Somewhere around this site, we mention that the alliance of california judges represents diplomacy. Unlike our nerve grinding parody that was nearly as agonizingly endless as Huffman’s own piece, Judge Maryanne Gilliard got right to the heart of the matter. That’s probably why she is in JCW’s Hall of fame. Keep yer umbrellas handy…. it looks like rain all over AOC’s parade.
___________________________________________________________________
By Maryanne G. Gilliard
(Maryanne G. Gilliard is a judge at the Sacramento County Superior Court and director of the Alliance of California Judges.)
Over the past 10 years, repeated clashes have erupted in the judiciary, all revolving around one question: Who really runs our judicial branch? The reality is that an imbalance of power currently rests in an insular triumvirate: the chief justice; William Vickrey, the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; and the chairman of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, a 14-year council veteran.
In 1997, the Legislature, at the urging of the former chief justice, passed and the governor signed into law a bill called the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997. The laudable goal of the bill was to equalize funding among the 58 county trial courts by placing into the hands of the Judicial Council the power to allocate funding to the trial courts.
At the time, judges expressed concern that giving unfettered power to the Judicial Council and the AOC would erode the ability of our courts to respond to the needs of local communities and would foster a centralized bureaucracy, whose chief goal would be to serve itself. Responding to these concerns, the Legislature placed language in Lockyer-Isenberg directing the council to create a “Trial Court Bill of Financial Management Rights.” They never complied, though the AOC continues to publicly maintain otherwise.
The AOC does not believe its own spin. In late 2009, AOC Assistant General Counsel William L. Kasley told the Alliance of California Judges that a Judicial Council financial policy manual and rules of court adequately addressed the issue. But, in responding to reporter Kenneth Ofgang’s question, “Where is the Bill of Rights,” the AOC inadvertently forwarded him an internal e-mail that contained this statement from AOC spokesperson, Phil Carrizosa:
“On this point, I think the Alliance is correct – the Legislature did ask the Judicial Council to draft a Trial Court Bill of Financial Management Rights and the council never did that. The finance policy quoted by /Kasley/ specifies /nothing/ about those rights.”
“All we can do is emphasize that the finance policy recognizes that each trial court is responsible for managing its own operations.”
“Good luck in selling this approach to Ken.”
The concerns of those judges who sounded the alarm in 1997 have been realized. The AOC has grown from 268 employees to over 1100. The chief justice appoints 15 of the 21 members of the Judicial Council. The Executive and Planning Committee has imposed sweeping governance changes without public debate, without public circulation and without a public vote of the Judicial Council. The committee sets all council agendas, determines who addresses the council and what they may say, and who can be considered for council and advisory committee membership. (Rules 10.6 and 10.11) A rule passed without public circulation or comment in August 2009 allows the Executive and Planning Committee to act for the entire council in non-public votes. (Rule 10.11(a)) It was used on Dec. 17, 2010, when a telephonic vote relegated the council to “sponsor” status and gave Vickrey exclusive authority to select the members of the committees to oversee the California Case Management System (CCMS).
Vickrey has been delegated policy making authority, policy interpreting authority and budgeting authority by the Judicial Council and chief justice. (See California Rules of Court 10.2(b)(4), 10.101(d), 10.80(d)). The truth is that since 1997, the AOC has seized, and been ceded, much power and in return has received no serious or meaningful oversight by the council. Council votes are simply predictable endorsements of AOC projects and programs. No AOC staff recommendation has ever been rejected by the Judicial Council.
The AOC is simply out of control. Its excesses have harmed the judiciary’s reputation immeasurably. It employed unlicensed contractors, resulting in a lawsuit to recoup millions, and spurring legislation introduced in the current session. The alleged mistreatment of an AOC employee, who informed the press of the lavish spending at a council planning session on the budget shortfall, resulted in last year’s enactment of whistle-blower legislation now affecting all 58 trial courts, not simply the AOC.
In June of 2009, using authority delegated by the council to submit legislation during budget negotiations, the AOC surreptitiously submitted trailer bill language to gut Government Code Section 77001 to remove all statutory authority for local court control, including the power of courts to select their own presiding judges. When uncovered, they first falsely blamed the Department of Finance, and later were forced to admit their involvement.
The crown jewel of the AOC is CCMS. Last year, the Alliance of California Judges fought for a legislative audit of CCMS. The former chief justice, the AOC, and the current head of the CCMS “oversight committee” all weighed in against it.
Thankfully, our side prevailed. The February 2011 Bureau of State Audits report reveals a stunning record of failure, misinformation, mismanagement, and lack of oversight. The project, first slated at $250 million, may top out at $3 billion and will likely be obsolete by the time it is fully deployed in 2016.
The reaction by the Judicial Council and the AOC to this devastating audit has been shameful. In the immediate aftermath, judges received an e-mailed infomercial produced by the AOC’s “news bureau” announcing all was well because new oversight committees had been formed. Within 24 hours judicial leaders proclaimed it was time to “move on.”
The damage done by this debacle is now nationally known: An Associated Press headline on March 12 reads “Computer Mess Jeopardizes Court’s Political Clout.” It appeared in over 300 newspapers, including the Sunday New York Times, within hours.
Particularly troubling to many judges is the concerted campaign by some Judicial Council members, AOC staff, and others aligned with them to discredit and marginalize those who dare to express a contrary view regarding our branches’ obvious failings. Judges have publicly been dismissed as “ants,” “shrill,” “uninformed” (former chief justice), “clowns” (chairman, Executive and Planning Committee), “chicken little,” and “strident” just to name a few. These ad hominem attacks are not limited to judges. Recently the chairman of the CCMS Executive Committee accused respected State Auditor Elaine Howle of being unfair, after she released a report criticizing the assumption laden cost benefit report purchased by the AOC. The chairman even suggested Howle inappropriately released her critique early to the “most strident” CCMS critics. One legislator observed: “I can’t believe the AOC wants to get into a credibility contest with the State Auditor.” How sad.
The Alliance is sponsoring a solution in AB1208 (Calderon), “The Trial Court’s Rights Act of 2011.” This bill clarifies the powers and responsibilities of the Judicial Council, AOC and our 58 trial courts. To those who would argue this bill represents legislative intrusion into the court’s business, please realize that the structure of state trial court funding is itself a creature of statute. Also, bear in mind the only time the AOC complains about the “camel’s nose under the judicial tent” is when judges propose legislation that would rein in their fiscal mismanagement and overreaching actions – otherwise, the AOC appears quite camel friendly.
To those who ask why we have not kept these problems “in house” we respond: Judges have tried. For instance, on Jan. 21, 2010, the president of the Alliance traveled to San Francisco to deliver a two-minute pre-approved statement to the Judicial Council. The chief justice ordered him to stop once he reached the point in the statement where “governance” was mentioned. When the president of another judges’ organization complained about AOC raises at the Dec. 15, 2009 council meeting, the Executive and Planning Committee chair responded: “I’ll be damned if I’m of a mood to support some major overhaul of the Judicial Council’s governance policy because of some newspaper articles that caused some judges to get angry.” The council did react, forming a new “accountability” committee. That committee has taken but one action since then – it recommended retroactive pay raises for the AOC.
The Alliance is not out to dismantle statewide rules that ensure the fair and consistent administration of justice as some have falsely claimed – AB1208 does nothing to the Judicial Council’s constitutional rulemaking authority. We simply insist that our judiciary be controlled by those who are ultimately responsible for its successes and accountable for its failures – the judges of the state’s 58 trial courts. AB1208’s modest reforms will assist us all in realizing that goal.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 17, 2011
Mary Ann’s comments are right on point.
Moments ago, a rogue’s gallery of true believers sent out an email to all judges urging them to oppose AB1208. They assert that AB 1208 will somehow subject the management of the trial courts to forces in the body politic. Again, the Chief Justice was just appointed and we should “…give her an opportunity to lead rather than assume she will perpetuate the status quo or ignore legitimate criticism.”
I for one do not view AB 1208 as any such effort by the Legislature to “encroach” on the Judiciary. The bill was authored by judges! This latest missive is further evidence of just how concerned the “status quo” is with those of us raising legitimate concerns. Those concerns by the way which we have been raising for a decade and have been consistently ignored. The new Chief opposed all of these same efforts to shed light on the Judicial Council and AOC while she was a member of the Council. There is absolutely no evidence she intends to change course anytime soon.
Michael Paul
March 17, 2011
I can’t wait to see that e-mail posted here on Judicial Council Watcher.
If the new chief justice had any inclination of showing leadership, Mark Moore would be out on the street as would all OCCM management from Lee Whilloughby on down, Vickrey and Overholt would be gone and I would be returned to the important work I was doing for the people of the State of California. I can think of a whole lot more housecleaning that needs to occur but the new chief justice has encouraged me and my companies to keep the AOC in the news all the time. I guarantee that is where they will stay until this little crime ring is busted up.
That, Chief Justice is not only justice – but accountability. You’ve shown neither and do not deserve the seat you occupy.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 17, 2011
As they say, there’s always more than one way to skin a cat. If anyone has a copy of this e-mail I’ll post it.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 17, 2011
Needless to state, we disagree with this position. We have no affiliation whatsoever to the Alliance of California Judges. We urge the passage of SB1208 because it will allow the local courts to manage some – but not all – judicial branch funds and take them out of the hands of the unaccountable AOC. We urge the passage of AB314 because it takes the rest of the money out of the AOC’s hands.
____________________________________________________________
A message From: Hon. Diana Becton-Smith, Hon. Steve Crandall, Hon. Terry Friedman (Ret.), Hon. Martin Jenkins, Hon. James Lambden, Hon. Richard Loftus, Hon. Thomas Maddock, Hon. Brian McCabe, Hon. William McGuiness, Hon. Gary Nadler, Hon. Mary Ann O’Malley, Hon. Vincent O’Neill, Hon. Stuart Pollak, Hon. Peter Siggins, Hon. Mark Simons
We are writing because we are concerned about the future integrity and mission of the judiciary. We are spectators, not combatants, in the travails of the Alliance of California Judges, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council. But we lament the toll that these controversies are needlessly taking on the reputation and independence of our branch of government, and the vitriol and character attacks that have become part of the debate.
We have all heard recent concerns about the statewide CCMS computer system, the role of the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts and generalized concerns about local court governance. Differing opinions among our ranks on the best way to manage our branch of government are not new. Nothing we say today is intended to change anyone’s mind on these issues. But we should not act out of frustration or suspicion either to fragment judicial branch policy or invite policy direction from outside of the branch, thereby unwinding significant reforms that have solidified our branch’s independence. It should be the cauldron of our collective voices as judges that determines our future, not legislative mandate.
The Alliance of California Judges is advocating the passage of AB 1208, a measure designed to mandate certain matters that are to be exclusively within the local control of superior courts. But under the guise of local empowerment, 1208 represents an unprecedented invitation to the Legislature to decide policy issues on matters relating only to the internal organization and governance of the judicial branch. The independence of the judiciary is one of the essential attributes of our branch that inspires public confidence in the courts.
While the courts must be accountable to all and will remain subject to the Legislature’s power of appropriation, the legislative directive of court governance as exemplified by 1208 will subject the management of our trial courts to forces in the body politic that reflect the will and influence of special interests. Those interests who disagree with the administrative policies of local courts will resort to the Legislature to change them. Yet at times, we judges out of fealty to our oaths to the federal and state Constitutions must make decisions that go against those very constituencies. We must maintain the unfettered authority to do so, held properly accountable by existing checks on our authority and public reporting of court management and policy. But we should not be beholden or dependent for our vitality on all the constituencies who properly have a voice and influence in the legislative process.
AB 1208 also raises an issue of fundamental fairness. Our new Chief Justice was sworn into office on January 3. AB 1208 was introduced to the Legislature on February 20. While it is no doubt intended to redress long simmering concerns, to seek legislative action on these grievances just weeks into our new Chief’s tenure is wrong. We should give her an opportunity to lead rather than assume she will perpetuate the status quo or ignore legitimate criticism.
We suspect that most of you are like us, concerned about the substance of the issues affecting the judiciary’s future, but primarily occupied with the day-to-day responsibilities of adjudication and running our courts. If you feel as we do, and believe that the business of running the courts should be up to the courts, and not directed by another branch of government, say so. Soon you will receive from the California Judges Association a poll regarding the desirability of AB 1208. Let your voices be heard in opposition. If enacted, 1208 is the first step in ceding the management of courts to those who can muster the strongest influence in the Legislature, and it will only be the first such measure.
Madison wrote in Federalist Number 48 that, “power is of an encroaching nature,” and “the most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each [branch of government], against the invasion of the others.” We ought not invite such a blurring of the lines as would come to pass with the enactment of AB 1208. If you are uncertain, open this link and read the bill: AB 1208 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1208_bill_20110218_introduced.html.
JusticeCalifornia
March 20, 2011
I was thinking about this mass e-mail sent to all CA judges, decrying the nature of the attacks on the branch.
And I was also thinking about how many people have suffered, inside and outside the branch, in so many ways, via attacks from within the branch designed to destroy and undermine the credibility of those who don’t “follow the party line”. My gosh, former CJ George and those up and down the branch often publicly attacked and invited attacks upon legitimate court critics. One of George’s grand finales (and biggest mistakes) was belittling the ACJ at a State of the Judiciary address.
I know many parents who have been wrongfully excoriated and forever damaged by what vindictive and retaliatory Marin judges and court appointees have said and done in family court documents and orders, and I know that this is not limited to either Marin or family courts. If such things were so recklessly said in other venues, civil claims could be filed.
Paula Negley’s court documents illustrate the brutal treatment she was subjected to, after she made internal reports of misconduct within the AOC.
There comes a tipping point and time when people simply won’t take it anymore.
I think top leadership might agree that point and time has come, and might also agree with the fabled lament JCW referenced on another thread: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
After ruthlessly pummeling legitimate court critics, whistleblowers and independent thinkers for years, top court leadership cannot now complain about the pummeling it is getting on multiple fronts.
That is especially so because notwithstanding the disgrace and disgust raining down upon the branch like our recent torrential Northern CA rains and hailstorms, top leadership shows no sign of changing its clearly failed strategies and policies. Indeed, now it is attacking independent state auditors and the legislature. Top leadership has not only shown it cannot be trusted to play well with others and share the food it has been given, it is now biting the hand that feeds it.
Current top leadership is taking the branch down, down, down — and asking state judges to ignore the lifeboats and go down with the ship.
SF Whistle
March 20, 2011
History is a wonderful thing—-History provides us with great insight and understanding of how people have responded to difficult situations in the past—
We have great recent examples of leaders that believe themselves under attack….
Muammar al Gaddafi has promised his opponents a “long war” and is rumored to be moving around and not sleeping in the same place more than a night–
Saddam Hussein also promised staunch opposition and moved regularly–never sleeping more than a night in the same place—finally found in quarters less than what he had become accustomed to–from Palaces to a hand-dug “bunker”…
Adolf Hitler promised strong opposition and was finally found in his bunker with Eva munching on cyanide tablets—
It seems the AOC and JC has promised they have no intention of anything other than strong opposition—-I do hope they were able to construct their bunker more affordably than $1700 a square foot…?
Michael Paul
March 17, 2011
Respectfully submitted: This group of alleged non-combatants is a group consisting of the most strident supporters of the judicial council and the AOC. They are no less combatants than I am. Pffffft.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 17, 2011
One of the people from the Contra Costa Courts dropped JCW an email and pointed to three of these people coming from those courts. This is an assimilated court. It might as well be the AOC sending this letter out.
AlwaysAmazed
March 20, 2011
And one is a former CCC Judge, now a justice
wendy darling
March 17, 2011
Hard but fair truths, objectively presented with a reasoned argument, supported by facts and documentation.
AB 1208 represents the keeping of a promise by the State Legislature made 13 YEARS ago – to preserve the right of the trial courts and the trial courts elected leadership to pilot their own financial ships. Trial Court Unification was never intended to circumvent, twart, or eviscerate that right. The Judicial Council and the AOC had no right for the last 13 years to circumvent, thwart, or eviscerate that right, and then hijack it outright.
AB 1208 also represents transparency and accountability – the thing the current Judicial Council and the AOC are most afraid of, and are the most desperate to protect, regardless of the cost or damage to the branch.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 17, 2011
Here is what this fight is really all about! Read the following carefully.
California Constitution –
“Article VI section 6(d) To improve the administration of justice the council shall survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make
recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for
court administration, practice and procedure, and perform other functions
prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with
statute.”
Propaganda from the Judicial Council’s website –
“The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring…”
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS NOT THE POLICYMAKING BODY OF THE CALIFORNIA COURTS! Never has been and as long as people like me have breath they never will be. Former Chief Justice Ronald George, William Vickery and the spin-machine in San Francisco started putting out this propaganda when he took office as the Chief Justice. Around 2004, the Chief mounted a sneaky campaign in an effort to amend Article VI to read as it does on their website.
Through years of intimidation and re-education, many jurists are actually starting to believe or do believe that the Judicial Council is the policy making body. If local courts would simply stand up to the AOC and JC and say, “no” we wouldn’t be in the fix we are in. Because they haven’t said “no” colleagues in the Alliance rightly felt it necessary to ensure that the legislature, public and judiciary understand what the status quo is. AB1208 is the status quo. It changes nothing, but makes it clear that the Judicial Council website is incorrect. Local trial court have great autonomy and through fear and intimidation have declined to exercise their rights. Many new judges (appointed/elected since 1999) have no idea who is correct, because they went through the AOC’s New Judge Orientation in which they tell the judges that the Judicial Council does control the local courts and sets policy.
Thanks to Assembly Member Calderon for having the stones for carrying this legislation. Shame on the toadies that are trying to say that the Legislature is trying to move onto the Judiciary’s turf by this legislation. Remember, it was written by judges!
wendy darling
March 18, 2011
Question 1: What do you think the response would be if the members of the State Legislature sent out a press release today, saying none of them were aware that there was a serious state budget crisis in California until they woke up this morning? And, as this is the first they’re hearing about the state budget crisis, in the interests of “fundamental fairness,” while the budget mess needs to be dealt with “to redress long simmering concerns,” it is “wrong” to expect “legislative action on those grievances just weeks” into the new year, so the people of the State of California need to be patient and give the legislature more time, in order for the legislature to have “an opportunity to lead” ?
Question 2: How is that materially different than Friedman, O’Malley, and company claiming that seeking “legislative action” to redress the serious problems facing the judicial branch is somehow fundamentally “unfair” to the new Chief Justice “just weeks” into the new Chief Justice’s “tenure,” and denies the Chief Justice of “an opportunity to lead”? As observed by poster Woodhull, “the new Chief opposed all of these same efforts to shed light on the Judicial Council and AOC while she was a member of the Council. There is absolutely no evidence she intends to change course anytime soon.” The new Chief Justice has been a voting member of the Judicial Council for quite some time, years in fact, and has supported, endorsed and voted for the very measures that have now left the branch in disgrace. It’s not like she can claim that she woke up on January 3rd, or even February 20th, the day AB 1208 was introduced in the State Legislature, and say this is the first she’s hearing about all of this.
Friedman, O’Malley, and company also claim that it shouldn’t be assumed that the current Chief Justice “will perpetuate the status quo or ignore legitimate criticism.” It is not necessary to assume any such thing – the new Chief Justice has demonstrated by her own actions that she fully intends to “perpetuate the status quo” and “ignore legitimate criticism” as evidenced in her response to the request of the State Legislature that Bill Vickrey be terminated for the gross mismanagement and misconduct occurring under Vickrey’s authority at the AOC, as identified in the State Auditor’s investigation report of CCMS. The Chief Justice’s response? To sharply accuse the State Legislature of interfering “with judicial branch governance” and her “ability to evaluate the AOC management team.” In the very next sentence, the new Chief Justice then gave the State Legislature her evaluation of Vickrey and his management of the AOC, stating Vickrey is “an invaluable resource to the judicial branch” whom the Chief Justice will “continue to work closely with.”
When given “the opportunity to lead,” this was the response of the Office of the Chief Justice. To the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council, Mr. Bill’s apparent value as “an invaluable resource to the judicial branch” is worth sacrificing the credibility of the entire branch, as well as at least $1.9 billion dollars of public money, and counting.
Friedman, O’Malley, and company also invoked the words of James Madison and Madison’s writing in the Federalist Papers, regarding the need for “practical security” for each branch of government against the “invasion” of the others, and Friedman et; at. warning that “such a blurring of the lines as would come to pass with the enactment of AB 1208.” As long we’re invoking the ghosts of our founding fathers, here’s a couple of counterpoint quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves.”
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
And finally, a quote from the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Note to Friedman, O’Malley, and company, the Judicial Council, and the AOC: We no longer consent.
Michael Paul
March 18, 2011
Here here wendy darling, I no longer consent either.
wendy darling
March 18, 2011
And long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 18, 2011
It is fascinating that apparently at the behest of Chief Justice Sakauye non-judges, such as Mr. Friedman, have access to the list server of all judges in California and are afforded the opportunity to mass email all members of the judiciary. Despite persistent requests, all others are denied access to this same list of judicial officers. Hmmm…
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels & the editors at Pravda would be so proud of them!
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 18, 2011
If you expended 10 million a year in an effort to control the message so that you could better control the people you too wouldn’t be giving anyone with an opposing view access. They’re not complete fools.
Find us a list of email addresses, provide a list of whom should be able to use that listserver and we will have a list server ready for use in 72 hours.
Michael Paul
March 18, 2011
I too can provide and volunteer my resources to deliver these same services in about that same amount of time quoted by JCW.
JusticeCalifornia
March 18, 2011
One of the most disturbing parts of Judge Gilliard’s writings is the story about the internal e-mail admitting that the Alliance is right about the Trial Court Bill of Rights that was mistakenly sent to a reporter.
After admitting internally that no such thing currently exists, it is now trotting out a letter from a judge who created court rules with Sheila Calabro, Mike Roddy, Ron Overholt, and Chris Patton to assure everyone not to fear, trial court protections are in the court rules.
I heard a legislator observe the other day that the Marin Court is excusing it’s family court behavior by saying “there’s no law requiring us to do that”. The legislator suggested that perhaps that it is time for some new laws designed to protect the public.
Similarly, whether or not the AOC believes that in theory it has complied with the letter of its trial court funding mandate, it clearly has not complied with the spirit of the mandate– which appears very clearly to be supporting trial court financial independence and control. In other words, if in fact the rules were supposed to protect trial court rights, they have not. Therefore, the next logical step is for the legislature to perform the necessary function of ensuring the rights guaranteed to the trial courts at the time the Trial Court Funding Act was passed in 1997.
No one intended to give $4 billion in unregulated annual funds, along with another $6 billion in construction funds, and another $3 billion for a computer system, to do with it what it will without oversight or accountability. The rules created by Overholt and company have supported the concentration of extraordinary power and money among a very few; encroachment of trial court rights; a bloated AOC; a handpicked carefully selected and programmed Judicial Council; the Pravda-like propaganda machine that attacks critics– whomever they may be–and creates disinformation to cover up third branch mismanagement and misconduct; and the INCREDLE financial waste caused by self-dealing and mismanagement.
You don’t have to be a judge to see this. You only have to come into contact with the court system, or read the paper.
The status quo is not working. The status quo is ruining the branch. The branch is severely divided and the CA public is beginning not just to dislike or mistrust the courts, but rather to despise them.
Let’s face it. Change is inevitable. Branch members are going to fall in one of two categories: part of the problem, or part of the solution. At this point, everyone is watching. The public. Elected officials. The nation.
Michael Paul
March 18, 2011
In even the best of disinformation campaigns, truth finds a way to break surface every once in awhile. The AOC is and has been on an aggressive disinformation/denial campaign since about 2006. I witnessed it from the inside, I continue to witness it from the outside. Goebbels would be proud.
JusticeCalifornia
March 18, 2011
CA court top leadership and certain devoted trial court affiliates are posting extraordinarily political, one-sided, controversial and issue-driven information/disinformation (depending upon your point of view) on official court websites and elsewhere, using taxpayer funds to do so.
Query: how much are taxpayers being charged to fund these efforts?
Next question: How much is the public being charged to pay for “California Court News” publications, videos, reports, lobbying, public relations and related efforts?
Next question: Does CA top leadership consider the branch to be bound by ANY political/lobbying/public relations-propaganda restrictions?
These are fair questions. Just so we all know what the facts and top leadership’s “rules of court” are.
SF Whistle
March 18, 2011
JC—
Arrogance does not recognize “restrictions”…..
Come on—-if there’s any heat the branch can simply launch another self-serving audit, PR release….The AOC has the benefit of unlimited millions to spend to cover-up all the “misses”…..misconduct, misdeeds, mismanagement
JusticeCalifornia
March 18, 2011
Top leadership underestimates its opposition and critics, political and practical, internal and external, from all directions and viewpoints.
versal-versal
March 21, 2011
You know the latest line of defense for all this is that the new Chief hasn’t been given a chance. Really? The new Chief approved J Bruiniers to be the spokesperson for all thats great with CCMS, the same J.Bruiniers who was the spokesperson to advocate against a state audit of CCMS. J. Huffman the gatekeeper of the Judicial Council is still in power and incredibly we see the return of former Judge Terry Freidman advocating against the trial court bill of rights. This is the same former Judge Freidman who helped make the CJA a pawn of the AOC and who remains inexplicably on the Judicial Council. Lets get real everyone. The new boss is the same as the old boss. Maybe someone more tech savvy can post that great Who song here as well. We need to rally the troops to support democratization of the Judicial Council. Until and unless that is done our branch will sadly fail.
JusticeCalifornia
March 21, 2011
The new Chief Justice made it very clear that she is on the same page with RG at the Marin County Bar Association general meeting, at which, with great irritation and not an ounce of diplomacy, she soundly and publicly criticized both the legislature and the ACJ.
The new infomercial for her on the new court website touts her “state administrative” history, pointing out that she has been on the Judicial Council since 2008. She cannot have it both ways. Either she is a novice and in over her head, or she knows exactly what she is doing.
The public, the legislature, and the branch are being asked to gamble billions of dollars on her, and her administration’s failed policies.
Water finds its level. The new CJ has firmly aligned herself with RG leftovers, and is depending on the compromised likes of Kim Turner and Bill Vickreyto help her carry out her commands and wishes.
Judges have to consider whether they want a Kim Turner clone in every court to perform the AOC’s big brother functions, or if they want the trial court independence they were promised. To a certain extent, this is a test of each judge’s own commitment to protecting the interests of the taxpaying public that elected them, and those in their courts and communities that they serve. Throwing good money after bad and maintaining a failed strategy when the public, the other two branches of government, and many within the judicial branch have made it clear this is not responsible or acceptable is like spitting in the wind.
Does anyone yet have a form letter endorsing the legislation, with contact information regarding to whom the letter should be sent?