The January axiom is an effective means of slashing government budgets. The theory of the January axiom is simple. Look at what a government agency spends in January of any given year which lands six months before the end of the year. Then analyze the year end spending habits of the agency in question between the months of May and June of the previous year, subtract two times the amount spent in January of that same year and lop the excess off the budget. The January axiom represents a more accurate portrayl of the budgetary needs of any California government agency. How would the January axiom add up in the California’s judicial branch across all levels?
If Jerry Brown chose to evaluate every expenditure in the state based on the January axiom, how much budgetary savings could be derived and how many pet projects would die? What would be the impact to state government spending as a whole? How about in your department – how much savings would be derived by avoiding the year-end spending spree most California government agencies engage in?
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
January 25, 2011
I heard a similar version of this. In layman’s terms, no governmental entity will ever admit its budget exceeds its needs, so that entity will go into an annual spending frenzy (even if unnecessary/superfluous) to make sure the budget is not cut for the next year.
SF Whistle
January 26, 2011
Let’s put it another way……”use it —or lose it”…..
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 26, 2011
The method of spending this money is the same across all branches and agencies in California government. In April of every year these agencies start totalling up what is in various accounting codes and what can be shifted is shifted and spent, usually in May and June, in the form of purchase orders issued in those last two months of the fiscal year. “Use it or lose it” is the operative word. But the clear and unambiguous pattern of wasteful spending (think: AOC’s Assistant Director Mark Moore’s iPad request last year) happens in May and June.
The legislative analysts office indicates that the judicial branch can save well over 200 million – and we agree. Before applying any cuts anywhere, everyone should go through the January axiom and see what might be painless.
Click to access targeted_reductions_012511.pdf
I missed this article by Judge Horan on behalf of the Alliance of California Judges in MetNews. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/acj011911.htm
I think the ACJ and the LAO are largely on the same page with respect to source of funds, yet neither the LAO nor Judge Horan point out the 150 or so Apple One temps and other consultants employed directly by the AOC. The hiring binge continues unabated, it’s just that they’re going through agencies to bring them on board so that their officially employed numbers don’t increase.
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2011
At the same time that the ACJ is sending this letter to the new Chief Justice, the AOC is hiring like there is no budget crisis. Besides a slew of new recruiting and hiring for regular positions in the Office of Court Construction and Management, IS, and other departments, Director Fuentes and Assistant Director Couch in the HR Division are hiring “temp attorneys” through the AOC’s temp contract with Apple One at the premium rate of $95.00 an hour, or approximately $3800.00 a week, to do labor relations for the trial courts, despite the fact that there’s all those attorneys already working at the AOC.
Speaking of attorneys, every branch and division of State government isn’t permitted under state regulation from hiring outside attorneys or law firms without first requesting the State Attorney General’s office for legal assistance, and if the AG’s office declines, then getting written permission from the AG’s office to retain outside counsel. How is it that the Judicial Branch seems to have self-exempted itself from this requirement that applies to every other branch and division of State government in California? And FYI, the expense of such outside counsel is supposed to be a matter of public record. Every other branch and division of State government is required to report this. They don’t have to report the specific details of the litigation, but the expense spent on outside legal counsel, using public funds/taxpayer money, paid for that outside legal counsel is considered a matter of public record. So maybe somebody in the media should request this under a public records act request to the AOC and publish it. And if the AOC refuses, file a motion in the San Francisco superior court.
Michael Paul
January 26, 2011
About a month ago a headhunter contacted me and indicated that I look like a good fit for a V3 Architect (CCMS) and wanted to know if they could submit my resume to the AOC. ~just laughs~
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 27, 2011
MP: Got the headhunters email. They were serious! There is an interesting story in courthouse news service ths morning as well.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/26/33651.htm
It appears it’s all part of another sham RFP for a pre-selected vendor, likely deloitte. That way they can keep absolute control over what might get out about the program.
Wendy Darling
January 26, 2011
Published in The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Courts Can Handle Deep Cuts, LAO Says
Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
January 25, 2011
SACRAMENTO — California’s judiciary could save $356 million — and easily absorb the governor’s proposed $200 million in cuts — primarily by tapping trial courts’ reserves and a major construction fund, the state’s legislative analyst’s office said in a report issued today.
The fee- and fine-funded Immediate and Critical Needs Account, created in 2008 to finance 41 courthouse projects around the state, could provide $150 million in operating cash over the next two years, the LAO said. Draining that money won’t delay any construction projects because the fund’s balance has grown larger than expected, according to the analyst.
The nonpartisan LAO also suggests that the state could save $150 million by forcing local trial courts to draw down their “considerable reserve funds.” The state’s 58 trial courts started the current fiscal year with $312 million in their coffers “that were not restricted by future contractual or statutory obligations,” the LAO said.
That’s not to say trial courts don’t have plans for that money. A lot of it has been set aside for things like consulting, facility work, computer networks and emergency reserves, said Drew Soderborg, a senior analyst in the LAO’s office.
“Transferring this money will definitely impact some of the plans [the courts] had, but given the state’s budget situation, it’s a good opportunity to re-evaluate some of those plans,” Soderborg said.
Executives with the Administrative Office of the Courts did not return messages seeking comment this afternoon. But they are sure to challenge the report’s findings, particularly the notion that local courts have stockpiled extra funds. The branch instituted mandatory once-a-month court closures in 2009 and 2010 in a cost-cutting move, and leaders have tapped into construction and technology funds to cover past budget hits.
The LAO’s report also recommends cutting $60 million from 13 trial courts it considers “overfunded”: Amador, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Napa, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Siskiyou. Using a formula derived from a 2005 workload study, the LAO concluded that each of those courts receive more money than they need to adequately handle their case filings.
“There are a lot of courts that have been operating with less funding and managed to get through,” Soderborg said.
Among the LAO’s other recommendations:
• Replace shorthand reporters with electronic court reporting for an eventual savings of $13 million. The Legislature has rejected this proposal several times in recent years, agreeing with well-organized courtroom reporters that the projected savings are inflated and the actual recording quality may suffer.
• Improve collections for civil case court reporting. The AOC spent about $80 million for civil court recording in 2009 to 2010 but only recovered about $30 million even though litigants are required by law to pay for services lasting more than an hour, according to the LAO.
• Contract out for interpreting services.
The LAO is also urging the Legislature, once again, to seek competitive bids for court security. State law currently leaves that task to sheriffs, and the judicial branch pays the tab. Costs for securing judges and courthouses have skyrocketed from $385 million in 2005 to almost $498 million last year, according to the Legislature.
Lawmakers have repeatedly rejected any effort to take court security out of the hands of the politically powerful sheriffs. Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed shifting court security responsibilities — plus $530 million originally controlled by the judicial branch — to the counties.
At a state Senate subcommittee hearing today, Donna Hershkowitz, assistant director of the judicial branch’s lobbying office, said the Judicial Council has significant concerns about the ability of local courts to negotiate security contracts amid rising costs under the proposed scheme. The governor’s proposal might also make it more difficult for the branch to set uniform security levels statewide, she said.
Sheriffs generally support the shift to counties, said Curtis Hill, a lobbyist for the California State Sheriffs’ Association, but they would like to see the funding go directly to law enforcement, not the counties.
The subcommittee did not take action on the governor’s proposal.
SF Whistle
January 27, 2011
Seems unlikely that the SEIU will be helpful in achieving these necessary savings…
This is another one of those situations where the tail-wags-the-dog…..Brown will not be taking on the Unions—no one in the legislature will take on the Unions….So there is not much to talk about here…..
judicialcouncilwatcher
January 27, 2011
This is one of these areas where I believe unions have a point that isn’t being heard. The clerk that makes 65K a year and earns a calpers pension is not the problem. The person that is that person’s senior manager that makes $175,000+ and spikes their pension in the last 3 years of service and retres, then comes back to an agency as a double-dipping consultant is more the problem. (The AOC has about 10 double-dippers and the judges have a double-dipping program for retired judges as well. It is institutionalized in the judicial branch and it costs the branch big money)
SF Whistle
January 27, 2011
Meaningful budget reform will require participation from the SEIU as well. The SEIU does not have a history of being a thoughtful partner in an environment where scaled-back expectations are required. Rather, the SEIU is well-known for it’s bullying and campaigns of terror and intimidation.
The facts are the facts….California’s three largest public employee pension plans have a shortfall exceeding $500 billion dollars covering 2.6 million participants. These numbers cast a tall shadow when cast against the national issue, identified as a $2 trillion dollar crisis. I am informed that if an attempt were made to resolve the pension crisis over a 10 year period it would require half of the State budget—?
The day of reckoning is here and the fact that the Judicial branch suffers from the same disease is no surprise. The facts also hold that the SEIU will not be helpful in identification or implementation of essential change—-
JCW–you are correct that the $65k clerk is not the largest problem….yes, the “spikers” and “double-dippers” and other scammers are bigger problems..but if there is to be meaningful solutions it will require participation from parties that have no history as being solution oriented….
Michael Paul
January 28, 2011
When I went through New Employee Orientation or anything else related to my employment, nobody guaranteed me a pension payout.
I would personally like to see an initiative that limits pensions to top off at 100K regardless of what any public employee earns.
SF Whistle
January 28, 2011
I have a friend that served 4 terms in the Assembly when he was in his 40’s—he now receives a higher monthly payment from his pension and has greater other benefits—-and of course–he is now a lobbyist…