Last Friday before the window on 2011 legislation closed, the judges of this state declared a revolution against the Judicial Council and the Administrative office of the Courts and drew the line in the sand with the Trial Courts Rights Act of 2011.
With the passage of the Calderon Trial Courts Rights Act, which goes well beyond the modest proposals that Lockyer-Isenberg presented and that the AOC and Judicial Council ignored, courts will be cut loose from assimilation by the borg in San Francisco. They will be empowered to make their own business decisions for the benefit of their court. This appears to be broad business decision making authority that covers CCMS and other statewide software programs and initiatives and even covers Court Construction. It appears every time the AOC is going to charge your trust account 500 bucks for a light bulb, the trial courts will get a say as to whom that money is given to and how its spent.
Here we are blogging about it and someone took the bull by the horns and did it. Please support the Trial Court Rights Act of 2011 as an effective method to reign in that sucking sound coming in from San Francisco.
More on this from Courthouse News
Regrettably, Michael Jackson is reaching back from his grave to collect royalties and the embed isn’t working out. I think the beetles revolution is the perfect campaign/rally song for this piece of legislation.
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world.
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We’d all love to see the plan.
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We’re all doing what we can…
But when you want money for people with minds
that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao Ron
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know know it’s gonna be alright
Alright Alright
Judicial Council Watcher 
JusticeCalifornia
February 22, 2011
I do believe many in the branch will soon be joining/supporting the ACJ.
See my post on the “Just for the Record” thread regarding the new CJ’s appearance in Marin today.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 23, 2011
Even if others on the bench don’t join the ACJ, I feel confident that individually, they will support this bill. What they do as collectives or power blocs is a different story. Trying to stand in a judges shoes, this bill is what my court needs to have the authority to change our own light bulbs, to maintain our own case management system and to keep the doors of the courthouses open. Trying to stand in the AOC’s shoes, this bill could render about a hundred positions in the AOC redundant as courts go and hire experienced engineers to operate their facilities affordably. These courts should seek out experts who aren’t going to mince words about quality or costs they’re getting from the AOC – like Mr. Wintermeyer or Mr. Paul who’ve already been doing it for years and know what to look for.
JusticeCalifornia
February 22, 2011
I posted this on AOC Watcher. . . . .it seems so appropriate.
Nathaniel Woodhull
February 23, 2011
For all of us who were continually labeled as “shrill and uninformed” over the past six years, these developments are nice to see. Former CJ George had enough political clout to hold things off for a while. I feel sorry in a way for the new CJ. She has nothing to say but the “babel” that Ronald George told her to repeat when she was selected.
There are lots of great people working at the AOC, many of whom perform important functions. That said, there are many more who could do with a career change.
The AOC and Judicial Council work for the Trial Courts. We do the work, not the JC and AOC.
For fun, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImZCXn5Xvso
wendy darling
February 23, 2011
The new Chief Justice asked for the job and accepted it. Sticking to the “babel” of the recently departed Ronald George is her choice. She is also free to make different choices, and instead chooses to continue to defend the indefensible. I feel sorry for the voters, taxpayers, litigants, judges, court employees, and public at large who have apparently been sold yet another version of The Emperor’s New Clothes in the new Chief Justice.
And I add my personal and enduring respect, thanks and gratitude to the Alliance of California Judges. But for them, at this point there would be no integrity or credibility within the administration of the California judicial branch. Please let us know what each of us can do to support the enactment of the Trial Court Bill of Rights.
Long live the ACJ.
judicialcouncilwatcher
February 23, 2011
Assemblymember Charles Calderon has claimed his position in Judicial Council Watcher’s hall of fame as JCW views the Trial Courts Rights Act of 2011 as an extraordinary effort to save the branch money.
wendy darling
February 23, 2011
Published today from Maria Dinzeo in Courthouse News; on the website there is a link to the actual bill submitted by Assemblymember Calderon.
Long live the ACJ.
Majority Leader Introduces Trial Court Bill of Rights
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – Trial judges throughout California hit back against power grabs by judicial bureaucrats through a bill introduced in the Assembly late Friday that would guarantee autonomy for head trial judges in running their courts.
Introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), the Trial Court Rights Act would amend the government code to ensure that courts are considered independent of the state’s judicial bureaucracy, made up of the Judicial Council and its administrative arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The bill delivers its message right at the outset when it says, “The Judicial Council does not govern the trial courts.”
The proposed legislation follows on the heels of a harsh audit by the legislature, concluding that administrators understated the true price of a controversial IT system that is now predicted to cost roughly $3 billion and continues to drain money from trial court funds.
“The AOC is insisting on going forward with it while we’re closing courtrooms,” said Calderon in an interview.
Judge David Lampe of Kern County Superior Court said the proposed bill would allow the trial judges to gain control of their courts and work for those who elected them.
“The law will help restore public confidence that the judges they elect to serve their communities are given both the right and the responsibility to ensure that public money spent to administer the trial courts is prudently managed.”
Lampe is a director of the Alliance of California Judges whose membership numbers roughly 350 judges from all regions of California.
They have enlisted in their cause one of the most powerful and experienced members of the California Assembly.
Calderon, a longtime power in state politics, also served as a state senator and was the first Hispanic Senate Majority Leader in California, He has been in the legislature 20 years, the longest of any senator or assembly member.
He is also the first to have held the position of Majority Leader in both the Senate and Assembly. Calderon received his law degree from the University of California Davis and worked as a prosecutor before his election to the Assembly in 1982.
In an interview, Calderon said he felt compelled to get involved in the issue after hearing complaints from judges about the growing bureaucracy.
“A number of judges have complained since last year about how the AOC has seemed to create a bureaucracy in the Judicial Council, and how it’s managing judges in their trial courts,” Calderon said. He added that he was also a member of the Judicial Council from 1995-1996, back when “there was no bureaucracy.”
The AOC has since expanded enormously. “The AOC wasn’t anywhere near the size it is now. The bureaucracy is enormous. I believe they are up to 1,100 people,” said Calderon. “That’s huge.”
With Calderon’s help, the trial judges are taking the strongest action yet to counter the will of the statewide administrators.
Members of the alliance of trial judges argue that the bill is necessary to enforce provisions of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which stipulated that the judicial administration allow individual trial courts to manage their finances without bureaucratic interference.
Even though mandated by the legislature, the statewide administrators never adopted that stipulation regarding trial court independence.
Calderon’s bill means to correct the administrative omission.
The administrators failed to follow through on the independence guarantee, according to the alliance of trial judges, even as they pushed to change court rules that would increase the power of the top local court administrator at the expense of the presiding judge’s power to direct the court.
Those rule changes also put decisions about technology projects in the hands of the administrators. That rule change in particular comes in the context of the ambitious IT project called Court Case Management System now predicted to cost nearly $3 billion. The project has raised both the ire and the fighting spirit of trial judges who are faced with closing courtrooms and employee layoffs.
Calderon’s bill would add language to the government code that strengthens the authority and independence of the trial courts.
Under the proposed bill, all funds allocated for court operations would be given to the trial courts directly to be spent at their discretion.
That funding provision arises out of a disputed transfer out of the Trial Court Trust Fund by court administrators in order to support the multi-billion dollar IT project.
That trial court trust, many judges argue, was set aside to ease funding shortfalls in the trial courts, but the AOC contends that the trust fund money was never intended specifically for trial court operations.
A number of administrators and judges who have defended the project either were unavailable or declined comment on the newly proposed legislation.
“This act will go a long way toward restoring balance in judicial governance, by implementing the principles originally intended by the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997,” said a statement released by the Alliance of California Judges. “It will bring the trial courts, into the judicial governance process as full partners with statewide administration.”
Jon Wintermeyer
February 24, 2011
Instead of creating the large AOC empire created to oversee the 58 county trial courts buildings, which does not happen with any level of concern for the services performed, because the assigned players do not have a vested ownership interest in these individual courts. If the individual trial courts facilities director had control of the services provided and who provided them and how much they were charged for these services, then all the AOC really needed to do was audit them once a year for general maintenance budget. Instead, they let Team Jacobs run through the designated maintenance budget per building with no regard for what the requested wants or needs of the trial courts were. Upon project completion for a large remodel or building upgrade project like a reroofing or window replacements, then do an audit when it was finished. The greatly reduced AOC empire would have an OCCM unit that would only concern their staff with the project management and oversight of hired professional architects and engineers for new court projects during the design phases and then continue with them to coordinate the bid and construction phase with the hired contractor. The trial courts would also have an involved presence in these projects to insure that the trial courts requirements happened, but not would require the larger time effort or designated expertise of the OCCM professional staff. When I had the project management control of a remodel project and an MOU from the AOC, there was no wasteful manhours or overhead charges for FMU or Team Jacobs and I was not committed to the use of their designated vendors. That is why my projects cost so much less and were completed on time with a satisfactory quality. Team Jacobs had six full time staff assigned to the CC Courts paid for by the AOC, that were housed in court buildings, but they were not properly outfitted, no trucks or vans, minimal tools and did not have the training to perform the necessary tasks and they had no ownership or pride in the final result. The facilites staff the trial courts had were better prepared. The CC Court staff never complained about the facilities staff projects only the AOC FMU with Team Jacobs ones. Facilities staff understood that our work did not disrupt or stop court operations, but the AOC’s vendors thought differently and never seemed to understand working around the daily court functions. The Trial Courts did need control over their buildings, but the AOC FMU with Team Jacobs method was never better than the County and much less efficient and more costly. This Trial Courts Rights Act of 2011 with the properly qualified facilities staffing should be much more efficient and cost effective and would have better proposed early in 2003, so the trial courts could have done their pre-hiring homework in advance of the transfers to lay the groundwork for building their team.