system through the Administrative Office of the Courts, which the group said “has been the architect of a monumental waste of public funds”;
•Failure of “the existing governance structure of the Judiciary” to give the group “a meaningful voice” in the process of reform, leading the group to conclude that:
“Because there seems to be ‘no room at the Inn’ for our views within existing judicial leadership, we will move forward independently with the Legislative and Executive branches next year to have our views considered. Our experience in achieving last year’s budget trailer bill enacting the major financial provisions of AB 1208 shows that we will be heard”; and
•The “special” treatment AOC central office staff and Judicial Council members give to “legitimate requests for information by the Alliance,” as evidence of which the group points to the council’s newly announced procedures and rules governing how requests from judges will be handled.
“It appears that central staff’s repeated actions of stonewalling and refusing to release public information, as detailed by the State Auditor and the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee, has now been blessed by the Council,” the letter says.
The Alliance of California Judges was formed on Sept. 11, 2009 “to independently advocate and communicate on behalf of judges with the public, media, and Executive and Legislative branches,” according to the organization’s website.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
December 19, 2012
Wendy, the CJ is working 24/7 not doubt micromanaging the small unimportant stuff, instead of dealing with real problems. Hummm sounds strangely like someone else we knew…Bill V.
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2012
Apparently she doesn’t even do the “small unimportant” stuff well, Flea. The branch is in far worse shape today than it was when she assumed the Office of the Chief Justice. And it’s not because of the State Legislature, the Governor, or the Alliance.
More than a few of us are still waiting for one — just one — example of leadership from her that is worth following.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
December 19, 2012
How the Feds do it:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/19/53238.htm
Judicial Council Watcher
December 19, 2012
GSA knows what they’re doing. Note, about the same square footage as Long Beach at a fraction of the price and using the same contractors and architects the AOC uses.
Talk about a black eye story and courthouse news didn’t even try!
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2012
“At a fraction of the price.” Hmmmm . . . but so not a surprise.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 19, 2012
“Asleep at the wheel” comes to mind…
unionman575
December 19, 2012
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project
JusticeCalifornia
December 19, 2012
Interesting how top ACJ members have a background in law enforcement.
Interesting how so many in the public and in all three branches, often at great personal cost and risk, have for so many well-documented years, been warning ever so many about problematic/illegal judicial branch activity, and trying to get “top leadership” of the biggest judiciary in the Western World to behave in an ethical, responsible manner, obey the law, and eliminate/remedy problematic/illegal branch activity.
Interesting how our current Governor has an amazing background in law enforcement.
Interesting how there is a very clear record of our Governor’s personal knowledge of various of the lawbreaking/unethical activities of the judicial branch.
Interesting how both the Governor and AG Harris are now faced with taking on extraordinarily well-documented violations of the law, and/or acts of ongoing extraordinary negligence/incompetence/self dealing/purposeful misrepresentations/evidence obstruction- destruction/and perhaps–let’s just be honest– sometimes, apparent case fixing, by “top leadership” of the judicial branch and/or those “top leadership” of the judicial branch has protected– at great public cost, I might add.
Or explain why, GIVEN WHAT THEY KNOW, they won’t.
The time is now, Governor Brown, and AG Harris. Step up. First and foremost, do what you were elected to do: Protect the public.
Wendy Darling
December 19, 2012
Honor your public duty and uphold your oath.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
December 20, 2012
Update on my AOC information request:
They’ve responded that their subject matter expert is gathering the materials to be responsive to my request and they anticipate having those materials by January 9, 2013.
I still don’t like their convoluted evaluation process that indicates that in some cases, no response is required as a default option.
unionman575
December 21, 2012
I predict no response MIchael.
Old habits die hard brother.
JusticeCalifornia
December 20, 2012
Michael, for what it’s worth, pubinfo continues to graciously respond almost immediately to my information requests. The requests are simple but important.
Michael Paul
December 20, 2012
Hi JC, thanks for the update. I sent an inquiry status message about my latest request. About 5 hours later I received the canned reply about my inquiry so they are probably running the agent locally. (TA, SS & AV fix this for LM)
I also sent the same request to contacts within the other two branches because they pay the bills.
JusticeCalifornia
December 20, 2012
Michael, I also sent my request to the person in charge of the division I was requesting information about.
unionman575
December 21, 2012
I like sending it to the other 2 branches.
JusticeCalifornia
December 20, 2012
And AG Harris– if you have national aspirations, please prove yourself here at home by protecting the public that elected you, or you will most assuredly be called out nationally for not doing so.
.
It is just the way it is.
unionman575
December 21, 2012
As they say, that dog just won’t hunt.
