At this point, it’s take your pick and if you were in my shoes you might choose both. The Governors revised budget was released today with no extra money for trial courts this year or next. Sitting in those chairs up in Sacramento are people watching what is being said over in the judicial branch for a change – and are also watching what is being done. Will the judicial branch underwrite another boondoggle given the resources? Well you only had to read about another foray into the strange episode of as the CCMS world turns to hear that Herman wants to dump more money into V3 using V4 features and that a couple of courts are willing to pony up.

Of course it will take a vote of good people and a lawyer challenging the good judge to get him off the boondoggle tracks but the court execs, both AOC pawns, should be given walking papers. Of course we won’t do that either because no one is held accountable in the judicial branch leadership or the AOC.

Is it not obvious how much damage last months trial balloon about firing up a new CCMS V5 program did to the branch? And to think, they were going to have AOC attorneys seek out loopholes in legislative authorization that would permit them to spend money on further development.

As our unnamed source in the legislature put it, they put Jasperson & co on an inverted cliff face without the benefit of ropes referring of course to the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs lobbyists. Sure, they can discount the damage and I’m sure they will but the timing could not be more ill-conceived. Would Cantil-Sakauye show some leadership by replacing Herman to try to win back some legislators? Well, she will more than likely embrace him as a valued member of the team and name a conference center after him alienating legislators even further. If alienating them further is even possible anymore.

Cause.Effect.

It will take another 9 years before she gets it no doubt. When she’s being voted out of office.

Sure, Speaker Perez might have some more money for the trial courts but he’s a smart guy who doesn’t like to get burned and all judicial branch leadership has been doing is burning them at every turn. Let’s just hope the lobbies outside of the AOC are persuasive enough to make the case for greater funding. For the trial courts.

With all of that being said, the analysis of what would be lost to the state of California due to the federal sequester is far larger than the guv’s budget reflects by a long shot and the legislature needs to take the real number into account in the next 45 days. They also need to feed the trial courts to keep them alive and starve the AOC.

A number that our legislators are possibly forgetting: When you close a building and don’t occupy it anymore, you must retrofit the building to meet current code requirements before you re-occupy it. While courthouses close down across the state, it is these re-occupancy costs that are exponentially more expensive than continually staffing the courthouses that may very well leave these courthouses closed for good.

And that’s no way to run a railroad.

Related articles

• California courts get bad budget news (mercurynews.com)
• JCW’s wishes for the May budget revise (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

May 8, 2013

I am sending you this important message regarding the 2013-2014 Judiciary budget. We anticipate the release of the Governor’s May Revise next week. Alliance members have been engaged in quiet discussion with members and staff of the Legislature and with some within the Executive branch. There has been meaningful concern expressed within the Legislature that the budget cuts to the courts have resulted in a serious erosion of public access to justice. Some restoration of funding is being considered. We anticipate that the Speaker of the Assembly may soon announce the primary budget goals of the Assembly and are optimistic that these will include a proposal for additional trial court funding. We expect the proposal to be coupled with strict demands for transparency and accountability, and a direction that 100% of the money be directed to the trial courts.

In April the Director of the AOC, Steven Jahr, released a statement that clarified action by the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on April 5, 2013. Director Jahr correctly pointed out that the Subcommittee had simply confirmed the Governor’s proposed budget, which continues a permanent, ongoing cut of $535 million to the branch, requiring the trial courts to absorb an additional $261 million in cuts by the end of this fiscal year.

Director Jahr’s communication also confirmed that the AOC’s proposed funding solutions this year include a request for a full restoration of funding including:

• $475 million restored from the General Fund
• $18.5 million to fund appellate court costs
• $49.3 million for employee health care and retirement cost increases
• Elimination of the 1% trial court reserve balance limitation

The Alliance supports these goals, and the efforts of the Chief Justice in pursuing them.  We also recognize there must be buy-in of the Legislative and Executive branches.  Having these considerations very much in mind, we have not made any specific budget proposals while awaiting the Governor’s May Revise and the stated positions of the two legislative houses. After the May revise, and especially if, as we expect, it does not propose additional trial court funding, we plan to offer meaningful options for restoring branch funding.

Throughout the state, our courtrooms are shutting down. We are no longer able to provide essential services to our communities, the people who elect us to serve justice. At least 200 courtrooms have closed and 2500 court workers have lost their jobs. For the first time in our history, our core ethic — the adjudication of cases and controversies — is threatened. This did not happen even in the Great Depression.

This cannot abide. The priorities of this branch must be revisited.

I would like to close with a laudatory reference to the important action taken by Judge Laurie Earl’s subcommittee of the Trial Court Working Group.  The committee proposed a new allocation model for funding the trial courts, which has now been “adopted” by the Judicial Council. We understand and agree with the effort to recast the existing historic funding model that may perpetuate inequities. However, trial court funding is a function of the Legislature. It is a creature of statute, not a constitutional function of the Judicial Council. This change was not mandated by the Legislature or the Department of Finance. Such an important change requires a fuller and more inclusive vetting and more input than occurred in the closed committee process.  Just as in the federal courts and the other state courts, the Legislative and Executive branches also play an important role in this.  Judges should not presume that we can make such significant changes without the buy-in of our sister branches.  This is as it should be.  Even for those who wish it were otherwise, the three branches of government are necessarily part of the decision.

Very truly yours,

Judge Steve White

President

The Alliance of California Judges

Related articles

• JCW’s wishes for the May budget revise (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• The boondogglers relent….. for the time being… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• What Will It Take to Kill The Beast? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• As Transparent As An Iron Curtain (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

May 6, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

First, we apologize for the length of this communication. We deem it necessary, however, to place in context what has become the standard operating procedure by branch leaders to refuse to disclose public information. In particular, reasonable requests for information from judges associated with the Alliance have been treated in a manner that directly contradicts their claims of a new era of greater transparency.

Like many of you we were hopeful that a new day would dawn upon the judicial branch with a change in leadership. For two solid years we were lectured to give the new regime “a chance.” During those two years we were told by branch leaders there would be a new paradigm wherein decisions would be made in a more transparent way, that input from all would be welcome, and that substantive changes would result in a Judicial Council committed to properly overseeing the vast Administrative Office of the Courts in an accountable and transparent manner.

To support these claims, a survey was commissioned by the then new Chief Justice which sought the input of all judges and justices on what was ailing the branch. The Chief Justice told media sources that she read every judge’s comments and, although she declined to make them public, numerous courts provided the media with what their judges had said in their surveys.

Subsequent to that survey, which revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the AOC and its purported overseer, the Judicial Council, the Chief Justice created a Strategic Evaluation Committee tasked with issuing a report that would be, in her words, “the Bible” for reorganizing and downsizing the central bureaucracy with an eye towards greater transparency and accountability of the Council and AOC.

These actions did not take place in a vacuum. In fact, it took legislative branch pressure in the form of a scathing audit by the State Auditor of the failed half a billion dollar CCMS project, the introduction of legislation sponsored by the Alliance of California Judges to rein in the out of control spending by central planners, disclosures of pension spikes for the top 30 paid AOC staffers, the uncovering of a telecommuting policy that allowed an AOC lawyer to live and work in Switzerland, the exposure of costly and wasteful maintenance and construction projects, including the now infamous “gum removal” project that cost in excess of $8,000 dollars, the embarrassing disclosure of $200 light bulb replacements and the one-sided “public/private” deal to build a courthouse in Long Beach which has put a halt to at least 11 critical building projects because of its over-the-top long term costs.

Please know that virtually every one of the aforementioned boondoggles would not have been uncovered without the tenacity and courage of the media, legislature, the State Auditor and the Alliance of California Judges. In each instance the new regime cried foul and refused to take responsibility for its actions. Our leaders, citing the separation of powers, angrily reacted that legislators had no right to demand that former AOC director William Vickrey be fired over his mismanagement of this state’s most costly failed computer project. In fact, the new regime responded by renaming the Judicial Council’s meeting room after this publicly disgraced employee.

Legislators who supported the Alliance backed bill, AB 1208, were accused of being uninformed and dishonest in a video which featured the Chief Justice. The respected State Auditor was also verbally attacked and her character impugned by the chair of the Council’s CCMS Committee, who first pronounced that not all of the Auditor’s recommendations would be implemented and then, within 48 hours, changed course to proclaim that all findings would be acted upon. That same committee chairman was recently praised by name for work he did on CCMS during the Chief Justice’s State of the Judiciary Speech which she gave to a combined session of the State Assembly and Senate. When the Chief Justice received the report from her handpicked Strategic Evaluation Committee, her first response was to tape a video message to AOC staff directing them to point out errors in what can only be described as a devastating indictment of AOC mismanagement and a failure of the Judicial Council to oversee its operations. Wow.

Obtaining information from the new regime has not only been difficult for the Alliance but has been documented by others, most recently the Chief Justice’s own Strategic Evaluation Committee, the respected State Auditor, and members of the media.

Which brings us to the following disturbing actions by the same branch leaders who on a regular basis tout transparency and accountability. Over the last year, efforts by the Alliance to obtain public records from the AOC have been routinely ignored, denied, delayed, and in many instances forwarded to the Council’s Chairman of the Rules and Procedure Committee, Justice Harry Hull, where they languish without a response. In fact, Justice Hull has insisted that any request be sent to him via the United States Postal Service. Perhaps if CCMS had actually worked the good Justice would have been satisfied with email, but alas we will never know.

How did this occur? That is an excellent question and one we are unable to answer because of a refusal on the part of branch leaders to disclose what apparently was decided behind closed doors. One thing we can point to is an apparent complaint by AOC staff that Alliance requests have become “burdensome” or troublesome.”

We attach as an example a recent request by retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge and Alliance member Chuck Horan, along with the response from the AOC which highlights how far our leaders are prepared to go to deny the Alliance relevant and easily retrievable information. As painful as this might be, please take the time to review the entire email exchange that appears below.

The practice of hiding behind a tortured reading of Rule 10.500 of the Rules of Court, the attorney client privilege, and the catchall that the AOC does not maintain records that are easily retrievable is the very antithesis of “transparency” and “accountability.” In fact, it is an assault on the basic notion of open government that as Americans we expect of those who are funded by public dollars.

At this point, the Alliance is exploring various options to obtain these public records. We would hope that branch leaders would voluntarily disclose and cooperate with these requests, but if past actions are a predictor of future actions, no changes will be implemented.

We will continue to keep you updated regarding this issue. We also encourage you to make requests of the central planners for information concerning the expenditure of public funds. Remember, but for the ability to obtain these records we would never have learned the truth about the AOC’s faux hiring freeze and faux furlough policy, the real costs of CCMS, the Long Beach Courthouse debacle or the outrageous maintenance costs and pension spikes, just to name a few.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

————————————————

May 1, 2013

Dear Chief Justice, Justice Hull, Justice Miller, Mr. Jahr, and Mr. Finke:

At the end of this email is an information request I made on March 15, 2013.  Immediately above it is the response I received yesterday from Mr. Finke.

First, as to any claim of attorney-client privilege, I point out that no such claim would lie as to communications between, for example, the Chief Justice and Justice Hull.  Neither are attorneys, plain and simple.

Only communications between any of the named individuals (Chief Justice, Justice Hull, Justice Miller) and an AOC attorney made specifically for the purpose of seeking legal advice would arguably be covered, as would communications between (for example) the Chief Justice and Justice Hull which specifically discussed legal advice jointly given them.

The broad manner in which you (or the AOC) construe the attorney-client privilege would put beyond the reach of the public any document which passed between any AOC attorney and any member of the Council.

This is not a correct construction.  For example, my request (see #3) for materials presented to the Chief Justice by the AOC which dealt with the need for the interim policy would include information requests which were publicly proclaimed by various members of the Council to have been burdensome.  These cannot possibly be privileged as they were not generated by the AOC attorneys or any party to this email.  Further, any privilege would seem to have been waived.  I understand the reluctance in turning over emails, especially since it would appear that contrary to the statements made that ACJ requests were somehow inappropriate, the AOC has failed to identify a single such request.

Finally, insofar as any of you still maintain that the attorney-client privilege allows you to withhold the records I have requested, I ask that you each waive the privilege.

Lastly, I write to complain that the policy recently enacted by unanimous vote of the Council is apparently being routinely flouted by Justice Hull, who refuses to respond to requests forwarded to him by the AOC.  Several of my requests have gone that route, as Judge Jahr knows, and Justice Hull has yet to even acknowledge them.  I have asked Judge Jahr for his help in this matter, to no avail, so I repeat it here.

Thank you.

Charles Horan

Judge, Ret.

___________________________

Judge Horan,

Our responses to your March 15, 2013, request for judicial administrative records are set forth below in red font.  We have repeated each request immediately before the corresponding response for ease of reference.

1.  A copy of the “interim process” adopted by the Chief Justice, together with any an all memoranda, emails and other writings which memorialize the adoption or institution of this process, and all writings dealing with the “interim process”  and which were created in the two weeks prior to the enactment of the “interim process” by the Chief Justice, and which were authored by the Chief Justice, any AOC employee, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, or any employee of the Supreme Court.

All judicial administrative records responsive to this request are subject to the attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5).

2.  The authority upon which the Chief Justice purported to act in adopting the “interim process” for the AOC to follow.

This request is seeking information not contained in judicial administrative records.  Therefore, under AOC Policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information), which the council approved in December 2012, we are referring your question to Justice Harry Hull for consideration.

3.  Any and all materials presented to the Chief Justice by the AOC, in the month prior to her adoption of this interim process, which dealt with the need for such a change in process.

All judicial administrative records responsive to this request are subject to the attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5).

4.  Any reports by the AOC purporting to demonstrate that AOC personnel had in fact spent “734.7 hours” in a two month period responding to Rule 10.500 requests (as reported to the Council in the full report which is excerpted below), and including any examples of burdensome or troublesome information requests that the AOC felt necessitated a change in policy or process.

Attached is a judicial administrative record responsive to the first part of your request.  The second part of your request—seeking “examples of burdensome or troublesome information requests that the AOC felt necessitated a change in policy or process”— incorrectly assumes that the AOC has characterized certain requests as “burdensome” or “troublesome” and that the development of policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information) was initiated by the AOC. Accordingly, the AOC does not have any judicial administrative records responsive to this request. The reasons set forth by AOC staff in its recommendation regarding AOC Policy 2.8, which the council approved in December 2012, are outlined in the council report available at this link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121214-itemX.pdf. The council report also includes examples of requests that led to the development of the new policy.

5.  All emails and other writing between the Chief Justice, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, Mr. Chad Finke, and any other AOC employees dealing with the formulation of or enactment of this “interim process” including emails or other correspondence between the Chief–who enacted the process–and AOC which instructed the AOC to follow the policy/process.

All judicial administrative records responsive to this request are subject to the attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5).

6.  The exact date the “interim process” was initiated.

The exact date the interim process was initiated is contained in a judicial administrative record that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5). The approximate date the interim process was initiated is set forth in the council report available at this link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121214-itemX.pdf.

7.  Any writing wherein the Council or Chief Justice or any other person in fact instructed AOC staff to “strictly construe the Rule” (10.500) as claimed by the AOC in the portion of the staff report set forth below.

 Judicial administrative records responsive to your request can be found at the following links: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/102811JCCAtranscript.pdf andhttp://www.courts.ca.gov/15847.htm.

8.  Any legal opinion which purported to justify any such directive–either in 2011 or in the Chief’s August 2012 “interim process”–re: the  ”strict construction” of Rule 10500, notwithstanding that Rule 10.500(a)(2) specifically states that the rule must be “broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.”

 The AOC does not have any judicial administrative records responsive to this request.  Further, if the AOC had any responsive records, they would be subject to the attorney-privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5).

9.  The manner in which the Chief Justice made Justice Hull her “designee” as set forth in the report excerpted below.

 All judicial administrative records responsive to this request are subject to the attorney-client privilege and thus exempt from disclosure under 10.500(f)(5).

Chad Finke
Director
Office of Appellate Court Services/Court Operations Special Services Office, Judicial and Court Operations Services Division
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
415-865-8925, Fax 415-865-4329, chad.finke@jud.ca.gov
www.courts.ca.gov

“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”

From: Finke, Chad

Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:44 AM
To: ’Charles Horan’
Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven
Subject: RE: Information Request

Judge Horan,

The AOC will review files for responsive records and determine if there are any applicable exemptions, and anticipates providing any discloseable judicial administrative records by approximately May 3, 2013.

-Chad

Chad Finke

Director
Court Operations Special Services Office, Judicial and Court Operations Services Division
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
415-865-8925, Fax 415-865-4329, chad.finke@jud.ca.gov
www.courts.ca.gov

“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”

From: Charles Horan

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:52 AM
To: Finke, Chad; Hull, Harry; Miller, Douglas P.; Cantil-Sakauye, Tani
Subject: Information Request

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, and Mr. Finke:

I reprint verbatim a portion of the AOC report to the Judicial Council dealing with information requests.  This report was provided as part of the agenda materials for the meeting of December 14, 2012 and can be found at  http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121214-itemX.pdf 

I request the following materials relative to this report:

1.  A copy of the “interim process” adopted by the Chief Justice, together with any an all memoranda, emails and other writings which memorialize the adoption or institution of this process, and all writings dealing with the “interim process”  and which were created in the two weeks prior to the enactment of the “interim process” by the Chief Justice, and which were authored by the Chief Justice, any AOC employee, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, or any employee of the Supreme Court.

2.  The authority upon which the Chief Justice purported to act in adopting the “interim process” for the AOC to follow.

3.  Any and all materials presented to the Chief Justice by the AOC, in the month prior to her adoption of this interim process, which dealt with the need for such a change in process.   

4.  Any reports by the AOC purporting to demonstrate that AOC personnel had in fact spent “734.7 hours” in a two month period responding to Rule 10.500 requests (as reported to the Council in the full report which is excerpted below), and including any examples of burdensome or troublesome information requests that the AOC felt necessitated a change in policy or process.

5.  All emails and other writing between the Chief Justice, Justice Miller, Justice Hull, Mr. Chad Finke, and any other AOC employees dealing with the formulation of or enactment of this “interim process” including emails or other correspondence between the Chief–who enacted the process–and AOC which instructed the AOC to follow the policy/process.

6.  The exact date the “interim process” was initiated.

7.  Any writing wherein the Council or Chief Justice or any other person in fact instructed AOC staff to “strictly construe the Rule” (10,500) as claimed by the AOC in the portion of the staff report set forth below.

8.  Any legal opinion which purported to justify any such directive–either in 2011 or in the Chief’s August 2012 “interim process”–re: the  ”strict construction” of Rule 10500, notwithstanding that Rule 10.500(a)(2) specifically states that the rule must be “broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.”

9.  The manner in which the Chief Justice made Justice Hull her “designee” as set forth in the report excerpted below.

Sincerely,

Charles Horan

Judge, Ret.

______________________________________

A note from JCW: You’ll note the AOC has a new director and that expanding the amount of directors is the general direction the AOC is going in – while the SEC report called for their elimination. Now all they need is a classification and compensation study to reveal that they’ve properly restructured and are underpaid for the fine work they do….. 

It should be obvious to most that very little of the SEC report has been implemented. It was obvious to us that from day one of the Chief Justice calling for an eighteen month study of the AOC and their operations was little more than a delay tactic to distract everyone from current events at the time to buy time under the theory that time heals  all wounds. (…..and it doesn’t hurt to use an eighteen month study  to get you beyond the statute of limitations on certain offenses either….)

When that plan dismally failed because the SEC report highlighted serious problems that should result in a replacement of most of the management team, the council initially attempts to distance itself from the report and  the reports many conclusions before succumbing to accepting it, only after about a third of the judiciary across the state speaks out. Then they tell us that they accept the report  but will need another eighteen months to study the conclusions of the report and implement them. (….and need a little more time to gnaw away at the statute of limitations for the remaining offenses…)

Meanwhile, more than 200 courtrooms across the state have shut down and more than 2,500 court employees have lost their jobs under the fine leadership of Steven Jahr, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and the rest of the judicial council good ‘ol boys club while she focuses on educating our children about the third branch of government. They push for more judges and building more courtrooms over reopening the courtrooms we’ve closed. The public is so confused about what’s really wrong that they’re offering their own space for courtrooms.

After a year ticks by under the same theory that time heals all wounds, they float a trial balloon to give V4 functionality to the courts that want it. But it really isn’t V4 and they can really deliver if you just cough up 1.5 million in the next budget year to get the show on the road. Sure, you might have to shut down another courtroom to pay for it but AOC IT clawbacks are so worth it and give you preferred status for when you need to lay off your entire IT staff.

Currently, the AOC is trying to spend somewhere between 200 grand and a million dollars on a classification and compensation study that only serves to affirm any existing structure and assign a dollar value to those tasks. Ladies and gentlemen, they’re done with their reorganization and the implementation of the SEC report and you’ll note that little has changed. If they weren’t done, they wouldn’t be dumb enough to waste the money to call for a study that only serves to affirm their operational structure and assign a value to it. Raise your hand if you don’t follow the logic here and we’ll send someone by to confiscate your computer because this is third grade connect the dots stuff. In being as politically incorrect as we can possibly get we believe that there are indeed people that are too dumb to be on the internet.

So what we would like to see in a May revise is:

1. The complete cessation of all courthouse construction across the state starting July 1 with the diversion of all available funds to the courts for three years.

2. We would like the entire real estate portfolio of over 500 judicial branch buildings transferred to the Department of General Services.

3. We would like to see a legislative implementation of the SEC report by delivering the AOC a budget based on a structure that represents legislative priorities as opposed to an AOC that makes their own structure and law up as they go along. Surely the legislature does not buy the need for over a hundred AOC attorneys or the need for the AOC to hire nearly every law firm in the state so that they’re all conflicted out of representation.

4. Since the AOC would no longer support court real estate or construction an additional hundred million dollars could be diverted from AOC operations to the trial courts.

These are some of the things we would like to see in a May revise. A Sacramento intent on preserving our justice system and reigning in the AOC’s ever expanding field of jurisdiction.

What would you like to see?

Related articles

• “Pay for View” was an AOC plan from the start (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• These monthly field trips are Pfabulous! (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

May 1, 2013

Dear Members and Others:

We attach an article by Daily Journal reporter Paul Jones regarding the apparent demise (again) of the disgraced CCMS project. The Alliance recently highlighted a questionable maneuver by branch leaders that would have resulted in the deployment of much of the V4 project as originally contemplated by the AOC.

After we issued a member email commenting on the verbal gymnastics employed by the Chairman of the Judicial Council’s IT Committee, who attempted to characterize this expansion of CCMS as “maintenance” and suggested an apparent willingness to obtain a legal opinion justifying the action, the Alliance received a communication from a Judicial Council member which included this concession:

“I agree that calling this request ‘maintenance’ was clearly inappropriate. It’s clearly not “maintenance.”

We ask then: Why did not a single member of the Judicial Council — including non-voting members — question or challenge Judge Herman’s characterization of this obvious expansion as “maintenance”? The Alliance can provide an informed opinion on this. It is because “speaking with one voice” trumps everything. That is why it is essential that we democratize the Judicial Council.

The Alliance once again calls on the Chief Justice to support democratization, either by a constitutional amendment changing the composition of the Council or by simply allowing some or all of her 15 appointees to be elected by the judges of this state. It is obvious to those who follow our leaders’ actions that dissent is discouraged. One need only listen to a Council meeting to witness the blind allegiance of the appointed members of the Council and see that every vote is a foregone conclusion. Unless and until the makeup of the Council changes, expect more of the same.

Finally, we will continue to closely monitor the CCMS project. We are not yet convinced that it is dead.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________________________________________

Daily Journal
5/1/2013

This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click “Reprint” to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website.

Request to modify court case management software shelved

By Paul Jones

A request by San Diego and Ventura County superior courts for the Administrative Office of the Courts to modify their electronic case management systems resulted in a minor outcry by a group of dissident judges last week, but the judicial branch’s technology committee head now says the plan won’t go forward.

The Alliance of California Judges, a group of judges who were instrumental in advocating to end the expensive software upgrade project, cried foul, arguing that the Legislature had banned future spending on the system.

~snip~

“It is truly bewildering that … branch leaders believe it is prudent to revive and expand on a computer project that has done irreparable harm to the judicial branch,” according to an email by the Alliance to its members last week. “Clearly this does not help to make the case for additional funds for the courts.

~snip~

(This line is not a part of the article) Judge James Herman of Digital Purgatory fame:

“Had we reached that point where a good business case could be made for going forward with expanding case types for these two courts, we would have gotten a legal opinion from our own legal services offices … and we would have gone to the office of governmental affairs to communicate with the Legislature” to determine if the spending was allowable.

~snip~

______________________________________________

 A note from JCW:

As the ACJ indicated, we too do not believe the CCMS issue is dead. Rather, on Monday night they did a lay of the political landscape and came to the realization of how much damage had been done by suggesting that more funds be flushed down the CCMS rathole. Like a lot of people looking at the record thus far, we view this change of heart as merely a delay tactic that the central politburo hammered out at the last minute after they heard how well received this news was in Sacramento.

The legislative reception of the news was confirmed by one of our own legislative contacts who characterized the proposed investment in V3 with this tidbit:  “They put Jasperson & Co on an inverted cliff face without ropes by spelling out what they would be doing with supplemental funding.”

Related articles

• What Will It Take to Kill The Beast? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• More on California Judicial Council’s Technology Advisory Committee , CCMS, Yolo County Judges Dan Maguire and Dave Rosneberg: Alliance of California Judges on CCMS – Judge James Herman ; Technology Advisory Committee [ TLR Note: 1. Contrary to content (lesliebrodie.wordpress.com)

Of course judges can’t be caught bitching too loud about flushing more cash down the CCMS rathole because a recent ethics rule passed by these bunch of yahoos in the crystal palace indicates that advocating keeping your courtrooms and courthouses open over other judicial branch non-core mission follies might just earn you a visit by the Commission on Judicial Performance and get you tossed off the bench.  So much for the first amendment. Then again there’s the control freak governance lockdown the Judicial Council themselves is imposing upon their various committees. I’m sure that will come with a plethora of non-disclosure agreements to ensure that shadow governance remains just that to ensure that committees are kept in lock-step with the central politburo in San Francisco.

Someday, someone in Sacramento will wake up on the right side of the bed and indicate that something stinks in Baghdad by the bay and that it smells like public corruption, the misappropriation of public funds and a routing of legislative intent. Until that time however the boondogglers and their codependent enablers will find or invent new ways of hijacking what little revenue is left going to the courts and ensuring that you’re in no position to complain, that is…. if you wish to keep your job.

______________________________________________________________

April 29, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

Last week the Judicial Council met for a day and a half. Reporter Maria Dinzeo from the Courthouse News covered both days and we attach two articles that describe what happened. We will highlight one issue that should be of concern to every judge in this state.

As you know, last year the legislature enacted certain provisions to protect the local courts against continued raids by the Council on the Trial Court Trust Fund to fuel the failed CCMS project. The language signed by the Governor reads as follows:

Government Code 68085(o): The Judicial Council shall not expend any of these funds on the
system known as the Court Case Management System without consent from the Legislature,
except for the maintenance and operation of Court Case Management System Version 2 and Version 3.

The term “maintenance” is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: “The act of maintaining, the state of being maintained, support, the upkeep of property and equipment.” By way of an example, the dictionary cites the following: “the cost of routine car maintenance.” So it was truly bewildering that Judge James Herman, the chair of the Council’s Court Technology Committee, would state that expanding V3 to include family and dependency case types was merely “maintenance” and therefore within the law. As usual, no one on the Council questioned or challenged this interpretation.

We do. On page 55 of the 2007 Judicial Council publication entitled, “Innovations in the California Courts,” you will find a brief description of the various versions of CCMS. Of particular significance is the language concerning V3 and V4. V3 is listed as managing civil, small claims, probate and mental health, while V4 is identified as managing family law, juvenile dependency, and juvenile delinquency case types. This same definition of CCMS versions is also contained in at least one of the Judicial Council’s “fact sheets.”

Moreover, the Alliance has consulted with an IT expert who is most proficient with the CCMS product. This expert indicates that this is an expansion and not simple maintenance of the existing systems. The expert also informed the Alliance that the AOC is apparently using maintenance hours and money for this expansion, which means that other maintenance items will be deferred or not done at all as a result. In addition, the expert noted that this expansion will cause additional workload for those courts that have rejected the expansion because testing will need to be done of the entire system once the expansion is completed.

We are at a loss to explain why our court leadership continues to advance this disgraced and failed computer project in light of clear legislative action to the contrary. Perhaps that is why the San Mateo Court, also referenced in the first article, questioned Council member Judge Teri Jackson concerning democratizing the Judicial Council or, at a minimum, providing the Alliance with a non-voting position on the Council as the other judge’s association enjoys. Had an Alliance director been given the opportunity to serve in that non-voting capacity, questions would have been raised concerning the propriety of this CCMS expansion.

In the next few months the Governor and the Legislature will be making important decisions regarding the Judicial Branch budget. Unfortunately, against this backdrop and for whatever reasons, our leaders appear intent on jamming through an expansion of CCMS, notwithstanding a clear legislative directive and a previous vote of the Council to stop the project. It is clear that last year’s message to the branch was not heeded. That places all of the local courts in harm’s way. We encourage you to speak directly with your legislators and urge them to bypass the Council and the AOC and directly fund the local courts as they do the Sheriffs. Do not be intimidated by the “speak with one voice” mantra unless you agree with that “voice.” If you truly care about your local courts you will speak up now.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

__________________________________________________

Courthouse News Service
4/26/2013

California Judicial Council Rearranges Itself

By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – California’s Judicial Council on Thursday set up a system to give it more oversight of its vast network of advisory committees, task forces and working groups.

By unanimous vote, the council established new procedures for almost 50 groups.

“Under the leadership of the Chief Justice, The Judicial Council has been examining itself and its processes. We are doing this to improve the council’s accountability and transparency to the public, the branch, and the two other branches of government,” said Justice Douglas Miller, head of the council’s powerful Executive and Planning Committee.

Under the new standards, the smaller groups must report to bigger internal committees such as Executive and Planning and get approval before launching new projects or creating their own subgroups.

The structure of these groups is also under review. In a report to the council, Miller recommended merging some groups and dissolving others.

“Although we have accomplished a significant amount of work in the past few months, as always there seems to be more to do,” he said. Miller said his committee will work on specific guidelines to address the purpose of each group, their make-ups, duration, project timelines and how many Administrative Office of the Courts staffers they should have.

“We all agree this is an ongoing process and something that we will all have in the forefront of our minds,” said Justice Harry Hull, council member and chairman of the council’s Rules and Projects Committee, which will also oversee certain groups.

“Obviously, the work of the advisory committees and task forces is not static. So I think this is something that we can address as needed and continue to work towards the efficiencies and cost-cutting measures,” Hull said.

At the meeting, the council heard reports from members on recent court visits, as part of a liaison program started last year.

While some courts expressed concerns about budget cuts and delayed courthouse construction projects, Judge Teri Jackson of San Francisco reported that some San Mateo judges peppered her with questions about the makeup of the council, and why its members are not chosen democratically.

“One of the judges raised the issues about whether members could be voted on to the council. I explained that requires a constitutional amendment. More importantly, that is the constitutional authority of the chief justice,” Jackson said.

She said another judge asked how many council members belong to the Alliance of California Judges, a reformist judges group, and whether a formal Alliance seat could be established, as it is with the California Judges Association.

Jackson said she told the judge that members belong to dozens of organizations.

“Those were some of the issues raised by individual judges, not necessarily the reflection of all the other judges on the commission,” Jackson said.

In her report on a recent visit to Ventura, Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst relayed that court’s struggles with its case management system for family law and juvenile dependency cases.

“They noted that their system has crashed several times and they feel that there’s a risk of it crashing permanently,” she said.

Ventura is one of two courts that requested an expansion of the V3 edition of the Court Case Management System. The other one is San Diego.

Ashmann-Gerst said the court is considering buying an off-the-shelf product or working on a solution with other courts.

Last year, the council terminated the latest V4 project, but retained funding for maintenance of V3.

Judge James Herman of the council’s Court Technology Committee said the proposed expansion falls under maintenance.

“As council members will recall, in July 2012 the Legislature directed the branch to spend no more funds on V4 without the approval of the Legislature. None have been expended. However, the Legislature also directed the council to continue to maintain V-3,” Herman said.

The three other V3 courts, in Sacramento, Orange County and San Joaquin County, are wary about expanding V3.

“Those courts have expressed strong reservations about case type expansion, based on the view the effort might divert staffer resources from maintenance of V-3,” Herman said.

Herman said his committee hasn’t reached a decision yet, and is waiting for more information from the courts, expected next week.

__________________________________________________

Courthouse News Service
4/26/2013
New Division of Funds Among California’s 58 Trial Courts

By MARIA DINZEO

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The Judicial Council on Friday voted for a new method of allocating money among the local trial courts in California, marking the first time the funding formula has been changed in almost two decades.

The old funding model was frozen along historic lines, based on ratios established in 1994 that carried forward into 1997 legislation that centralized court funding and rule-making and started a big expansion of the central administrative office. After Friday’s vote, trial court funding will slowly begin taking into account the volume of cases handled by individual trial courts along with other factors.

But the slow pace with which the new funding formula will be put in place brought a strong challenge from the presiding judge of seriously underfunded San Joaquin County, who asked why relatively rich courts should be allowed to keep most of their oversized allotments while poor courts continue to suffer.

“For over 15 years the inequity of that system has been perpetuated,” said Presiding Judge David Warner in a public comment period at the start of the meeting. “It has rewarded some courts from a monetary standpoint and punished others.”

Presenting the new funding model to the council, Sacramento Presiding Judge Laurie Earl said the reform was necessary to convince the governor and legislators that the judges are serious about getting their financial house in order.

“We have to do something in fiscal year 2013-14, and this is a precursor to seeing any further reinvestment in the trial courts to make sure the other branches of government and the public understand our budget development process and understand where the money that the branch gets is going,” said Earl.

Presiding Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara County, a member of the sub-committee, put it more bluntly.

“The legislature said to us unless you come up with a new allocation method, we will not give you new funding,” said Walsh.

All of the 17 voting members present at the meeting voted in favor of the new model, including the Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

The new plan will be implemented in small increments over five years. In the budget for 2017-2018, half of a court’s funding will be based on the new model, and the other half will come from the historic model. Earl added that the most intense debate among the members of her funding methodology subcommittee centered on the transition schedule.

“This was by far the most boisterous discussion- about how and when we should implement the model,” Earl told the council.

While judges and administrators argue that all 58 trial courts in California are underfunded, some are considered to be severely so. Under the new model, courts used to getting a traditionally higher share of the overall budget will inevitably have to give up some of that money to those courts in worse fiscal shape.

The five-year schedule is intended to give the courts with better funding a comfortable amount of time to trim their operations. But in a public comment period before the vote, Presiding Judge David Warner from San Joaquin urged the council to move ahead quickly, saying swift implementation is “key to the survival of the San Joaquin Superior Court.”

“For over 15 years the inequity of that system has been perpetuated,” said Warner. “It has rewarded some courts from a monetary standpoint and punished others.”

San Joaquin is arguably the most underfunded court in the state, and Warner said he was “taken aback” by an argument he’d heard that courts like his wouldn’t know what to do with the extra money. He said, “We are under-resourced, not stupid.”

“We’ve been waiting 15 years for a fair process,” Warner added. “And now that we can see it and its within our grasp, if we phase in the system, it really won’t provide much benefit. We are told that the phase-in is necessary to allow the well-funded courts to adjust. There are other options. Our request is to fully implement the methodology to allow the courts taking cuts to apply for supplemental funding if they faced a deficit, as we were told to do. If that is acceptable for under-resourced courts why is it not acceptable for the better resourced courts?”

Earl said the committee considered abandoning historical funding and moving over to a workload based model immediately, but decided it would do too much damage to courts like Orange County, which would lose $41 million a year, or Alameda County, which would lose $26 million.

“If we were to implement this new model 100 percent on July 1 we would simply flip the the position of some courts who are underfunded with those who are woefully underfunded,” Earl said. “We’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. The five-year implementation schedule will allow us to glide into parity.”

Fundamentally, the complex methodology is a two-part system, the first being a budget process that uses a court’s case filings to estimate its workload, and converts that data into its full-time equivalent staff need. That number is converted into dollars, and added to the court’s operating expenses and other unique factors.

That number is then added to the cost of the court’s special expenditures on programs like dependency counsel or security. After adding in some additional costs, one arrives at its total budget need.

The second part is the allocation process, based on the court’s percentage of share workload-driven need. The first year, only ten percent of each court’s allocation will be based on the new method, and 90 percent will be based on the historic model.

Earl noted that the method still needs tweaking.

For instance, 14 small, two-judge courts would receive a decrease in funding the first year.

“We knew that wasn’t right,” she said. “The amount of money that is involved is about $450,000 so we decided to keep them out of the model the first year,” Earl said. Adjustments for cost of labor across the 58 counties will also have to be made.

Presiding Judge Tom Borris of Orange County, a member of Earl’s subcommittee, said although his court would lose some money, it still endorses the new model.

“We have to lower the draw bridges, fill in the moats we’ve put around our counties and start thinking of moving on from something we have done since 1994,” said Boris. “Orange county believes in this formula. There is a lot that needs to be worked on and tweaked. But it is sound, it is fundamental, it is transparent.”

In addition to Orange, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Mendocino, San Diego, San Francisco and San Mateo will lose some funding. Earl said, “Their need, relatively speaking, is not as great as other courts.” Courts like Riverside, Kings County, San Luis Obispo, San Joaquin County, Santa Barbara and Imperial County will benefit.

Judge Walsh added, “What we bring before you is not perfect, but it’s better than good. In fact it is the best.”

He said the plan should not be considered a “Robin Hood” method under which funds are taken from wealthy courts and given to the poor.

“We can assure you there are no rich courts,” he said. “I think of it not as Robin Hood but a black and white movie from the Great Depression. Two people are out of luck and one slightly better off than the other reaches into his pocket and gives a quarter to the guy who is really hurting.”

“So it’s not Robin Hood,” Walsh concluded, “It’s, ‘He’s not heavy, he’s my brother,’” drawing laughter from around the council table

Related articles

• Email on Controversial AOC Proposal Surfaces (legalpad.typepad.com)
• Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• “Pay for View” was an AOC plan from the start (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• My court unification efforts have become a failure (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

April 25, 2013

Dear Members and Others:

By a show of hands, who thinks the half-billion dollar failed computer project, known as CCMS, is dead? If you raised your hand, you obviously made the mistake of thinking that our court leaders meant what they said a year ago when they voted to terminate the failed project.

We attach an article by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo which details the efforts of branch leadership to resurrect what was once thought to be dead, but apparently lives on to consume more precious trial court funds.The article contains links to various documents that disclose the behind-the-scene machinations to expand CCMS V-3 to include family law and juvenile dependency. You will see that the Orange, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Superior Courts have wisely objected to this plan. Inexplicably, the Ventura and San Diego Superior Courts support the effort, which will cost each court hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Alliance questions this stunning turn of events in light of clear legislative action last year that put the brakes on further CCMS spending. We are also mindful of a Judicial Council vote that appeared to stop CCMS in its tracks. We now learn that it takes more than the legislature and a vote of the Council to end what is the largest information technology failure in California state government history.

One final point. Alliance board member and Sacramento Superior Court Judge Kevin McCormick has requested the current list of active AOC/Judicial Council contracts. In the past, these lists were readily available and helped to shed light on the number of “temporary employees” and CCMS contractors who were on the payroll. We are now informed that the AOC no longer maintains this type of a list — a judge, or anyone for that matter, can no longer readily determine how public dollars are being spent. As a result, the AOC and Council can continue to fund CCMS notwithstanding legislative action, public statements or Judicial Council votes to the contrary. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the AOC is opposing an audit of its contracting work, insisting that the State General Fund must pay for it.

These are tough times for the local courts. We have all witnessed valuable employees being shown the door, curtailment of hours of service to the public, and the closure of numerous local courthouses. It is truly bewildering that while this carnage is taking place our unelected branch leaders believe it is prudent to revive and expand on a computer project that has done irreparable harm to the judicial branch. Clearly this does not help to make the case for additional funds for the courts.

After the Courthouse News article we have pasted member emails we sent after the Judicial Council supposedly voted to kill CCMS. Perhaps with your help our concerns will be heard. We will continue to keep a close watch on this Council and its uncontrollable hydra, the AOC, and we will continue to advocate on your behalf for an elected Council with the conviction to put the interests of the trial courts and the public ahead of those of the central planners and their uninformed devotees.

Directors

Alliance of California Judges

_______________________________________

Courthouse News Service
4/23/13

Ghost Rises From Software’s Grave

By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – Despite instructions from legislators to stop spending money on a controversial software project, a court technology committee is now looking to pour more money into the project long thought dead. A key administrator noted the political risk in spending additional hundreds of thousands of dollars on the aging Court Case Management System used by only a few trial courts. The great majority of trial courts, said the administrator, could see the spending as “enhanced funding for a project deemed cancelled.” In more freewheeling language, judges slammed the software as “a money-sucking beast” that deserves “a stake through its heart,” thence to be “dragged out into the sunshine to rot.” The renewed life of the CCMS project was sparked by a recommendation from the Court Technology Committee, one of the powerful court committees that work closely with the Administrative Office of the Courts and meet in sessions closed to the press and public.

Earlier this month, the committee’s chair, Santa Barbara Judge James Herman, sent a letter to the five courts that use an interim version of the software, asking if they would like to enhance” the system for a cost of somewhere from $317,000 to $381,000. Specifically, the proposal would expand the case types that can be included in the third version of the software to include family law and juvenile dependency cases. Over its decade-long development, the expense of the software project has been underestimated by administrative office officials and wound up costing more than a half-billion dollars in public money.

The project was supposed to be terminated last year as a result of a vote in the rule-making arm of the court system, the Judicial Council, saying money could only be spent to maintain the system in the few courts that use the software. This month’s technology committee letter proposing the expansion of the software’s ability to handle additional case types was signed by Herman who was not available for comment. He said in a February interview concerning alternate court software that CCMS had in fact been successful. “CCMS was a technically successful, completed product,” said Herman. “What defeated CCMS was we didn’t have the money.” Orange County Judge Robert Moss, who is also a member of the technology committee, echoed that point in an interview this week.

“It’s all about money,” said Moss. “The three courts that are against it don’t plan to use V3 for other case types and they don’t want the limited resources that exist to maintain V3 to be diluted by expanding. It’s not an irrational thing, but it’s a dilemma because the trial courts are not in agreement.”At its Monday meeting, said Moss, the technology committee decided to go back to the courts to see what funds each can afford to contribute, if any. “We’re looking into whether the courts would have the ability to share the cost.”

The letter from the technology committee, sent early this month, has brought opposite reactions from the five courts that use the software. Sacramento, Orange County and San Joaquin are strongly opposed. Ventura and San Diego think it is a good idea. Sacramento head clerk Christine Volkers said the proposal “poses too much of a political and financial risk.” “Sacramento is keenly aware of the discussions surrounding the reduction or elimination of funding for CCMS V3,” she said. “If additional case types are added, this could be considered by other courts as enhanced funding for a project deemed cancelled.”

Volkers, who was hired late last year, also gave voice to the point often made by judges — that the central administrative office has been subsidizing individual courts that agreed to use the software by footing the bill for the software’s development.The great majority of California’s 58 trial courts did not take on the software, so they are required to buy case management software, which routinely costs millions of dollars, out of their own operating budgets. “Many courts may believe that the CCMS V3 courts are receiving special treatment, when many are paying for their case management systems out of their trial court trust fund allocation,” wrote Volkers. Sacramento adopted the controversial software under a previous clerk. Since that decision, the court’s leaders have been in a number of confrontations with the administrative office over the software project and they were instrumental in its demise with a deeply critical assessment of the software’s reliability and efficiency.

“It’s a reality that we are given additional money because we were ‘early adopter courts,’” said Sacramento Judge Maryanne Gilliard. “Our court can’t afford to keep CCMS afloat without it.”
“It is such a money-sucking beast,” she added, “and so staff and employee driven.”

Another of the five affected courts, Orange County, said through its head clerk that it is “not interested” in the expansion. The court’s letter said expansion could jeopardize additional funding the court receives now receives to maintain the defunct software. “If case types are added to V3, other courts that already object to any funding being provided for V3 courts may gain additional supporters and may succeed in cutting off the funding altogether, even for defect fixes and legislative updates,” said head clerk Alan Carlson.

Judge Moss, from the technology committee and also from Orange County, said that even if the committee decides to roll out the expansion for only two courts, the other three will still have to pay for testing to ensure the changes don’t affect current operations. “Every court that has V3 running will have to do regression testing if the program is modified,” said Moss. “Orange County will still have to do a lot of testing to ensure the modifications don’t affect functionality.” Like the administrators in Sacramento and Orange, the head clerk in San Joaquin Superior Court is also skeptical. “When V3 was deployed, there were several deficiencies in the accounting and financial area that today remain unresolved after several releases of ‘fixes’ to the original V3 product,” said the court’s head clerk Rosa Junqueiro. “We believe adding additional case types that require filing fees prior to fixing the existing accounting problems will create the need for additional ‘work arounds’ thus creating more work.”

San Joaquin is currently looking to replace its entire case management system with off-the-shelf software put together by Justice Systems Inc., one of three companies recently selected by a group of trial courts to be approved for the sale of software to California’s trial courts. “We do not believe it is in the best interest of our court, given our limited resources, to expand V3 at this time,” Junqueiro wrote. “Like many courts, the ultimate goal for our court would be to use a single case management system to support all case types.”

Coming from the other end of the debate spectrum, San Diego’s head clerk Michael Roddy thanked the technology committee on behalf of both San Diego and Ventura, saying he “strongly endorsed” the proposal. But Roddy also said the expansion could take longer and cost more money than the technology committee had thought. The conversion of old case information had not been addressed, said Roddy and he would need more “tools” to help in data conversion, in addition to “information from Deloitte,” a reference to the consultant that rang up enormous bills before on the software project. Ventura’s presiding judge, Brian Back, also supported the enhancement with a letter saying it would help the move to e-filing. That ability to file court papers via the Internet was the original promise of the CCMS project. The final V-4 version was supposed to allow e-filing, but no trial court was willing to use the final version.

While the letters from the five trial courts gave a decidedly mixed review of the expansion idea, commentary from judges was withering. Referring to the statements from legislators telling court administrators and their judicial supporters to stop spending money on the CCMS project, Judge Andy Banks in Orange County said, “It would be great to see what language is used to finesse how this is okay under the clear directive of the Legislature.”

California legislators have used severe language to criticize the CCMS project. Assembly member Joan Buchanan called it “a good example of how not to develop an IT project.” Assembly member Gilbert Cedillo in March 2012 called for a halt to the project, saying, “Basically, using the parent language, we’re taking a little time out here.” Two weeks later, the courts’ top rule-making body, the Judicial Council, voted to kill the project while salvaging some of its technology for the future.

At the time, there was no discussion of specific future uses for the technology. However, this month’s letter from the technology committee made it clear that the notion of expanding the software’s application came almost immediately after the software project was declared dead. Specifically, Ventura’s court made the request for expansion the next month, in April 2012. “A lot of people were afraid it was like a vampire,” said Banks. “You could never be sure it was dead until you put a stake through its heart and drag it out into the sunshine to rot.”

Gilliard in Sacramento used a similar analogy to something that would not die. “It’s like a Terminator movie,” she said. “You think it’s been killed off but then a bolt starts to scoot cross the floor.” “I thought the Legislature was pretty straight forward when they said, ‘Don’t spend any more money on this failure,’” added Gilliard who is a member of the Alliance of California Judges, a group that has been highly critical of the software project. “How can our branch leaders think this is a strategically good thing to do in light of the fact that every single court in this state is hurting and the Legislature told them to quit pouring money down this hole?”

Technology committee member Moss defended the expansion by saying the money had already been set aside in funds intended for V-3 maintenance, which he added should not conflict with the Legislature’s wishes. “We’re mandated to continue operating and supporting V3 and this is within that budget,” said Moss. We’re not seeking any more money.” As it had in years past, CCMS still keeps its ability to inflame debate within the judiciary, among the different courts, and within the same courts. In San Diego, Judge Runston Maino was troubled by the letter from his court’s head clerk endorsing the expansion.

“There a number of us who, despite Mr. Roddy’s protestations to the contrary, believe that CCMS was and is a failure,” said Maino. “As many of us see it, CCMS was not only a failure but it has cost this court about 40 million dollars.” He added that the judges in his court shouldn’t be kept in the dark. “Could I suggest that it might be a good idea to send out a judge wide email telling us what is going on? How much money is this going to cost us? Where is the money going to come from? What is the business plan?” Maino added by email comment, “The AOC has learned nothing from the CCMS fiasco. Their stubborn inflexibility to understand that CCMS is dead is troubling. What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand? They are acting like the dog and fool in Proverbs 26:11.”

In the King James version of the Bible, Proverb 26:11 says,”As a dog returneth to its vomit so a fool returneth to his folly.”

____________________________________________

April 5, 2012

Dear Members and Others:

We have been sending you frequent updates because there is a great deal of news and public interest being generated due to the collapse of the CCMS project. We are providing you now with a copy of the most recent article by Maria Dinzeo from the Courthouse News Service and a link to a broadcast on Los Angeles Fox News Channel 11, both released yesterday.

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/saving-the-california-dream-taxpayers-lose-in-statewide-it-debacle-20120404

The Alliance has been advocating since 2009 that the CCMS project be terminated and that the interim systems currently in use be delivered to the courts using them for continued use and maintenance upon local servers by those courts’ own IT staff and with some “bridge” funding until each of those courts can maintain the system within their existing operating budgets. We are concerned that the “termination” of CCMS may prove to be similar to the “pause” that wasn’t a pause last year, and the hiring “freeze” at the AOC which wasn’t really a “hard” freeze, but was a “soft” freeze.

We have repeatedly asked whether the expenditure of over $500 million of taxpayer money has ensured that at least the AOC owns the codes and can deliver those codes to local IT departments. The AOC has repeatedly stated that it owns the codes. Ms. Dinzeo’s article raises the issue that there are elements of the software apparently proprietary to Deloitte Consulting, the program developer, called vendor works that may have been included in CCMS and which may require continued payments to Deloitte.

Please review these news stories. We invite you in particular to consider what the AOC is paying for in its effort to “leverage” the current state of CCMS development.

Thank you for your continued support.

Directors,
Alliance of California Judges

________________________________

May 31, 2012

Dear Members and Others:

The media continues to show interest in last Friday’s release of the SEC report. In fact, the Sacramento Bee has published an editorial calling on the Chief Justice and Judicial Council to heed the recommendations of the report. We attach that editorial for you, as well as a Daily Journal article by reporter Ciaran McEvoy and an Associated Press story by Paul Elias.

On another topic, most of us thought that the Judicial Council’s vote last month to terminate CCMS meant it would be terminated. We were apparently wrong. We include for your information an email that was sent to certain Presiding Judges, court CEOs, and court CIOs inviting them to a CCMS demonstration originally scheduled for May 30. Shortly thereafter, the demonstration was cancelled by the AOC as follows: “The CCMS functional demonstration scheduled for Wednesday, May 30…will be rescheduled. With the suspension (emphasis ours) of the CCMS program, and the reduction of contractor support, the CCMS application is in maintenance mode…On Tuesday we encountered technical issues in the PAT environment, which prevent us from proceeding with the demonstration.”

The email from AOC staff seems further evidence of the disconnect and lack of meaningful oversight by the Judicial Council that the SEC referenced in its review. The Council was given the option to suspend CCMS, but they voted to terminate the program. A decision of the Council is meaningless if AOC staff are free to treat it as advisory only.

We will of course continue to keep you updated on all of these matters.

Directors, Alliance of California Judges

Related articles

• A Constitutional Amendment to Democratize the Judicial Council (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• AOC in Woodshed over LB – Chief re-appoints three to Judicial Council – From the desk of JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• The End of the Line for Reform (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

April 19, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

Below is an outstanding editorial from Bill Girdner, editor of the Courthouse News Service, that helps to illustrate the dysfunction of California’s judicial leadership structure. Until our Judicial Council is composed of independent judicial officers determined to make responsible decisions on behalf of the state court system, we will continue to see little more than head-nodding and cheerleading by the handpicked judges and justices whose primary qualifications appear to be their ability to provide unwavering support for the Chief Justice, while consistently deferring to the recommendations and actions of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

The Alliance has long advocated for a democratic process of selecting the voting members of the Judicial Council. Alternatively, we have proposed a formula for the election of a trial court advisory committee that would ensure the representation of small, medium and large courts from throughout the state. As explained below, the Ninth Circuit uses a system based largely on seniority that involves a rotation of judges from its 14 judicial districts. We are open to any other approach that would produce strong, independent leadership. By now it should be apparent to everyone that a governance structure based upon patronage is wholly unsuited to the task.

A constitutional amendment to change the composition of the Judicial Council will not make the ballot without a very expensive voter initiative campaign or the support of the Chief Justice. We urge her to accept the reality that a more democratic selection process is essential to restore faith in the decisionmaking process of the Judicial Council. We will advocate unceasingly for this critically important reform.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

Related articles

• A Constitutional Amendment to Democratize the Judicial Council (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• AOC in Woodshed over LB – Chief re-appoints three to Judicial Council – From the desk of JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• AOC’s misguided ‘pay-per-view’ draws fire from all directions (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Alaska Judicial Council faces loss of power (juneauempire.com)
• The End of the Line for Reform (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)

My court-unification effort has become a failure.

Most former politicians do not own up to their errors, but here is one that needs understanding and corrective action by the legislature. “Court unification” was an attractive concept that emerged from what was then known as “The El Cajon Experiment.”

The problem that the several El Cajon judges, who dreamed up the idea, was that California had three levels of trial courts which were both confusing and inefficient. The smallest were Justice Courts located through out rural areas which were presided over by a “justice of the peace” (JP) who in reality was the most popular local butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. A JP did not have to be a lawyer because he handled mostly traffic matters. With the advent of improved communications and finally the internet, distance became ever less important to the flow of information thereby making justice courts and even municipal courts obsolete.

The judges of the El Cajon Experiment arranged for themselves to be “cross designated” which allowed each judge to handle municipal and superior matters. This arrangement created substantial internal efficiencies to the benefit of the litigants and the taxpayers. Satisfied that they had found a solution that reduced bureaucracy, costs, and delays, the judges of the El Cajon Experiment asked me as their State Assembly Representative to initiate a constitutional amendment to enact their idea.

As a result, I successfully carried a constitutional amendment through the legislature and to the statewide ballot. In those days, I believed that good ideas sold themselves, so I did not mount a statewide campaign to pass the measure and it failed. There was one happy result and that was the ballot measure kicked off a state-wide discussion about the idea which began to gain wide acceptance.

As a result, State Bar asked me to start with the unification of the justice courts into municipals thereby giving rurals a substantially increased level of service with minimal cost increases. I carried that measure to the statewide ballot and it passed handily.

Later I took a seat on the municipal-court bench and saw with my own eyes how correct the El Cajon judges had been. My former colleague Bill Lockyer subsequently successfully passed a modified version of my first initial effort to unify the municipals and the superior courts. This time, I acted as state chairman of the campaign and promoted the idea far and wide and it passed in nearly every county with the highest plurality here in San Diego. The result was an immediate flurry of improvements in our local operations. Judges from the downtown court were moved to impacted courts, staffs were united, rules were unified, and the promised savings realized.

With unification, and other legislative support such as lawyer sanctions, fast track, judge voir dire in criminal cases, and improved automation, the San Diego courts were able to provide superlative service. The three-year backlog of civil cases that were ready for trial shrunk until as a civil judge, I could assign a case that was “at issue” on Friday to an open court- room the following Monday. Unfortunately lurking in San Francisco was an organization called the Judicial Council and its supporting staff organization called “The Administrative Offices of the Court (AOC).” Their presence should not have been a problem as their roles are constitutionally delineated as “advisory” to the courts and the legislature.

But for them, the siren song of “unification” meant that the historic relationship among themselves and trial courts were to be “reborn” as the current chief justice recently said. The very notion that local elected judges in the 54 counties operating their courts for over a hundred years in accordance with the Government Code but tailored to local needs was to them an unruly specter that needed to be reigned in.

“Unification” to the chief justice and his staff at the AOC meant an opportunity for a power grab by misrepresenting to the state legislature the purpose of unification. Nothing in the unification amendments authorized top-down control of local elected officials (judges) by unelected bureaucrats in San Francisco and Sacramento. More importantly, the operation of mighty Los Angeles County is vastly different from those of tiny Mariposa County. By honeyfuggling the legislature, the chief justice and his minions at the AOC siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars to grow a huge staff in San Francisco to “govern” the courts.

The result is that while AOC employees now number as many high-paid employees as there are judges,  local courts have had to close, furlough employees and leave needed positions  unfilled. The actions of the former and present chief justices and the AOC staff are unconstitutional and are grinding justice to a halt in California.  Though neither the El Cajon judges, Senator Lockyer and certainly not myself intended for “unification” to cripple the state courts, sadly that is what has happened.

The legislature should make amends by defunding most of the AOC staff and directing available funds to the local courts as the constitution wisely intended.

Larry Stirling graduated from San Diego State University in 1964. He then enlisted in the United States Army, was commissioned, and served 20 years as an infantry officer; four on active duty and 16 years in the active reserves. He commanded a company in Korea from mid-1967 to mid-1968. Upon release from active duty, Larry took a job as an administrative analyst for the city manager of the City of San Diego. Four years later he was selected as the finance director for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Four years later, with the help and guidance of Lee Hubbard and Pete Wilson, Larry was elected to the San Diego City Council. In 1980 he was elected to the State Assembly and served four terms. In 1988, he was elected to the State Senate where he served until appointed to the Municipal Court bench by Governor George Deukmejian. Upon unification of the state’s trial courts, Larry was elevated to Superior Court judge where he served until 2003, when he retired. Larry now serves “of counsel” to the distinguished business and finance law firm of Teeple Hall and as “senior counsel” and director of mediation services for the statewide law firm of Adams Kessler which specializes in the Davis-Stirling Act. He is also partner in Sacramento Advocacy, a Sacramento-based lobbying firm. Larry is married to Linda, a Senior Vice President, Financial Consultant & Portfolio Manager, Folsom-Stirling-Sweeney Group at RBC Dain Rauscher. He has two adult children, Shenandoah and Jason. Larry is a member of the Downtown Rotary Club 33; a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the California and San Diego Bar Associations. Larry is the author of two books, Leading at a Higher Level, a book on public administration reform; and Asked and Answered, a book on practical courtroom evidence.

Produced by Larry Stirling with republication rights granted to Yen Interactive Media

We’re getting word that the pfearless leader of the pfacilities management unit, he who diverted his divisions resources from actually fixing courtrooms to developing flow and ganntt charts and new policies and procedures that would assist them to do less with even less on their way to a baby baldridge quality award has recently launched a new initiative.

Instead of having those boring monthly meetings via webex or telephones or utilizing any number of videoconferencing suites installed in every appellate court and every major AOC office, Mr. Pfab has another one of those better ideas – and this time it’s not just flatulence.

While Judicial Council committee members are barred from travel to attend committee meetings in person in an effort to save money, it is all window dressing as there is no such prohibitions being placed upon the AOC!

With all of that downsizing in AOC’s Burbank offices (by the way, did anyone ever recover the dedication plaque for the Sheila Calabro rent-a-conference center?) and all of that savings that was derived from downsizing that office, it appears that Jerry Pfab has plenty of mad money left.

Just none to replace your roof, Hayward Hall of Justice.

In fact, in these trying economic times with thousands of court employees being laid off and hundreds of courtrooms being closed, it is alleged that on March 21st Mr. Pfab dug deep into trial court funds to sponsor a junket to beautiful San Diego so that he could hold a meeting with his statewide staff and AOC’s prime maintenance contractors (who were also permitted to expense the event to the AOC) at the San Diego Hall of Justice.

To demonstrate that the AOC doesn’t pick favorites, April’s meeting junket will travel to beautiful Santa Barbara by-the-coast, complete with guided tours of the courts and all of the amenities of hotel rooms, rental cars and airfare paid for out of the same funds that would normally keep your courtrooms lights working. Apparently our constant battering of this unit has created a morale problem which only AOC paid mini-vacations to destination spots can cure.

It appears that these meeting junkets, which cost the taxpayers over 20 grand apiece are our fault and we’re dutifully hanging our heads in shame.

Last year this statement was being uttered by San Diego leadership and others to win support to move forward with a new San Diego Courthouse.

“The State of California will pay for the tunnel because it was part of the negotiations to obtain the land for the courthouse from the County. The tunnel is included in the budget for the courthouse project.”

As you know we’ve been looking at this future boondoggle unfold and as you might have guessed if you checked out SB1407, the funds to tear down old courthouses on lots that the AOC will not occupy in the future isn’t in the cards. As you might recall from the Long Beach incident, with ‘realignment’ comes a shift of responsibility to the sheriff/police to get their incarcerated to court.

And that don’t include no tunnels to no jails brother.

Let’s put a picture in your mind: Imagine moving prisoners in this congested downtown area is on a daily basis, how outrageously expensive it is to park and the increased costs of holding people at the courthouse two blocks from the jail by having to build another holding jail under the courthouse. Because holding cells must meet the same standards as jails, it makes this area the most expensive area of the whole courthouse. More expensive, even than turning the old courthouse into a high-rise parking lot and putting a tunnel under the parking lot to the jail. You can trust that the AOC already knows what they are giving San Diegans and it is an invoice and an eyesore for years to come.

Today, circulating around judicial circles is this missive: Some names have been omitted to protect our sources but you’ll find… a contrasting view… yeah, that’s it… of those negotiations with the county of San Diego over the land deal for the future courthouse…

___________________________

From: Hill, Brad [mailto:Brad.Hill@jud.ca.gov]

Monday, April 8 2013

As you know, the tunnel is no longer a part of this project.  One of the reasons for this decision by our working group was the cost escalation that took place as a result of a myriad of factors. (JCW: Yeah, they did not want to tear down the old courthouse because they have to do that before they build a tunnel under it…or risk collapsing the tunnel. They knew that years ago when they cheated San Diego County out of the lot.)  Although the initial cost estimates were in the $3-5 million range, the final estimate of $25 million (jcw because, duh!) necessitated our cancellation of the tunnel.  I appreciate your suggestion as to various options that might be considered.  We are definitely looking at a variety of approaches.

As far as the cost associated with the demolition of the existing courthouse is concerned, that is not a part of the approved budget for the construction of the new courthouse. The Judicial Council has fee title to the buildings and property that currently contain the Superior Court, office space and the old jail facility.  Although our committee is not working on this aspect of the project, it is my understanding that this property could be sold at some point in the future.  Any decisions as to the demolition of the buildings would probably be made by the new owner of the property.

___________________________

State of California to Citizens of San Diego: Coin Detected In Pocket.

While prominent insiders like So and Roddy get plush new penthouse digs overlooking San Diego bay in a new courthouse, the city will be left with a dangerous, festering eyesore for years to come. The county will be left transporting prisoners over surface streets two blocks and until now, it appears the other parties are not aware of all of this. (the city and county, that is…) and the AOC will be left purchasing insurance on the abandoned courthouse until they give it away, as opposed to the touted significant return to the TCIF, another touted reason to do this deal.

Boondoggle? A big-ass lie at the least. With Mr. Ham at the helm, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

April 5, 2013

Then there is SB 289 by Senator Lou Correa. In an effort to give law enforcement better guidance on what constitutes as driving under the influence, Mr. Correa has defined any detectable amount of any drug in your system as driving under the influence. This winner will be producing revenue for years to come when people are arrested for having eaten poppy seed bagels and charged with DUI when those trace amount of opiates show up in drug screening.

Are you a prop. 215 patient?

Mr. Correa seeks to ensure that you prop 215 people never get behind the wheel again because if you medicated at any time in the last month, you will test DUI under his bill. There’s a saying that people that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Zero tolerance drug laws are what filled our prisons to begin with. This time, there are those cottage industries, the auto insurance industry and law enforcement from around the state that would benefit from that revenue split that sponsor this bill. Soon you will see new and improved blow-and-go ignition interlocks that test for more than just alcohol. And of course we can’t forget that a DUI triples your auto insurance premiums for five years. Then again there are all of those out-of-work lawyers who can’t prosecute civil cases anymore because there are no civil courtrooms left. They too can jump in on Correa’s cash bonanza and start defending the third of Californians who took a hit off a joint in the last thirty days. Now if this law had a twice-annual random substance testing provision for those who enforce the laws I think we might see the public back this bill – and watch law enforcement kill it.

Last, we have Senator Ellen Corbett and SB 123 who wants to create special land use courts to manage the California Environmental Quality Act within our overburdened, under-resourced court system. So what is a land use court? They get to decide if your construction project will impact environmental quality. Well, it’s something that California Judges already do but Corbett aims to have a certain amount of judges hearing only CEQA cases so that these cases are less of an impediment to progress and that these cases move through the judicial system on a fast track of sorts. Imagine, soon one of the three judges hearing civil cases in Los Angeles might be taken off the job to hear only CEQA cases. Or one of the two judges in Alpine County would only hear CEQA cases. Corbett is a reliable source for thoughtless legislation.

Seen any other winners that would undermine due processes or overburden our courts? Tell us about it as we intend to start these new laws on our soon to be deployed legislative watch tab.
_______________________________________________

Ever heard of the Feinstein invasion? Neither did we until a few days ago. You see the theory behind the Feinstein invasion is that if you’re going to invade the United States from the pacific coast, you concentrate your landings from Santa Barbara to Crescent City. The reason? Alaska has no gun laws. Washington and Oregon have few gun laws. There’s a significant military presence in Southern California and every gangbanger in L.A. has assault rifles despite the gun laws. So you hit the area where your forces can push in a few hundred miles with limited resistance. As our nation continues to debate stricter gun laws, let’s not forget that no one enforces the current laws on the books now and that represents a majority of the problem. With sabre-rattling from North Korea and talks of invading and nuking the United States, perhaps we should be reconsidering that marked lack of military presence from Santa Barbara north and permit law-abiding citizens to be well armed while strictly enforcing the existing laws on the books so that the Feinstein invasion never becomes a reality.

______________________________________________

A little bird is whispering to us that it’s appearing that another boondoggle might be taking form in San Diego. This boondoggle has to do with false commitments, tunnels, bridges and the tearing down of old, asbestos laden courthouses.

• From Judge Kenneth So,  June 14, 2012 “The State of California will pay for the tunnel because it was part of the negotiations to obtain the land for the courthouse  from the County. The tunnel is included in the budget for the courthouse project.”

• Notes of an AOC Memorandum to the City of Long Beach, August 2012 “The State was firm in their decision that they would not  finance the construction of the tunnel, as they view prisoner 

  transportation as a local responsibility, whether prisoners come from long beach, the county of communities like Signal Hill

  .”

• The Michael Roddy report that went out to judges in San Diego in August 2012 reiterates the AOC’s policy by indicating that there is no tunnel planned from the county jail to the courthouse. There isn’t a bridge from the HOJ to the new courthouse. Conveniently, it leaves out who will pay to tear down the old courthouse like it is not on anyones’ radar, yet the proposed prisoner tunnel was penciled in (as part of the sales pitch) to go under the existing courthouse after it was raised. Except you can’t use SB1407 funds to build prisoner transport and they can only be used to tear down buildings when a new courthouse is going up in place of the old courthouse on the same plot of land. 

Another case of the insiders bamboozling the rest of us to win construction approval?

I wonder what a CEQA court would say about all the downtown air pollution generated by busing prisoners two blocks.

This courthouse was initially slated to cost 1.2 billion dollars by the AOC. In the last two years they’ve tossed about figures of between 554 million and 640 million. Yet what no longer appears as part of the project is the reason the land deal went down in the first place – a direct connection to the county jail. Instead, the AOC wishes to build their own holding facilities (the most expensive part of any courthouse with the least in it) and have prisoners transported to an area where no parking exists. If there will be no tunnel, the AOC should take advantage and move the courthouse out of the congested downtown area and save everyone – including themselves – some cash.

Related articles

• Environmentalists and unions band together to fight CEQA changes (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• AOC’s misguided ‘pay-per-view’ draws fire from all directions (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• ‘Devil’s Bill’: California considers red-light camera tickets that you can’t fight (usnews.nbcnews.com)
• Devil’s Red Light Camera Bill Is Bait and Switch for the Benefit of Red Light Camera Vendors (onecitizenspeaking.com)
• Another Evil California Scheme to Fleece Motorists (economicpolicyjournal.com)

March 27, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

We attach an editorial penned by Bill Girdner of the Courthouse News. Suffice it to say, our branch leaders have gotten the attention of those in the media who report on court cases and who believe in open government. The author voices a concern that we share — some of the reporting on the “$10 pay for view” proposal has appeared to cast blame on the Governor or his Department of Finance for this assault on the First Amendment and open government. That could not be further from the truth.

A Report to the Judicial Council (link) dated December 14, 2012, lays out the council’s legislative priorities for 2013. On page 12 you will find language drafted by AOC staff amending the Government Code to charge the public $10 to view a “name, file, or other information for which a search is requested.” Our branch leaders standing by silently while the Governor and his Department of Finance are unfairly criticized for this gaffe hearkens back to the last time the AOC was caught attempting to gut Government Code sections concerning the management of the local trial courts. Then AOC staff affirmatively blamed the Department of Finance. Now, they seem content to allow a misleading impression to be made regarding the authorship of this misguided proposal.

We encourage you to read this report in its entirety, as it sheds additional light on what our handpicked leaders believe is essential in this year’s legislative session. We will point out only one additional item. On pages 7 and 8, the AOC proposes to defer audits for compliance with the Public Contracting Code unless specific funding is provided to the judicial branch to offset the cost for these audits.

As you know, the State Auditor recently released her audit findings of the first six local courts that were chosen to be audited. We learned from this audit that the AOC was up to its old tricks by providing incorrect data and excluding information required by the auditors. The six local courts were found to be substantially in compliance with the code. Ending the audits now would stop the State Auditor from auditing the “AOC and other judicial branch entities” as is required by December 15 of this year. It appears that the six local courts had the funds to pay for audits last year, but this year the central office appears to be broke and unable to afford an audit unless the General Fund provides the resources to do so. How convenient.
The Alliance believes that auditing the AOC is not a luxury that should only occur if extra funding is secured. Rather we believe it is of utmost importance that respected State Auditor Elaine Howle undertake this audit immediately. For those on the Judicial Council who champion and repeatedly claim that a new regime has embraced “greater transparency,” this proposal to kill off an audit speaks to their definition of transparency when it comes to their own operations.

As always, we will continue to keep you informed on matters concerning our branch.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

________________________________________________

Courthouse News Service

3/26/2012
Early and Right on the Search Fee

By BILL GIRDNER

Newspapers have gone through a great shakeout over the last couple decades. They are no longer the cash cows they were.

But a lot of them, particularly the smaller ones, are still kicking.

Like the Chico Enterprise-Record, Marysville Appeal Democrat, Hanford Sentinel, Lake County Record-Bee, Monterey County Herald, Porterville Recorder, Red Bluff Daily News, Redding Record Searchlight or the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

There are some 850 newspapers in California.

My aunt Carole reads the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the free weekly Good Times and both have published her letters.

My uncle Bill, who was among the original group of Silicon Valley nerds that started Hewlett-Packard, would find endless material for commentary and amusement in the Monterey Herald and Carmel Pine Cone, his local newspapers.

And while they may not pack the political punch they used to, those local newspapers are still strong voices in the state. And even though journalism has moved in many big papers to what I call armchair journalism, more dependent on press releases and tips than shoe leather and hustle, some of the small papers still practice the craft as it should be done.

At the beginning of March, our reporter in Monterey sent me an email with an editorial attached. “I figured you’d appreciate this fervent commentary by our stalwart local daily, without which I couldn’t possibly enjoy my morning coffee,” wrote Ward Lauren.

He had included an editorial from the Monterey County Herald.

That small, central coast newspaper was the first to sound the alarm on a fee pushed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, a fee that would in practice prevent reporters from looking through court records.

“A $10 fee would be devastating to newspapers and other news operations, especially relatively small ones such as The Herald. Newspapers this size review dozens of new court files each month in search of potential stories – many of them about important public business.”

“Most newspapers and TV stations in California would be forced to cut back significantly on their reporting of local matters,” said the paper, “meaning the public would receive much less information about ongoing court cases and newsworthy civil matters.”

Having been in the business, and seen the good and bad sides of it, I know that a reporter does not have a petty cash account from which to spend a hundred bucks looking at court files for a possible story. Even in flush times, but all the more so these days, the expense would first have to get OK’d by a news editor who generally would not approve an unbudgeted expense.

Instead, the reporter would be told to try to get the information some other way, whereupon both the editor and the reporter would move on to another story on the rapidly moving river of news.
The Monterey County Herald was early and right on a number of points.

The paper correctly identified the Administrative Office of the Courts as the source of the proposal.
News stories published later and in other newspapers said the fee was coming from Governor Brown’s financial department, but the governor’s people are simply going along with it. Without actually knowing what they are doing.

Asked about the search fee, the finance department lawyers talked about the need for consistency in online copy fees, a different beast altogether. Courts regularly charge varying amounts to provide copies of court documents, and they would be surprised to know the finance department believes they should consistently cap the copy fee at ten bucks.

The Monterey paper was also the first to correctly portray how the charge would work — as a ten dollar tax on every single file that is handed across the counter for a journalist to review. Most other news reports have described the charge as a $10-per-search fee, when in fact the fee amount is a multiple of ten depending on the number of files handed across the counter.

“It could be argued that newspapers, TV stations and the like are commercial enterprises that should pay their own way,” said the Monterey paper’s editorial.

“That, however, ignores the reality that legislatures and the highest courts have long recognized that the legal system functions best when the public enjoys meaningful access to court records, and that journalists are attempting to perform a public service much greater than simple retailing of mass data.”

The newspaper concluded, “The effect of the Administrative Office’s proposal would be to greatly reduce the scrutiny of the legal system while doing little to help with the financial crisis in the courts.”

After all the reporting Courthouse News has done on this issue since the Monterey County Herald published its editorial, I still could not have said it better.

March 25, 2013

Dear Members and Others,

We forward on to you an excellent in-depth article from the Courthouse News, by reporter Maria Dinzeo, concerning the AOC’s trailer bill language which would assess a $10 dollar fee per case file requested by media and other persons. This article is replete with numerous links and is a must read for those who are concerned with open government.

The Alliance opposes this “pay for view” plan as it will most assuredly result in less transparency and may well, in fact, silence those in the media who have expended considerable resources unmasking the wasteful proclivities of the Judicial Council and its central office planners at the AOC.

One last observation concerning this article: the highly-paid staff that populate the opulent headquarters in San Francisco are unable to offer a single coherent or consistent explanation to justify this onerous fee, nor can they estimate the revenue it would generate. From those who stress the importance of “speaking with one voice” we see yet another example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

This lack of internal consistency by branch leaders is reminiscent of their past blunders. How much would CCMS actually have cost and when would it have been finished? How many are employed at the AOC? How many “temporary” workers are also employed? Who wrote the trailer bill stripping local courts of their rights to elect their own presiding judges? These and many other issues, including court construction and maintenance, need to be explored by the same media apparently being targeted by this overreaching trailer bill.

Again, the Alliance wishes to thank Senators Noreen Evans and Loni Hancock for standing up for open courts and the First Amendment. We also extend our gratitude to all of those on the bench and in the media who have taken heat for exposing the malfeasance of judicial branch leaders.

Directors,

Alliance of California Judges

________________________________________

Tide of Criticism Meets Court Admin Office Idea for New Fee

By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – The California court bureaucracy’s campaign to assess a $10-per-file fee for every record request has brought a tide of criticism from key legislators, judges and newspapers, saying the proposed legislation would “bring the shades down” and “have a negative impact on our democracy.” “When we use the judicial system like that we’re neutralizing the ability to enforce our laws, which will have a negative impact on our democracy,” said state Senator Noreen Evans, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A document fee reduces transparency in government, denies access to public records and it also impacts journalists who cover the courts.”

The senator, a democrat from Santa Rosa, is also a member of the courts’ rule-making Judicial Council. She has been a staunch defender of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and supported many initiatives from the chief’s staff in the Administrative Office of the Courts, the same bureaucracy that is pushing the new search fee. Evans’ opposition is a strong indicator of legislative wind direction on the trailer bill that would enact the fee. The senator also slammed Governor Brown’s Department of Finance which is backing the proposal, saying the Brown administration is strong-arming the courts into become a fee-for-service branch of government. “The Department of Finance is forcing the courts to try to raise fees,” said Evans. “What the Department of Finance doesn’t understand is the judicial branch is not just another agency of government that can raise fees.”

A second key legislator, Senator Loni Hancock, who chairs the Senate budget subcommittee vetting the trailer bill, is also critical of the charge. “Piecemeal fee increases can add up to a real lack of access for reporters, for low income and middle income people as they seek our justice system,” said Hancock in recent interview. “So in the interest of transparency in a democracy as well as access to justice for all people, it’s of great concern to me to increase those fees.”

Under existing law in California, courts charge $15 for searches of court records that take over 10 minutes. The proposal put forward by the administrative office and backed by Brown would change the government code to charge $10 for every name, file or information that comes back on any search, regardless of the time spent. The rationale behind the new fee has been varied and muddled. Members of the courts’ administrative bureaucracy first said the fee was aimed at data miners but did not provide a definition of who they are. Then they said they needed money for the courts even though they cannot say what funds, if any, the fee would bring in. Then they simply said they do not have stop watches — to measure the ten minutes required under current law to trigger a search charge. Most searches are quick and come back in much less time. But, as the judges and legislators pointed out, the new fee would cause anyone to think twice before asking to look at court records.

For news organizations that routinely review a large number of court files in their work, the new fee would quickly add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, a newspaper reporter reviewing the day’s newly filed cases for news would be hit with a ten-dollar fee for every case reviewed, a sum that would add up to roughly $400 a day in San Jose’s superior court and $700 a day in San Francisco. Judge Steve White in Sacramento described the proposed legislation as a “ham-handed” piece of work by the administrators for the courts. “It would put almost anyone who covers court news out of business,” said White. “Whether that’s the intention or not, that would be the result. Through that lens you can appreciate that it’s not much different than asking a cover charge to watch the trials we preside over.”

Press Coverage

Among the state’s newspapers and television stations, the fee idea has worked as a self-inflicted black eye for the courts’ administrative office. SF Gate, for example, published a story about the $10 per file search fee entitled “Fee Would Sock Public for Court Records.” The Santa Rosa Press Democrat published a story titled, “State wants to charge citizens to see public court records,” followed by an editorial titled, “Price-gouging plan to fund state courts.” Underneath a photo of the chief justice, the newspaper’s editorial contrasted the chief’s call for “equal justice for all” in this month’s State of the Judiciary address with the actions of her staff in proposing the fee. The newspaper described the fee as “an astonishingly bad idea to raise money for the courts — charging $10 for so much as a peek at any file in any courthouse.” “Arbitrary and excessive fees would put some information services out of business,” the newspaper’s editorial added. “Just as important, they would be a deterrent to journalists and citizens wanting to do research or to simply follow a court case. Price gouging will only push the state further from her goal of justice for all.”

The story has also been picked up by the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee and TV stations KPBS, NBC affiliate KCRA in Sacramento and ABC Channel 10 in San Diego. ABC noted the concession by the courts’ head administrator that the fee was bad policy. “Steven Jahr, administrative director of the courts, agrees that it’s not `sound policy’ and says the courts want the Legislature to restore funding,” said the ABC story. “But he says the fee will be necessary if Brown and lawmakers do not increase the court budget.” The most powerful newspaper in the state, the Los Angeles Times, has yet to weigh in.Confusion over the story has also been inadvertently spread by the administrative office and the Judicial Council. The Press Democrat said in its story, “The search fee alone would generate $6 million, said a spokesman for the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the courts.” That estimate was in turn picked up in an Associated Press story published by the Fresno Bee, saying, “A spokesman for the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the courts, tells the Santa Rosa Press Democrat the search fee would generate $6 million annually.” But the estimate is incorrect. A separate proposal to raise copy fees from 50 cents a page to $1 a page is estimated to raise $6 million, according to the report of the Public Coordination Liaison Committee of the Judicial Council. The search fee, however, does not have any estimated fiscal impact. “The amount of revenue this proposal will bring in is impossible to estimate,” said the report by the Judicial Council’s public coordination committee.

A spokesman for the governor’s finance department, H.D. Palmer, defended the inability of his department to predict any financial impact from the new fee by saying individual courts have not been consistent. He then pointed to different costs for copies of documents placed online by the courts in Sacramento and Orange County. “As an example, our legal staff advise that Sacramento Superior County provides documents free of charge, whereas counties like Orange will charge,” wrote Palmer. In fact, neither court charges for a search of its records. No court in California with online records charges for a search of those records. Courts traditionally charge to make copies of documents. Sacramento provides online copies of the documents for no charge while Orange County charges between $7.50 and $40 for online copies of documents, depending on the number of pages. No judge or court clerk has so far suggested that Orange County or any other court should limit their copy charges to a flat fee of $10, which is what the finance department’s call for consistency would suggest. Senator Evans said she was disturbed by the lack of cogent analysis behind the search fee. “If we’re going to go to the extent to force citizens to pay for access to justice, we’d better darn well know how much revenue it’s going to produce,” she said. “The fact that the Department of Finance doesn’t know how much revenue this is raising is disturbing.”

`Pull Down the Shades’

Most commentators argue that the fee is more likely to drive people away from court records than raise funds for the courts. “If it’s the intention of this proposal to bring in revenues to keep courts open, that idea is larded with irony,” said Judge White. “It would make court operations more inaccessible.” “One has to question the purpose of this,” he continued. “If something this extravagantly expensive and onerous were passed, it wouldn’t bring in any revenues because it would shut down access to court documents. Some people suggest that that’s the idea behind the proposal, to pull the shade down instead of raising revenues.” White is president of the Alliance of California Judges, a group that has campaigned for reform of the powerful and insular administrative office. The latest proposal from that office provided an opportunity for the Alliance to review the office’s history of gaffes. “Our branch leaders have hit a new low by proposing stealth trailer bill language to charge media outlets and the public for access to court records,” wrote Judge Maryanne Gilliard. “It is another instance where access to justice is being denied by those who purport to be champions of the concept.” “Members of the Alliance have been ridiculed and stonewalled,” she added, “the integrity of respected State Auditor Elaine Howle was questioned after her audit report on CCMS was released, print and television reporters and their supervisors have been called and chastised by AOC staff, and legislators were insulted by condescending comments about their support for the Trial Court Bill of Rights.”

The reference to Howle involved a devastating analysis two years ago of the Court Case Management Software project, saying it had been mismanaged by the administrative office and its projected cost had been underestimated by hundreds of millions of dollars. In a report last week, the state auditor again criticized the ability of the courts’ central bureaucracy to accurately account for public funds. The Administrative Office of the Courts is required to report to the Legislature and the state auditor twice a year on spending in the state’s trial courts. “The AOC’s semiannual report was neither accurate nor complete with respect to data from the superior courts,” said Howle in her report to the Legislature. In addition, said Howle, the administrative office had left financial numbers out of its report that should have been included.

In Judge Gilliard’s statement last week, she ticked off the controversies involving the administrative office, saying they would not have come to light but for inquiry from legislators, judges and the media. “If not for the dogged determination of the entities listed above,” she wrote, “we would not have been informed about the true cost of CCMS; the pension perk provided to the top 30 highest paid central office staff; AOC staff telecommuting from outside our state and country; the sneaky attempt to gut our local courts of the right to elect their own presiding judges; outrageous maintenance costs, including over $8,000 to remove gum and over $200 to replace light bulbs; the phony AOC furlough program that appeared to take away a work day but in fact replaced it with an extra day of vacation; a purported “hiring freeze”when in fact the AOC continued to hire; free ipad giveaways to 14 top-ranking individuals, including those responsible for CCMS; and the attempt to block the audit of CCMS by branch leaders, including then Chief Justice Ronald George. Gilliard added, “Not one of these revelations came without a fight.”

Related articles

• AOC in Woodshed over LB – Chief re-appoints three to Judicial Council – From the desk of JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• AOC’s misguided ‘pay-per-view’ draws fire from all directions (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
• Audit: California courts’ statewide financial report incomplete (blogs.sacbee.com)