AB1208, the Calderon Trial Court Rights Act is under assault by the AOC’s in-house lobbyists who have been roaming the halls of the state legislature for weeks.
While trial court judges are getting judge stuff done in their respective courts, the JC is complaining about these same judges utilizing judicial branch resources during working hours to promote their legislation.
Meanwhile in the JC’s world of double standards, smoke, mirrors and doublespeak they are requesting that JC supporters do the same and assist the AOC in killing AB1208 in-committee. But wait, we’re not done yet.
Remember that California Judges Association survey that was to go out to judges across this state to gauge their support for SB1208? Earlier this month, CJA leaders formed a subcommittee of three judges. Stephen White of Sacramento, Charles McCoy of Los Angeles and James Herman of Santa Barbara to work with CJA President Keith Davis on creating the survey.
Once the survey left this subcommittee of the CJA, the executive committee of the CJA chose to add a question at the behest of the Judicial Council /AOC supporters. That question, question number 4 on the survey is intended to negate any support for AB1208 by asking jurists to rate their level of agreement with respect to the proposition that judicial branch governance should remain within the judicial branch itself, and not become a function of external political processes.
This one question, which was never in the body of work of the subcommittee turned the survey on its end, permitting the CJA/AOC/JC to advocate the position that suits their interests. The fourth question permits JC to point and say “Our judges agree that branch governance should not be a legislative endeavor” when AB1208 would do exactly that. Most jurists would be willing to support both positions which suits the JC just fine.
Lots More from Courthouse News
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2011
Whoever the culprits were on the CJA Executive Board that threw in this disgusting, last minute push poll question should be outted. The rest of the CJA membership, the judiciary, judicial employees and the public at large should know exactly who is trying to direct the vote!
Questions to ask:
1. Who threw in this Question #4?
2. Who on the Executive Board voted to include Question #4 on on the poll?
3. What was the point of having a subcommittee draft the poll, if some hand-job of the AOC was simply going to completely distort the process? (Okay, I realize this one is a little too obvious)
This is why many judges do not belong to or associate with the CJA, they are tired of it being a wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2011
By the way, here is the infamous Question 4:
IV. With respect to the proposition that judicial branch governance should remain within the judicial branch itself, and not become a function of external political processes, I
Generally agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Generally disagree
Need more information
Don’t know / No opinion
Please state the reasons in support of your views. ________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
antonatrail
March 25, 2011
“Disingenuous” is the only word for this last minute addition.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 25, 2011
We would like to know much more about these matters ourselves and highlight them for the public. The public deserves to know all that is going on, not just JC/AOC’s version of it.
Jon Wintermeyer
March 25, 2011
This is why AOC Management advised the AOC Legal staff that that Court’s cannot perform construction or maintenance, so we have created our empire of suits that can manage our third party vendor Team Jacobs, who manages ABM, who then manages VFMC, who then in turn will manage our listing of approved subcontractors to perform all the trades work. That I and other Court Facilities Directors or Managers were qualified and could manage this work using local firms in our county were not even considered as possible in their grand scheme, because then the trial Court’s would have actually had control of which projects their court had prioritized and could be scheduled around court operations. This was why I had to prove myself and get MOU’s from the AOC and perform maintenance remodel projects that were substanially less expensive. The Trail Court’s can perform and should be allowed to control their buildings for projects, not the multi-level management scheme created by the AOC that creates the grossly overcharged invoies witnessed these past years.
Michael Paul
March 25, 2011
Yesterday, Jon and I were in Sacramento promoting SB1208, AB314 and SB329 and telling our stories to anyone who would listen, which happened to be everybody, luckily.
When we went into Mike Feuer’s office and explained who we were and what we were doing there and how we believed that passing these three bills was critical, unbeknownst to us is someone from the Office of Governmental Affairs for the AOCbehind us who interjected herself into our conversation and claimed that all of our allegations were false and that she have provided ample proof of that to the judiciary committee.
Funny, the media says differently and we would really like to know what the AOC is telling people about Jon and I and our allegations. I think we deserve to know.
antonatrail
March 25, 2011
You said 329. You do mean 326, the Yee transparency bill? Which, by the way, every Californian will want to support.
Michael Paul
March 25, 2011
Yes, I had a few typos in that last post. There’s no edit button. Pfft. SB326 and “She had provided ample proof of that to the judiciary committee.”
Michael Paul
March 25, 2011
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/ab032511.htm
If you have a copy of this letter, please post it.
JusticeCalifornia
March 25, 2011
It was interesting to read this article.
I reiterate just how entrenched and enmeshed and controlling the Judicial Council has become–not just in the trial courts, but also in local law enforcement.
A Marin lawyer asked the Marin Court for information about payments to court appointees, and was told by Kim Turner’s assistant that “the Judicial Council said not to do your research for you.”
One Marin litigant tried to file a criminal complaint regarding certain bench members, and was told by the Sheriff’s office, which refused to take the complaint ( a penal code violation, in and of itself) , “this is a Judicial Council matter.”
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2011
If you can find a copy of “Committed to Justice The Rise of Judicial Administration in California” by Larry L. Sipes (an old associate of Vickrey while in Utah) there are a number of interesting passages.
Understand the background, Vickrey arrived here in 1992 from Utah, where he had skyrocketed from being a Probation Officer to the Administrative Director of the Utah Courts (which have a total of 91 judges, including their Supreme Court and Court of Appeals). Shortly after his arrival in California and installation as Administrative Director, it appears there was a strategic plan dinner meeting in November 1992. From that point on, the Judicial Council became the policy-making agency for the state’s court system. Why, because they said so. It is highly likely that his change in direction was due in large part to Mr. Vickrey. They ware certainly change to the Constitution which granted them this new power, it is just because they said so..
There are many other interesting tidbits in this book. Copies of which were provided to all judges in California shortly after its publication in 2002… at who’s expense?
wendy darling
March 25, 2011
More flapdoodle from The Ministry Of Truth, likely paid for with public funds.
tony maino
March 26, 2011
Mr. Sipes was the first scholar-in residence hired by the AOC. You can find out about the book and Mr. Sipes by going to a search engine and putting in his name and Administrative Office of the Courts. You can buy the book from the AOC for $24.00.
You can also go to ABC Books and order a copy for between $10.00 and $125.00. Believe it or not there is a bookseller in Milpitas that is selling this book for $125.00
It would be interesting to know how much Mr. Sipes was paid to write this book and how much the AOC paid to have it published and sent to all the judicial officers and others in the state. Mr. Vickrey should have this information but I rather suspect he is occupied with other matters right now and will not respond to a request for information.
courtflea
March 29, 2011
At risk of repeating myself, Dale Sipes, the wife of Larry was a favorite/employee/confidant of Bill V. Wonderful lady that she was (rest her soul), she was the one that popularized “Carvarizing” . translated that meant AOC staff should take hold of committee doings and set the agenda for them, promulgate the minutes (that told the AOC version of the facts, not what happened in the commitee meeting), etc.
Husband Larry was once head of the National Center for State Courts. My reliable sources told me had to leave because he was a total SOB to staff and others, and that was not a great model for NCSC. Anyhoo, I suspect after leaving the National Center, Larry needed a new gig and some dough and Dale facilitated the deal with the AOC and her hubby, for him to write the little tomelet, and the AOC to publish.
PS I think Bill V and what he did an Utah to totally centralize courts there, was very attractive to then CJ Lucas, who wanted to consolidate power at Baghdad by the bay. Just sayin.
SF Whistle
March 25, 2011
Calderon’s SB 1208 truly would be a great start—
If you want to see a real uproar in the Branch–take a look at what was once proposed years ago as an initiative to limit judicial immunity—
http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/Archive.aspx?articleId=81746&categoryId=81741&month=11&year=2006
Former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated:
“JUDGES. RESTRICTIONS ON JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Supersedes existing judicial immunity and creates three 25-member ‘Special Grand Juries’ empowered to: determine if a judge may invoke judicial immunity in a civil suit; indict and, through a special trial jury, convict and sentence a judge for criminal conduct; and permanently remove a judge who receives three adverse immunity decisions or three criminal convictions. Disallows immunity for deliberate violations of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional due process violations, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts outside the court’s jurisdiction, unreasonable delay of a case, or any deliberate constitutional violation.”
____________________________________
If this initiative could be passed in California our Judicial Branch would not be the cesspool that we confront today…..
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2011
It just won’t stop. The District 8 CJA representative sent out a letter to his constituents that accompanied the CJA Poll. It is a complete Pravda piece about the wonders of CCMS and how AB1208 is really bad.
Look at the author’s CV (no bias here):
Judge James Herman
Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in May 2005, Judge Herman presides over a juvenile dependency and delinquency calendar. He currently serves on the Judicial Council’s Advisory Committee on Technical Assistance to the Courts, the California Judges Association’s Legislative and ADR Committees, the State Bar of California’s Diversity Pipeline Committee and the California Commission on Access to Justice. He has previously served on the Judicial Council’s Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 25, 2011
You might want to check on how other CJA representatives sent theirs out. I think you may discover this was a sham from the word go.
wendy darling
March 25, 2011
There is a new article from Cheryl Miller that was posted late this afternoon, Friday, March 25, on The Recorder: For New Chief, Democracy Isn’t a Three-Letter Word.
The article is subscription access only, so perhaps someone out there with subscription access to The Recorder could share a synopsis of the article …
Long live the ACJ.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 25, 2011
JCW hereby formally recognizes Santa Clara Superior Court as part of the borg collective, an AOC assimilated court, having been the first to come out against SB1208 and earning a second nomination into digital purgatory, the first being for the Saldivar matter. The people of the State of California call upon dissenting judicial officers and rank and file courtworkers in Santa Clara County to join the resistance movement and help us help you.
JusticeCalifornia
March 25, 2011
Oh yes, Santa Clara is very interesting indeed. So much history. I forgot how much documentation there is about that court, from Kiri Torre’s time there. Conflicts of interest, missing court documents, refusals to file papers, fake proofs of service, ex parte bench/bar communications, geez louise.
Jon Wintermeyer
March 25, 2011
That the AOC is sending out members of their paid staff to plead their innocence to the State Senate and Assembly should just be greater proof of their guilt to these elected officials. That other State professionals can audit the AOC and see problems shows that independant and non-AOC biased reviews have to happen on all of their wasteful programs.
If the Media will print articles on it and report it to the nation, when Judge’s write that it is happening, that there are whistleblowers that tell the same story, that their management staff are resigning then the problem really exists and the only way to get it solved is to start with the passing of these SB bills.
Please do not let these bills get stalled or defeated. Contact your local representatives and let them know why they are so important to the people who elected them.
wendy darling
March 25, 2011
Speaking of AOC management staff “resigning,” it is rumored in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue today that the next person announcing their impending “retirement” will be … Shelia Calabro.
JusticeCalifornia
March 25, 2011
Is she the one with the secret lavish (Team Jacobs-built?) office floor with no address in SoCal? Or was that someone else?
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 26, 2011
We’ve also received numerous tips regarding same… and one other that suggests another indoctrineee to digital purgatory might be retiring too. Lee Willoughby of OCCM. JCW knows that in both cases, many reporters and journalists are digging around trying to do more fact-finding on court construction and Mr. Willoughby’s role and CCMS and Ms. Calabro’s role.
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2011
Aren’t the AOC and Willoughby the ones with the ties to Jacobs via that strange you-scratch-my-back etc. organization that offers expensive “trainings” (which members have to pay for) and in return also offers “networking” opportunities regarding jobs (which members get)? I thought I read that somewhere.
judicialcouncilwatcher
March 25, 2011
The commercial landlord wouldn’t allow Team Jacobs to do any work at SRO because they didn’t have a contractors license but it wasn’t for a lack of trying, when that lower floor (secret) suite went in for OCCM. No, Sheila Calabro made digital purgatory because she was the brains behind the gross mismanagement of the CCMS program, which should be a clue to retire or be fired.
versal-versal
March 26, 2011
The CJA historically has generally done a fairly good job representing its membership. Thats what it needs to do again. All the current Board needed to ask the membership was a simple question :Do you support or oppose AB 1208?The Judges of this state are up to date and smart enough to give a yes or no answer to that question.I read in the Courthousenews.com that the current CJA President went to Sacramento and met with Assemblyperson Calderon to lobby him against his own bill. If true thats very revealing since the CJA always has a seat at the JC.
If true thats also not a shock as other former CJA Presidents like Jim Mize and Terry Friedman assisted and facilitated the AOC in trying to force mandatory judicial education on the states Judges. During their tenures,, Mr Vickrey and Mr Overholt were allowed to sit through the entirety of CJA Board meetings. So its no shock once again that a loaded question snuck into the CJA survey. Loaded questions or not I predict the CJA membership will do the right thing and not buy into AOC -JC anti 1208 arguments. I think the trial court Judges of this state have the intelligence and common sense not to buy J Huffman and others claims that AB 1208 seeks to recreate ” judicial fiefdoms” or that Judges who support the Bill of Rights are allowing the legislature to take over the branch.As many outstanding former PJs of LA recognize, AB 1208 restores a balance between the local trial courts and the state.I remain an optimist and believe 1208 is going to pass. Recent stories report Sacramento ,Kern, Mariposa and other courts have taken a stand supporting AB 1208. This is very significant and positive development is the fight to democratize and open the branch to meaningful change.We all just need to continue to work hard, stay positive and speak out so that change will occur .
Michael Paul
March 26, 2011
JCW, please don’t count this post for the purposes of this weekend.
I’ve given this governance issue some thought. The Judicial Council does not have the right to governance self-determination. Paid by the people, they represent a branch of the government organized by the people, for the good of the people. They are dismally failing in that mission of public good and have lost the public trust. This is not a comment against AOC employees. Some of my former colleagues were some of the brightest and best I’ve ever had the pleasure of coming across in all my years working in technology. Those that have dismally failed in providing honest services to the people are managers and directors of the AOC who allowed all of this gross/criminal mismagagement to occur and the Judicial Council that inexplicably turns a blind eye towards it or even goes as far as supporting this gross/criminal mismanagement.
The people are represented by the state legislature, not by judicial council appointees or AOC executive directors. Neither the JC or the AOC enjoy the inalienable right to be accountable to no one and accordingly, do not enjoy the right of governance self-determination.
wendy darling
March 26, 2011
Simply put, in no other branch of government anywhere in this country does one person, as in the case of the Chief Justice, control and appoint ALL of the voting members of a governing body of a branch of government. It is offensive to the principles on which this country and its form of governance was founded, and inconsistent and repugnant to the most fundamental tenets of democracy, especially in the governance of a state judicial branch.
And the ACJ is right – it needs to stop. The Judicial Council, the AOC, and the Chief Justice will do none of this voluntarily. The only thing that will change this and stop it is legislative action by the State legislature. SB 1208 is a necesssary, critical, and responsible step in that direction.
13 years ago the State Legislature directed that the Judicial Council and the AOC to put into place a Trial Court Bill of Rights. It was very clearly the Legislature’s expressed intent that this happen. For 13 years the Judicial Council and the AOC ignored and deceptively evaded this responsibility. Having done so, the Judicial Council and the AOC now say they need “more time,” even to the point of now using the excuse that the “new” Chief Justice should be given the opportunity to address this matter in-house. She is not “new” – the current Chief Justice has been a voting member of the Judicial Council for years, and supported, endorsed, and ratified the very matters that have now left the branch in disgrace.
Having ignored, evaded, and abdicated their responsibility to put a Trial Court Bill of Rights into place, the Judicial Council and the AOC have forfeited any right to ask for “more time.” The Judicial Council and the AOC have no credibility and have demonstrated they cannot be trusted, especially to be truthful. The time to enact a Trial Court Bill of Rights is now, and the place it needs to happen is in the State Legislature.
And as for the California Judges Association – shame on them. The CJA doesn’t own the California judicial branch. It belongs to us, the public.
And it is up to us – the public – to make it clear to the State Legislature that SB 1208 needs to passed.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 26, 2011
Michael Paul has the idea.
For those of us who saw this coming over a decade ago and attempted to work “within the system” to right the ship, it is reassuring to see so many other voices joining the call. Candidly, until Steve White got into the fray, HRH George, Vickrey and the Good Ship AOC was successful in their efforts to call us “shrill and uninformed” and “ants along the trail.” While some legislators knew us and valued our opinions, the majority felt it was easier to deal with one person when focusing on the judiciary (HRH George) rather than listen to divergent views from 58 counties. This played into HRH George and Mr. Huffman’s assertions that we were simply looking to regain our local “fiefdoms”. I and my colleagues have no interest in forming any “fiefdom”; since we never had one to start with.
No one person, or handful of people, should be able to run a branch of government with impunity. Believe it or not, sometimes they get things wrong! I know, I know, its a shock, but true (sarcasm for those who don’t know me.) I don’t work for some faceless bureaucrat in San Francisco. I work for the people who have elected me and that I serve on a daily basis. The sacrifices that those of us have made who took our jobs for the right reasons, is because we believe in the underlying spirit of our representative democracy and our true rewards is in helping people and seeing that the system works. We are not interested in what committee, or council, or appellate seat we might be able to occupy in the future by kissing the ring of some tyrant temporarily occupying the throne. Sorry for the corn, but it is true; and I think that many of us are just saddened by what we see around us.
Long live the JCW and ACJ! Press on!
crtwatchr
March 26, 2011
Mr. Woodhull is absolutely correct; the CJ should not have complete control over the judicial branch. When Trial Court Funding was enacted in 1997 there should have been a corresponding amendment to the State Constitution, which changed the appointment process to the JC.
When the JC was originally established, it was never anticipated that trial court funding would come from the state, as opposed to the counties. Prior to 1997, the primary function of the JC was to adopt rules for procedure and practice. To give the Chief Justice absolute appointment authority over the entity responsible for determining how many pages a reply brief could be, probably made some sense.
However, it does not make sense to give one person the authority to appoint a majority of the voting members of a body charged with allocating a statewide trial court budget of more than $3.0 billion. Presumably, that is why the legislature mandated that the JC establish a trial court bill of rights. To ensure that each local court could retain control over its own budget and administration. Trial Court judges are elected locally and it inconsistent with principles of judicial independence for the CJ to have the authority, through her control of theJC appointment process, to control the allocations statewide.
The JC/AOC contend that the Trial Court Budget Working Group (TCBWG) makes the decisions regarding funding allocations. This is an equivocation at best. The TCBWG is not given the authority to allocate the entire amount of funding the legislature appropriates to the Trial Court Trust Fund. Instead, the JC, upon recommendations made by the AOC, allocates a portion of the appropriated amount to the TCBWG for reallocation among the trial courts. The remaining portion is allocated by the JC to other projects such as CCMS.
All of the funding appropriated by the legislature for trial court funding belongs to the trial courts. Yet when the AOC devises a plan to “backfill” shortages in the amounts allocated to trial courts by using “special fund” reserves, it acts as if it is doing the courts a great favor. In reality, all of the money in the special fund reserves was appropriated by the legislaure to the trial courts. Those special funds (including the Trial Court Trust Funds) belong to the courts and not the AOC or JC.
This is the issue that is at the heart of AB 1208. If any of you know judges or commissioners, ask them if they understand this issue. Funds that otherwise should be going to the courts at the local level are being used to supprt “administrative infrastructure projects”, CCMS and other services of questionable value at the AOC level. Tell them that AB 1208 does not give the legislature the authority to micromange the courts, but will ensure the money the legislature appropriates to the trial courts will be spent by the courts in the manner consistent with local and not statewide priorities. The layers of bureauracy in San Francisco will be reduced and courts will be able to provide better core service and access to justice.
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2011
This Saturday evening song/video is dedicated to all those within the judicial branch who were supposed to be the best and brightest but who, in a quest for unfettered power, and while hiding behind black robes, have broken the rules, violated their oaths and the public trust, hurt untold numbers of families and children– and ultimately brought the branch to its current state: on its knees in utter disgrace. These outlaws and their documented supporters are now mounting a taxpayer-funded, ultra slick, hyper-propaganda campaign literally begging for the benefit of the doubt, and trying to excuse branch crimes by talking about branch accomplishments– stable state funding, a consolidated court system; and laudable goals– safe, sound courthouses, a workable computer system. None of those branch accomplishments or goals a) necessitated, or b) justify, the gross mismanagement, waste, cronyism, and abuses of power committed by those branch outlaws/liabilities currently being called on the carpet. Will our new, woefully inexperienced CJ, and will our new , not-so-new, and seasoned CA judges continue to lay their own reputations and careers on the line by supporting and covering for known branch outlaws/liabilities? And if so, how are they going to explain that to the legislature, the executive branch, and their taxpayer/constituents? Let’s see.
Here is the “Outlaw Blues” by Pat Benatar.
You were better than the best
Stayed a notch above the rest
It was rainin’ in heaven when you went down
Your mother cried, said, she told you so
But you touched the devil and couldn’t let go, yeah
No one controls the outlaw
You wrote the book with the movie in mind
An angel face with a criminal side
Celebrated as the rebel kind the outlaw
I wonder if you knew they would
Turn your bad deeds into good
Paint you as a modern Robin hood
It’s high noon, everywhere you go
And the guilt you feel is the weary soul, yeah
Of the outlaw
Hearts weren’t made to be ruled
And rules weren’t made to be broken
It’s cold and lonely at the end of your life
And nobody sleeps ’til they turn out the lights
For the outlaw
Where you gonna go, where you gonna hide
It’s cold and lonely for the outlaw
Where you gonna go, where you gonna hide
As the outlaw?
The guilt you feel is never enough
The guilt you feel is never enough
The guilt you feel is never enough
never enough, never enough, never enough. . . .
Jon Wintermeyer
March 26, 2011
Any Judges or Elected Officials that want to have information from a terminated Court Faciliites Director on how my remodels with Memorandums of Understanding were performed and audited and cost a fraction of those performed by the AOC using their FMU and Team Jacobs please contact JCW or Michael Paul and they can provide you with additional positive proof and information of mine on them.
I will gladly talk to you and explain why SB1208 should be passed to protect the CA Taxpayers from wasteful spending and get your court more maintenance and remodel worked accomplished for dollars spent.
The CA taxpayers need to see that the Trial Courts care and take pride in the building condition and the Court Staff need to see that the issues of ADA, safety, security, workstation ergonomics and preventive maintenance will keep these buildings open for business and not neglected.
The AOC has failed to perform these tasks and wasted millions of taxpayers dollars that they felt they did not have to be accountable for. They created a maintnenance program that gave them the sole authority to hire the unlicensed Team Jacobs, who then created a multi-level management scheme and their approved list of multiple trade subcontractor that require all the work service invoices to be funneled through Team Jacobs prior to submittal to the AOC. This is how you inflate the actual costs.
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2011
I have a question.
Is it true that the AOC records of its transactions with contractors (say, Jacobs) can be easily obtained, but the records of the contractors transactions with subcontractors (say Jacobs as contractor, with Team Jacobs and/or others as subcontractors) cannot be so easily obtained?
I mean really, if this or anything REMOTELY like this is permissible, it provides fertile ground for a great big old kickback/money-laundering scheme extraordinaire.
Michael Paul
March 26, 2011
Fertile ground? No idiot in their right mind pays $2,000-$2,500 per light for a ballast retrofit /energy conversion when an entirely brand new light fixture can be had for less than $200.00. All of these FMU managers want you and everyone else to believe this work could not be done any cheaper.
I want those same FMU managers to tell an FBI agent that line of bullshit.
Fertile ground is the understatement of the decade. More like a hundred acres of overgrown weeds.
SF Whistle
March 26, 2011
Mr. Wintermeyer–Mr. Paul.
You gentlemen must be thanked for your integrity and all this has caused you to suffer personally…..
There really is something in terms of comfort and understanding as a take-home-lesson from David and Goliath—
The better news is that you have much more support from the “shrill and uninformed” than you likely feel—–there are many here that will support you and uphold you in toppling this corrupt administration….
Please consider that everything that is going on today in the middle east is the direct result of the actions launched by a 26 year old fruit vendor that announced to the world that corruption did not work anymore…..
We can bring about change—there are many prepared to help facilitate reform….
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2011
Thank you Michael for speaking your mind without pretext or constraint, as so many of us do on JCW.
Speaking of the FBI, WTF are they doing with this multi billion dollar debacle?
State and Federal law enforcement, if you are sitting back and watching this multi-billion dollar CF go down without taking action, you are next on the taxpayer list of those who knew but did nothing, absolutely nothing, thereby betraying your mandate to protect the public. Get cracking. . .
versal-versal
March 27, 2011
I guess i am a bottom line person. The bottom line is no one can point to any statutory authority that created in the hands of a few all policy making authority within the judicial branch. No one, not a single voter elected our past CJ or current CJ or J Huffman to control and monopolize policy making for an entire branch of government. No one , not a single voter ever authorized our past or current CJ or J. Huffman or the JC to spend 2-3 billion dollars on a case management computer system that jeopardizes the ability of local trial courts to serve the public. No one , not a single voter ever authorized our past or current CJ or J Huffman or the JC to close the courts and mandate furloughs for hard working court employees. J Huffman claims those objecting to the above only want their judicial fiefdoms back. As fellow blogger Woodhull correctly points out none of us in the trial courts ever had a fiefdom or wanted one to have back. We simply want to serve the public by providing them with a court system that is fair,accessible and economical given the current state wide budget realities.Thanks for considering my views.
courtflea
March 29, 2011
Crtwatchr, My only concern about SB1208 is that the legislation does not specify who will make the allocations to the trial courts, if the JC does not do it. Will individual trial courts have to lobby the legislature and the gov? If so, you can count on the larger courts with political clout (that is just the way it works in politics) getting the bulk of the budget allocated to their courts and the smaller courts (everyone from Santa Clara to smaller counties) getting any crumbs thrown them. That portion of the legislation needs to be defined before I would give it my vote. I am not trying to create divisions between the courts on this issue, it is just something that needs to be discussed between the courts and defined.