The JC / AOC build a grievance post
(Or… why AB1208 and other reforms are necessary)
(Thanks to Delilah for providing us the circulating list)
_______________________________________________
________________________________________________
Starting with an already existing list of grievances being circulated about, we want to see if our readers can add to or enhance this list of grievances. There are two ways to do this. Either you can drop me a note in my private message window about the grievance that should be added or you can add that grievance in-thread. Most of the grievances thus far listed are governance grievances. Other grievances may relate back to an overall governance grievance. Please determine if the grievance you’re specifically identifying isn’t already covered by one already listed, even if the listed one covers it in a broader sense.
__________________________________________________
1. The AOC Has Grown Into a Huge Bureaucratic Nightmare
In the past 10 years, the Staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts has grown from less than 300 to now over 1100. There seems to be no end to the bureaucratic expansion in San Francisco. Along with the creep in size, these administrators see themselves as co-equals in the decision making functions of court administration. This organization incessantly seeks to add to its powers and increase its size. Over one third of these employees are paid $100,000 or more.
2. There is No Diversity of Thought in Governance
Membership on the Judicial Council is based on proven records of past support for the ideas and policies of court administration. Original thought is not valued, adherence to company policy is. This is true on judicial council committees as well. Judicial Council votes over the past decade reflect virtual unanimity — there have been only seven occasions when even one member dared dissent.
3. There Has Been a Complete Breakdown in Trust re: Court Administration. JC/AOC Administration
On a number of occasions, without any notice to the judges, court administration the Judicial Council and the administrative office of the courts has gone to the legislature to increase its power over judges and local courts. Included in this effort has been an attempt to Amend Article VI of the State Constitution to given the Council increased powers, an attempt to allow the Council to name the Presiding Judges of the various trial courts, repeatedly hiding Judicial Council decision making by referring issues to the Executive and Planning Committee for important decisions made on private telephone conference calls, creating judicial council meeting rules which prohibit judges with concerns from addressing colleagues on the council during meetings and walling off important decisions and debate from public scrutiny.
4. Complete Tone Deafness
Court Administration The Judicial Council and the administrative office of the courts asked the judiciary and rank-and file AOC employees to help with the court financial crisis by contributing a day’s salary per month. Most judges and justices and many AOC employees voluntarily did so. At the end of the giveback program, the Council awarded to employees of the bloated AOC bureaucracy retroactive salary increases. (This was actually done twice, the first time was large raises given to 80 or so high-ranking persons within the AOC by the executive director, the second time to all AOC employees with the blessing of our new Chief.) Even today, court employees are taking “furlough days”, days without pay, while a few judges and boatloads of court administrators continue to call for the implementation of an ill-conceived, over budget case management system which received disastrous reviews by the state auditor. Rather than bury this expensive albatross, judges and administrators continue to stump for support for this foolish endeavor, sucking up hundreds of millions of dollars that could support court functions in this time of need.
5. Lack of Oversight of the AOC
The AOC has been run basically by the administrator and, to some extent, by the Chief Justice. As far as actual oversight, there has been almost none. The role of the bureaucracy is the serve and grow the bureaucracy, not necessarily the courts. There appears to be no oversight, resulting in numerous laws, ethical standards and standards of common decency being violated. Yet management inexplicably looks the other way and whistles dixie because there exists no one to enforce those laws. There are no consequences for unlawful behavior. There appears to be no boundaries as to the size and duties of the AOC, and the role they are to play in supporting the courts is ill-defined. Their growth potential appears to be unlimited based on the addition of more and more functions that this organization can usurp from others. For example, CJA provided, as member services, many of the same things that the AOC now provides, but when CJA provided these services they cost the taxpayer nothing. A similar situation exists with the AOC’s ill-concieved basic facilities maintenance program that in some cases removed seasoned, experienced affordable local court workers and replaced them with unqualified, inexperienced, unlicensed contractors that have gamed the system set up by the AOC.
6. A Few Attend Lots of Meetings, the Rest of Us Work
Governance issues have historically been trusted to the hands of the chosen few. However, it is not just the insular nature of the decision making process that has rankled the judiciary, but the fact that the chosen ones don’t carry the same workload as the rest of the judges. In many courts, the chosen ones are rarely available for assignments because they must scurry off to meetings, leaving those left at home to do their work.
7. The AOC as New Court Builders
Recognizing that the AOC can do anything that is court related, they have now embarked on an ambitious schedule to build new courthouses throughout the state. Not that this group possesses any particular expertise in building courthouses, the fall back has always been to simply hire more help in San Francisco. While replacing decrepit courthouses is a fine idea, the devil has been in the details. San Francisco now takes the position that it owns all things judicial, including the courthouses. This brings enormous challenges as far as maintenance, building costs and building locations and, of course, naming of court facilities.
Probably because of a lack of expertise, possibly because of a lack of fraud, waste abuse and public corruption laws, the cost of building courthouses by the AOC has been astronomical. Sometimes, literally double what the federal government pays for building a similar courthouse. Maintenance of court building costs have skyrocketed since falling under AOC control. The media has reported gross examples of huge payments of tax dollars to fix squeaky doors, removal of gum from courthouse sidewalks and changing out light bulbs. Similarly, there have been instances around the state where the AOC has been the ultimate arbiter of where a local courthouse is to be built, even which city. Finally, because San Francisco clearly knows more than locals as to local legal heroes, San Francisco has now decided they will decide what name if any will go on the wall of the local courthouse.
8. Persistent Diminution of the Role of Local Courts and Judges
After Ron George became Chief Justice, there has been a consistent effort to undermine the autonomy of local courts. The Presiding Judges committee is now a standing advisory committee of the Judicial Council. They are expected to follow the lead of their handpicked chair in implementing AOC policies which homogenize the local courts. Courts dare not resist because of the ever present threat of withholding of court funds to local courts. Inexorably, judges are becoming more like case workers than independent elected constitutional officers. Every year, the Council adds to the rules as to which educational courses judges must take, things judges must do, always with the threat of harm to local courts or referrals for discipline for failure to obey.
9. Problems with the CJP
Many judges report an atmosphere of distrust and anger over the perceived abusive behavior of the CJP. It appears to many judges that there has been a steady ratcheting up the punishments for even the slightest transgressions, as well as taking on investigations of supposed wrongdoing where the underlying conduct has never been historically defined as wrong. Moreover, a high level of expertise concerning ethics and the code itself recently has not been as evident as in the past. Many who have filed complaints have also lost faith in the CJP, its leadership, the integrity of the system and the process.
10. Court Closures, Hours of Court Operations
When it became clear last year that the state budget was in such bad shape that drastic measures would have to be taken, Court Administration the Judicial Council and the AOC was faced with a huge dilemma: reduce the bloat at the AOC or shut down the courts, limiting the public’s access to justice. Unbelievably, shutting down the courts won out! Even now, there are courts operating on reduced hours of being available to do the public’s work. As a huge budget shortfall looms again, our administration will be tasked with making another hard decision.
11. Problems with the whistleblower processes and laws.
The AOC has structured their internal audits divison to be a subdivision of the finance department. They manage the Judicial Branch fraud, waste and abuse hotline. It does not stand as an independent entity monitoring AOC’s activities and enforcing the laws. On the contrary, by all outward appearances it does quite the opposite in assisting the AOC in disposing of its dirty laundry while it continues on in its reckless path. Additionally, the whistleblower laws passed last year are ineffectual due to the inherent conflict of interests of sending judicial branch whistleblowers back to the judicial branch for adjudication.
_______________________________________________________
Proposed Solutions to Governance Problems:
A. Support AB1208. Doing so will show that you are indeed bringing a new day to the judiciary and the judges who constitute the judicial branch of government. It will show that you understand the dissatisfaction of the state’s judges and are willing to solve the problems you inherited. We know you inherited them, so don’t adopt them as your own.
B. Democratize the selection process for the Judicial Council to encourage a variety of perspectives and input, rather that an insular and unrepresentative viewpoint. The voting members of the Judicial Council must be elected democratically. The process should ensure representation from large and small courts throughout the state.
C. Change the makeup of the Council. Ask for all incumbent members to resign. Democratize the selection process by allowing trial judges to elect some members to the Council from the trial court bench (appellate justices as well). Then as to the spots remaining for appointment by the Chief Justice, decide which if any of the resigned members you want to reappoint. Or, better yet, appoint new people to the Council, ones that share your vision and commitment to it “being a new day.”
D. The Council needs to reclaim much of the authority it has delegated to its Executive & Planning Committee. Meeting agendas should be distributed at least 10 days before meetings. Judges and justices of the courts, active and retired, should not have to submit written statements and obtain approval from E&P, or anyone else, before addressing the Council on any agenda item — the Judicial Council is their policy-making body and it should welcome their opinions on any issue affecting the judiciary.
E. Anyone speaking to any issue on the Judicial Council agenda should be permitted to address the Council when that item is called for discussion, after AOC staff has presented its report and recommendation. The current practice of permitting public comment only at the outset of the meeting deprives the speaker of being able to hear the AOC staff presentation before addressing the Council, which has on at least one occasion led to this abusive practice at the December 2010 meeting: a five-page legal memo was not distributed until Mary Roberts rose to address the Council, too late to be addressed by those who spoke at the start of the meeting.
F. Seek out and appoint Judges who have been willing to question and challenge AOC programs and approaches. Get some independent thinkers up there with you, rather than a bunch of people who go along to get along and to further their personal careers in the hope of an elevation to the DCA or to achieve perceived “special” status.
G. Eliminate segments such as the AOC Office of Court Construction, as the state already has the Department of General Services with an entire division dedicated to Construction Services for the State, which includes not only construction but architecture and building and property management. Duplicate agencies are not necessary. Supporting AB314 and subjecting court construction funds to the public contract code achieves this goal.
H. Eliminate any segments of the AOC which had as their original purpose a task or function that has been accomplished or abandoned.
I. Close all the AOC Regional Offices and eliminate the staff positions associated with them. Then cut the staff size of the AOC in San Francisco by at least 25%. This would still leave some 800 AOC staffers to serve about 1700 active judges and justices in the state – a ratio of roughly one AOC staff person for every two judges. That should be more than sufficient for a support organization.
J. Eliminate each of the AOC Regional Director positions. Consult with all of the state’s judges regarding the replacements for Mr. Vickrey, and for Mr. Overholt, should he likewise retire as some expect. Invite California’s 58 counties to make proposals to house any remaining segments of the AOC in their local courts.
Bids to house the AOC could be evaluated based on the location with the proposal that generates the least total anticipated expenditure of taxpayer dollars, considering building lease or purchase costs, travel, hotels, airport accessibility, and other identifiable expenses associated with the necessary functions of the AOC.
K. Eliminate the rule of court regarding court administrative records and subject the AOC and Council to the public records act, brown open meeting act and other sunshine laws. Both the media and the public deserve to know how the judiciary manages their tax dollars without having to file suit to possibly obtain disclosure. Both the public and the body of the judiciary needs to have both the trust created by transparency and meaningful input in the judicial council and its various committees.
L. The council needs to re-assert control and take responsibility for their own administrative office of the courts. The executive director has been given too much unchecked power and with it zero accountability. This must change.
_______________________________________________________
Note: The Assembly Committee on Accountability & Administrative Review is no longer hearing this bill on April 27th. Instead, it will be heard by the Judiciary committee some time in early May.
Committee on accountability and administrative review:
Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Roger Dickinson – Chair Dem-9 (916) 319-2009 Assemblymember.Dickinson@assembly.ca.gov
Martin Garrick – Vice Chair Rep-74 (916) 319-2074 Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov
Marty Block Dem-78 (916) 319-2078 Assemblymember.Block@assembly.ca.gov
Joan Buchanan Dem-15 (916) 319-2015 Assemblymember.Buchanan@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Cook Rep-65 (916) 319-2065 Assemblymember.Cook@assembly.ca.gov
Nathan Fletcher Rep-75 (916) 319-2075 Assemblymember.Fletcher@assembly.ca.gov
Shannon L. Grove Rep-32 (916) 319-2032 Assemblymember.Grove@assembly.ca.gov
Curt Hagman Rep-60 (916) 319-2060 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov
Alyson Huber Dem-10 (916) 319-2010 Assemblymember.Huber@assembly.ca.gov
Bonnie Lowenthal Dem-54 (916) 319-2054 Assemblymember.Lowenthal@assembly.ca.gov
Holly J. Mitchell Dem-47 (916) 319-2047 Assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov
Richard Pan Dem-5 (916) 319-2005 Assemblymember.Pan@assembly.ca.gov
Anthony J. Portantino Dem-44 (916) 319-2044 Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov
Judicial Council Watcher 
courtflea
April 21, 2011
quick question JCW: what/who do you define as “Court Administration”? If you do not mean Court Executive Officers, are you speaking of who……….
Judicial Council Watcher
April 21, 2011
While the list was provided to me I read it to mean whatever group manages local court administration…
Added: After re-reading it must be context sensitive because it also appears to refer to the AOC as court administration…. I’ll work to get that clarified but on second read – it appears to be context sensitive.
wendy darling
April 21, 2011
The word from Sacramento is that AB 1208 is supported in the Assembly. Daryl Steinberg, over on the Senate side, however, apparently wants to block the bill from enactment in the Senate, and is putting political pressure on Senate democrats to block or oppose AB 1208.
JCW readers and the public at large might want to keep in mind that Steinberg was/is a big fan and supporter of HRH Ron George, and also the current CJ – they went to law school together and also worked together before the CJ went to the bench, so their relationship goes back a ways. Steinberg appears to be more dedicated to preserving/protecting his loyalties to Ron George and the current CJ, than to his obligations to the public regarding the integrity of the judicial branch. So, along with writing or contacting the members of the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, people would also be well advised to write to members of the Senate, especially Mr. Steinberg, and let each of them know they need to honor their obligations to the public regarding AB 1208, and set aside whatever personal loyalties, relationships, or friendships regarding this matter.
Our recently departed Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger commuted the sentence of Estaban Nunez, the son of his political buddy, Fabian Nunez, from 16 years to 7 years, the night before Schwarzenegger left office. Estaban Nunez received that sentence following his conviction for Nunez’s involvement in the stabbing death of a college student. Recently, Schwarzenegger admitted he did this “to help a friend.” The public doesn’t need this kind of “help.”
What the public does need is a judicial branch in which the public can have some measure of integrity and confidence. Let Steinberg and the members of the California Senate know that they will be held accountable if they permit AB 1208 to be twarted or defeated because of political convenience, personal loyalities, relationships, or to “help a friend.”
These are public officers, answerable to the public who votes to put them in office, and to the public for the integrity of the judicial branch. Let them know that and that AB 1208 should be enacted. It was very clearly the stated intent of the State Legislature 13 years ago that the Trial Court Bill Of Rights be enacted. The Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC failed to take care of this responsibility, and apparently did so knowingly and intentionally. They had their chance and they chose not to do so. AB 1208 represents a promise to the people of the State of California to protect the integrity of the judicial branch and the autonomy of the trial courts guaranteed under the State Constitution that is 13 years overdue. That promise needs to be honored. The members of the Senate, including Steinberg, need to step up and fulfill their obligation and promise to the voters and the public, and enact AB 1208.
If they don’t, 2012 is an election year, and many members of the Senate are up for re-election. People might want to remind the Steinberg and the members of the Senate of that reality, and that they will be held accountable.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 21, 2011
Looking forward to your claification JCW. I can tell you one, well maybe two things. No CEO that I know would ever create or be part of crafting anything such as that would be detrimental to their bench, such as what you cited above: giving more power to the AOC over selection of PJS and CEOs and asking them to take pay cuts. Not only are most CEOs dedicated to their bench and their court but at its most basic level, it would be career suicide.
Secondly, the directors or any higher ups at the AOC are NOT court administrators. They may have been at one time in their careers but they have become so far removed from the courts, well, the only thing they are is administrators of the AOC which as we all know from the ACJ, they have no role consititutionally in running the courts.
Just sayin.
SF Whistle
April 21, 2011
Courtflea—-Perhaps you can clarify for me whether you believe that CEOs like Kim Turner in Marin County is a CEO that would never “create or be part of crafting anything such as that would be detrimental to their bench”…? Are you truly of the opinion that Turner (as example) is NOT a AOC / JC loyalist that owes every paycheck and all job security to minimimi?—I am quite certain that Turner gets up each morning and pinches herself to confirm that her life is not a dream—-SHE AND OTHER CEOs SOLD THEIR SOULS TO MEPHISTO long ago—she is a cheap carnival act–
You write of “career suicide”…? Turner would have NO career outside of working at a burger joint if she was anything other than a AOC-HO….
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 21, 2011
Now that Los Angeles County and San Mateo County have unanimously and overwhelmingly voted to support AB 1208, the usual suspects are rally against the cause. Word has it that Mary Ann O’Malley, Terry B. Friedman and rest of their ilk are doing two things. Out of one side of their mouth, they argue that the LA vote makes their point in that the only Court that AB 1208 will benefit is the largest courts like LA. Out of the other side of their mouth, they are desperately trying to round up members of the Bar Association to approach the Legislature about how awful this bill is and that it will drive them back into the Stone Age.
Remember, no opponent to AB 1208 has been able to produce a scintilla of evidence to support their hysterical claims. 99.9% of the time, they never ever address the merits of the legislation. Rather, they make overreaching claims that are in no way based in fact.
It would appear that they may believe they are going to lose in the Assembly and therefore are mustering their forces in the Senate. Please contact ALL your legislators, both in the Assembly and Senate and let them know in no uncertain terms that you want to see this Bill passed without any amendment!!!!!!!!
wendy darling
April 21, 2011
Note to Justice California: Happen to have a list of the current elected representatives in the California Senate with their contact information … ? That last list for the Assembly was very helpful (and thanks for posting that by the way).
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
April 21, 2011
Once again I ask: Where is the confirmation that Los Angeles has voted to support AB1208? Did their bench write an open letter a la San Mateo? Written confirmation of LA’s support, whether in a letter or news article, would certainly be of huge interest and import to a large number of judges. Please link or point us in the direction of a source other than the comments here.
wendy darling
April 21, 2011
Delilah —
There was an e-mail sent out by the Presiding Judge of Los Angeles Superior Court announcing the voting results of the L.A. bench. Apparently, the press was also notified of the vote of the judges of the Los Angeles court, as well as San Mateo, as these announcments were reported in published articles on The Recorder, The Metropolitan Press Enterprise, Courthouse News Service, and others.
AlwaysAmazed
April 21, 2011
Ha! This is certainly not the first time that Mary Ann O’Malley has spoken out of both sides of her mouth!
Judicial Council Watcher
April 21, 2011
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/20/35969.htm
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/AB042111.htm
______________________________________________
I thought I deleted it. Not yet….
Recognizing the strong interests of our bench officers in Assembly Bill 1208 (Calderon), The Trial Court Rights Act of 2011 (“AB 1208”), the Executive Committee has asked me to notify all members of our bench of the Executive Committee’s discussion and vote at its meeting today. At the meeting, we heard reports from all of the members of the Executive Committee on the input they obtained from judicial officers in their districts with respect to AB 1208. Following that discussion, the Executive Committee unanimously passed the following motion, with one abstention:
“Having heard and considered the overwhelming support of its bench
officers for AB 1208, the Los Angeles Superior Court Executive Committee votes that the Los Angeles Superior Court support AB 1208.”
Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
(213) 974-xxxx
LExxx@LASuperiorCourt.org
Delilah
April 21, 2011
Thank you, thank you, JCW and Wendy D. When told by word of mouth of LA’s position, certain important people were incredulous. Suffice to say that seeing it in black and white will help to further open their eyes and drop their jaws to the floor, and with any luck encourage them to keep growing the spine that’s starting to sprout.
That is all I dare say here. Other than: Long live the ACJ and JCW.
Court Broom
April 21, 2011
Always Amazed that’s the really sad truth on O”Malley. She also really seems to enjoy spinning those lies in front of the cameras for the benefit of Bruinier’s CCMS program. I think she figures he knows more than the State Auditor, after all he’s a Justice !!
Some of the retired CC Court staff there actually used to think she was one of the honorable ones, until 2009 arrived.
I guess she wanted to be included with the CJ inner circle and losing the respect of her court staff was of no concern to her.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 22, 2011
changes proposed in red were suggested via email. I know I missed a few, I’ll add them tomorrow morning.
Mrs. Kramer
April 22, 2011
Will you add these below capitalized words to the last sentence on the section on the CJP, if you deem appropriate?
Many JUDGES AND CALIFORNIA CITIZENS who have filed complaints have also lost faith in the CJP, its leadership, ITS INTEGRITY and the process.
Thanks
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 22, 2011
Here is another reason why AB 1208 should be passed, and the Judicial Council should be democratized!!!!
The next Judicial Council meeting is scheduled for April 29, 2011 (Friday) starting at 8:30 a.m.
On April 22, 2011, at 3:38 pm, the Agenda for the April 29th Judicial Council meeting was sent out via email by the Executive & Planning Committee to all members of the Judicial Council, along with the judges and justices of the courts within California and other interest parties (public & press).
The “consent calendar” portion of the April 29th Judicial Council meeting has 15 parts and sub-parts. There are 820 pages of materials in links to items on the “consent” calendar. Should anyone wish to raise a discussion on any part or sub-part of the “consent” calendar, they first must notify Judicial Council Senior Attorney Nancy Spero more than 48-hours in advance of the meeting. That would mean by close of business on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, since the folks in the unit at 455 Golden Gate Avenue won’t answer the phones until after 8:30 a.m.
Remember last year when Chuck Horan and other members of the ACJ were denied the opportunity to address the Judicial Council? The reasons they could not speak was purported due to the fact that they had failed to notify Ms. Spero in writing more than 48 hours in advance of their request to speak to the assembled Lord High Executioners, and/or that the issues were not “action items”.
There are many important matters buried within the “consent calendar”. Again, many of these issues include countless revisions and reprinting of perfectly good existing forms to “add” or “modify” things that some non-practicing attorney on the AOC staff undoubtedly thought would be a good idea (i.e. justified their existence for another few months.)
My reference to the 820 hidden pages on the “consent calendar” does not include the countless pages of materials associated with the other “action items” on calendar. I doubt even Congress runs this badly. Any business in the private sector would be out of business in a New York minute if they subscribed to similar practices.
The following agenda item should be the highlight of the day. Note that it involves one of our favorites, Mr. Terry Bruin-ears (sic.)
Item H 10:10–10:55 a.m.
California Court Case Management System: Status Update (No Action Required)
This status report on California’s Court Case Management system (CCMS)is an update to the previous status report and demonstration presented at the February 25, 2011, Judicial Council meeting. The Judicial Council has directed the AOC to develop a single case management system to be deployed in all 58 superior courts and is the executive sponsor of CCMS. CCMS is managed by the CCMS Program Management Office. This report will discuss the CCMS governance structure and current project activities: product development and testing, the AOC’s anticipated acceptance of the core product on April 30, 2011, and completion of the external components by the end of July 2011. It will also present the status of deployment planning activities with early adopter courts and the AOC’s activities undertake in response to the Bureau of State Audits’ recommendations.
Presentation (30 minutes) • Discussion/Council Action (15 minutes)
Speakers: Hon. Terence L. Bruiniers, Chair, CCMS Executive Committee
Mr. Ronald G. Overholt, Chief Deputy Director
Mr. Mark A. Moore, Executive Program Director
CCMS Program Management Office
You read it here folks! According to this, the Judicial Council is “accepting” delivery of CCMS on April 30, 2011 (which is a Saturday?) and the final external components will be delivered by July 2011. If I am reading this correctly, CCMS should be deployed anytime on or after April 30, 2011 by the “early adopter” counties!
Hey JCW, got any ideas on what the line is in Vegas on this turkey?
wendy darling
April 22, 2011
My money is on the ACJ.
Chuck Horan
April 22, 2011
Nathaniel, we were denied permission notwithstanding that we had a preapproved written statement that we had submitted. We confirmed via email that it was satisfactory to be read to the council under their rules. We in fact sent a confirmatory email saying that if we were wrong, let us know before we traveled up there. Notwithstanding that, Justice George simply disallowed it in mid-reading.
Now, as to the 4/29 agenda:
The sharp eyed among you will note that a very interesting item appears at the top of the agenda for the 4/29 meeting, added by E and P Chair Justice Huffman at the last moment, without even time to convene the E and P committee. (Justice Huffman has told me this in writing). I this happened on 4/21.
It is a motion to have the Council RATIFY the Chief’s action last week of creating a new Internal Committee of the Judicial Council. I believe this late addition is related to the belated realization by AOC that the Internal Committee, another CCMS oversight committee, was created in violation of the Judicial Council Governance Policies, and Rule 10.10 and others.
This very late addition to the agenda came after inquiries were made to Mr. Vickrey and others on 4/20 and 4/21 regarding the legality of the move.
The Chief simply had no authority to unilaterally modify the structure of the council. Please see the governance policy and Rule 10.1(a)(3)(E)–“the structure of the council is defined by the Governance Policies adoped by the council”. Those Governance Policies, and Rule of court 10.10 and 10.11 create the 4–and only 4–internal committees of the council.
They are: E and P, PCLC, Litigation, and Rules. The new “5th committee” cannot be created by fiat. the chief only has the power to create advisory committees–Rule 10.30(g).
The Governance Policy was adopted in 1998, and amended in 2008 (by email vote of the council, without public circulation or vetting). The Title Ten rules were passed without public circulation, public comment, and without even a public vote of the council–they were passed on the 8/09 consent agenda. Nonetheless, they are the rules, CRC have the force of law, and thus they must be followed.
The zeal to appear busy overcame deliberation and just shredded any pretext that the Council is a deliberative body. What they propose to do on 4/29 is analogous to having the sentencing, and then calendaring the trial at a later date, to “ratify” the sentence. In the name of council oversight of the AOC and CCMS, the council has been bypassed by the Chief’s action.
On another note, the new committee is problematic for another reason: An action of E and P in December 2010, which action was taken on behalf of the full council, created the CCMS oversight committee(s) headed up by Justice Bruiniers. That policy further relegated the council to “sponsor” status. FULL authority was given to Bruiniers et. al. Now, the new new internal committee, formed without council approval, will purportedly have authority over a committee already deemed to have ultimate authority. The committees have many shared and overlapping members–Mike Roddy, Judge Herman, Judge Kaufman, and perhaps others. The CCMS Governance Model, passed in December, will have to be amended. Apparently no one has though of that either. They are going to dig a deeper hole at the council meeting. Oh, this is tiresome in the extreme.
This is all very disconcerting. We have now seen an action unrivaled in my years–an attempt to change the Council Governance structure by fiat, with no discussion, no public comment, and no advance notice to even the Council or Justice Huffman’s E and P committee, which, by the way, is the Internal Committee responsible for developing Governance Policies! The last time the Governance Policy was amended it came only after many months of non-public discussions by E and P and others.
Let me be clear: I do NOT fault Justice Huffman for this situation. It appears that he is simply trying to clean up a mess not at all of his making. Further, Justice Huffman communicated with me fairly and quickly, and answered most if not all of my questions. Mr. Vickrey has yet to be heard from.
We must have AB1208 passed. We simply must.
JusticeCalifornia
April 22, 2011
“Sentence first, verdict after!”
This is all so. . . .Alice in Wonderland.
AB 1208 can only bring the branch up. It must be passed.
JusticeCalifornia
April 22, 2011
And we do know the ending to that story. . . . .
RG’s Jabberwocky is all smoke and mirrors.
The branch needs to stand up and fight.. . .so it can grow.
JCW The Bookie
April 22, 2011
The trifecta pays 20 to 1
It’s complete and ready to use with all the coding errors fixed 5 to 1 against
A defective product isn’t being accepted to save face 2 to 1 against
The AOC is not bullshitting all of us (as usual) 10 to 1 against
Judicial Council Watcher
April 22, 2011
(no, this is not to be construed as an offer for bookie services.)
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 22, 2011
You know, I should be careful and very clear. My comments to JCW were not in any way meant to infer or intimate that I was asking for any actual information regarding “betting” as defined in Penal Code sections 318, et.seq. For those aligned with the Judicial Council or AOC Management, that’s a joke, I say that’s a joke..son! (My apologies to Foghorn Leghorn)
When are the rest of our population going to get fired up about all this!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judicial Council Watcher
April 22, 2011
The real joke is that they’re accepting a product they admit is incomplete with ” final external components to be delivered July 2011″ WTF does that mean? Maybe… a whole section of plug-in functionality they’ve not completed?
(yes the gambling bit was a joke – and a losing bet for anyone believing they will be witnessing CCMS running courts out of the CCTC anytime soon)
wendy darling
April 22, 2011
Well, if we were betting, my imaginary money would still be on the ACJ.
And Judge Woodhull, regarding the question: When are the rest of our population going to get fired up about all this!!!!!!, I couldn’t help but think of the ending to The Emperor’s New Clothes and how it was a child who finally spoke the truth:
“Your Majesty,” the prime minister said, “we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new suit.” The Emperor was doubtful showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent.
“All right,” he said. “I will grant the people this privilege.” He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.
Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new clothes. They’re beautiful!”
“What a marvellous train!”
“And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!” They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.
A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
“The Emperor is naked,” he said.
“Fool!” his father reprimanded, running after him. “Don’t talk nonsense!” He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
“The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It’s true!”
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 22, 2011
RE the JC meeting: While the “product” may allegedly be “accepted”, didn’t minimimi assure everyone at the end of the last JC meeting that nothing would be deployed before the independent review of the system was completed? Wasn’t there even legislation about this floated at some point?
If anyone is signing up to speak it would be helpful to know what has been spent on product development in 2011 thus far, and what has been spent / is planned to be spent on deployment in 2011 (a deployment budget was mentioned but not discussed at the last meeting).
Also, the legality and implications of storing CA legal files in AZ, and Michael’s queries about the cost of transmitting information from Arizona to 58 counties in California might be interesting topics of conversation.
And VERY IMPORTANT a query as to whether “acceptance” of the product triggers financial or other obligations of any kind– or warranties.
Perhaps a suggestion that a rush to judgment might be yet another costly mistake– and that “acceptance” should be delayed until after the independent review– and the results of 1208. After 1208 passes, and trial courts weigh in on whether they want to participate, the JC/AOC will better know the extent of support and value of the project and whether other alternatives make a LOT more sense to pursue as the product is historically problematic and already aging out.
Just a couple of thoughts–
007
April 26, 2011
Per the legislation CCMS can’t be accepted until the independent review is
done and reported to the legislature. So just how is the AOC going to accept it by April 30th?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 26, 2011
We’re guessing that the JC/AOC has given themselves the right to interpret the language of the trailer bill and that if anyone has a problem with it, you’re welcome to avail yourself of their rigged venue.
This mother of all oversight committees of 10 will be retroactively blessed and submit their first report on this matter and the judicial council will authorize acceptance of the product on the same day, this Friday, followed by actual acceptance the next day, Saturday.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 22, 2011
To Justice California,
One of the most unbelievable parts of this entire travesty is the fact that whomever wrote the contract, if they exist, between the AOC and Deloitte, there is no “warranty” as that expired around 2005-06. One of the points many of us have been screaming about is how can you contract for a system in which everything it is “fixed” during development, Deloitte gets to call it an “enhancement” and bill us for the fix. We figured this out a long time ago and have never been provided with an answer… either from HRH George or any of his successors or assigns….
Mrs. Kramer
April 22, 2011
Horonable Judge Horan,
Thank you so much for speaking out of the conflicts of interest within the heirachy of the largest judicial system in the the US, the California judicial system. This perverse situation shakes democracy itself at its very core. I will be there on April 27 to support you with every last breath I have in my body to expose that the Judicial Council’s absolute control of the California judicial system must GO for the sake of democracy in America.
Not that I am any “fine lady” (actually I am infamous for dropping the F bomb on occassion), but I WILL BE THERE TO SUPPORT YOU!!! The California courts are corrupted at its highest levels. For the future health of democrary, this MUST STOP and I will be there with rings on my fingers and bells on my toes to let this be known.
I have no qualms what so ever of directly stating and evidencing that Justice Huffman, Justice McConnell and ex-Chief Jusitce Ron George are dirty. See you on the 27th and look forward to meeting you.
“Ride a cockhorse to Banbury Cross,
To see a fine lady upon a white horse;
Rings on her fingers and bells on her toes,
She shall have music wherever she goes.
Radio interview starting at minute 30:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/marti-oakley/2011/04/19/ts-radiosharon-kramerwhistleblower
tony maino
April 22, 2011
I wish to thank Judge Horan, who is a friend of mime, for his post under his own name.
It has been said before and it will continue be said long after everyone who reads the Judicial Council Watcher is dead, that our rights should never depend on the will or good intentions of an individual. It is most distressing that our Chief Justice either does not know the rules or believes that she can ignore them.
The passage of AB 1208 will send a message to all members of the Judicial Council and to the employees of the Judicial Council, the AOC bureaucracy, that there are rules and in an ordered society they must be obeyed.
wendy darling
April 22, 2011
The people of the State of California, both those alive today, and of generations as yet unborn, owe to the Alliance of California Judges, and to all of their supporters, such as JCW, and its predecessor, AOC Watcher, a profound debt of thanks and gratitude, though many will never know it.
This is especially true for all of the members of the ACJ post here on JCW under their own name, such as Judge Maino, Judge Horan, Judge Woodhull, and others, as well as the members of the ACJ who have spoken out publicly, such as Judge Gilliard, Judge White, Judge Lampe, Judge Goldstein, and others, both known and unknown; they are all be thanked for their integrity and courage, for honoring both their robe and their office, and for setting an example of what the California judiciary should be, and might be again.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 22, 2011
Hi SFW, I don’t deny at all there are certain CEOs that are lick spittles and sell outs to the AOC. However, if any individual has screwed over his/her judges in such a fashion, they should be given the heave ho by their bench. Even if a few judges on the bench are lick spittles to the AOC, why does the majority not give the CEO the heave ho? Are you saying the JC/AOC has the power to force a bench to retain their CEO to the detriment of their own organization and their own authority? I’m sorry, I am just not getting it. I guess I am even more naive than I thought?
Welcome back Judge Horan!
JusticeCalifornia
April 22, 2011
Courtflea, I do appreciate your subtle but often sarcastic comments, and also your spirited defense of CEOs. I invite all to consider the very, very serious repercussions to the entire branch of cjs elevating historically very seriously compromised CEOs like Turner, Torre and Roddy to oversight/advisory positions. One, or two, or three high-profile bad apples do indeed spoil the whole branch.
Re your question: “Are you saying the JC/AOC has the power to force a bench to retain their CEO to the detriment of their own organization and their own authority?”
ummmm, from what I have personally seen, heard, and experienced in Marin County, the answer is a very BIG yes.
antonatrail
April 23, 2011
From what I personally observed, The CEO wing was called the “dark side” of the building over which the judges had no power and very little influence.
versal-versal
April 22, 2011
Here is one great reason to support AB 1208. Unlike almost every other democratic institution including the legislature, one cannot appear at a public meeting of the JC and ask to be heard. Woodhull and Judge Horan have set forth the arcane JC “rules” that must be met before You may be allowed to speak. Judge Lampe who appeared before the JC last year was even cut off by then CJ George and not allowed to finish his remarks regarding court closures. Despite the importance of the issue I believe the maximum amount of time Judge Lampe was given to speak was two minutes ! We need to move beyond this anti-democratic and insular culture that tries to control the trial courts. We need democratization of the JC.
lando
April 23, 2011
Thanks Judge Horan for your great post on the flaws in the creation of the latest JC “Committees”.We already have four “Committees” working on CCMS with a proposed fifth on the way. How all these layers of “Committees” can save CCMS remains a question that can’t be answered. Well intended as the members of the “Committees ” may be , they can’t fix problems with the server down in Arizona , the need for added expensive workarounds that are needed to make the system work at all (Orange County )and the fact that CCMS will be out of date when it arrives April 30 , July 30 or whatever day the JC , JBruiners and /or the latest CCMS Oversight “Committee” claims is the “deployment” date . Many thanks Woodhull for letting all interested parties know this is on the next JC meeting agenda. It is comforting to know the JC is going to give a full 15 minutes to discussing this multi billion dollar train wreck.
Michael Paul
April 23, 2011
There were over 900 documented coding errors as of December 2010. It is April 2011. I write applications too. I have quite a bit of experience with websphere, part of the platform CCMS is written upon. When I say that there is no way that they’ve fixed those 900 coding errors in 4 months you can take that to the bank.
Mark Moore and company cannot be accepting anything but a defective application riddled with coding errors. They’re accepting it this way to save face and to try to save the program.
Identifying “external deliverables to be delivered later” is a guise for more time.
More time that won’t help anything because Mark Moore has not demonstrated that he is able to defy the laws of physics or walk on water. An issue so serious it is tantamount to sucking a bowling ball thru a garden hose and has been ignored for years in the hopes that (Gordon) Moore’s law (The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit and the speed of that circuit doubles approximately every eighteen months) would outpace (Bill) Gates law. (The speed of software halves every 18 months)
Mrs. Kramer
April 23, 2011
Thanking judges, who have the courage to use their real names as they speak out, is self evident of the direct attack on the Constitution that is occurring the Ca legal system at the hands of the tyrannic few.
If judges must fear retaliation for practicing their First Amendment guaranteed right to speak the truth, then how is there even hope that they will be able to uphold the Constitution and protect citizens’ rights to do the same?
Jon Wintermeyer
April 23, 2011
It’s good to hear that some Honorable Judicial voices will will be heard in favor of AB 1208 and to tell of the wasteful spending that the AOC has allowed to take place in CA for Trial Court maintenance. The system designed by the AOC did not get the Taxpayer 25 cents worth of results for every dollar spent.
Then we have the black hole known as their ” CCMS ” program with the ever increasing monies required to fund it, inspite of all the accounting errors found by the State’s Auditor. We have the CJ’s selected committee Judge’s shouting the praises of it, never mentioning the many code errors or that they lack the experienced personnel in the courts to finish and correct a software program that currently still doesn’t work after multiple time extensions.
Those of us within the Judical system that tried in vain to speak out on it and were terminated for by our management for it only wish that we were working for Bench Officers that deseve to be called Your Honor, because they will speak out rather than remain the quiet majority.
The CC Court Bench showed no backbone when sent the letter (copy posted in JCW last year) asking them to address what was happening under the rule of Queen Torre in their court and there were no Judges willing to request any type of reality check to stop the purge of dedicated long serving managers. That so many other senior court mangers chose retirement over remaining there is to their credit, because they knew that there was nobody listening or prepared to speak out for those in Court Operations told to now serve the chosen Queen.
These senior managers were the ones capable of voicing concerns about poor AOC facility maintenance service work and questioning the implementation of CCMS and how many of their questions on it’s software could not be answered.
Thanks to all the Honorable Judges for your efforts and time and to JCW for being our release and voice in the judicial wilderness of California.
Mrs. Kramer
April 23, 2011
“judicial wilderness” ~ great analogy ~ easy to visualize
I just received the video of a presenation I gave in San Francisco in March for the 100 Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaste Factory Fire. I start talking about what Huffman, McConnell and George have done to aid with massive insurer fraud in California’s workers comp system by rewarding a US Chamber/ACOEM author’s use of criminal perjury to establish needed reason for malice while strategically litigating to shut me up (fat chance) at about minute 20. I mention you all and the importance of your efforts to restore integrity and democracy to California’s “judicial wilderness” around the same point in the video.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/23/18677881.php
The link to the video is at the very bottom of the above IndyBay press release they put out.
(PS I think the filmers added some wrinkles to my face and gray hairs to my head in their edits)
courtflea
April 23, 2011
Justice California, I disagree that a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Nor is Kim Turner representative of all 58 CEOs in California or Marin County the focus of the universe. I find it very interesting that the judges in San Diego are paying Mr. Roddy and Ms. Torre much more than their own earnings as a judge, to screw them over. Well, frankly if that is the case with Ms. Torre and Mr. Roddy shame on the judges who work in those courts. The judges of Marin supported publicly 1208 but are afraid of their own CEO’s political power? If your arguement holds, they would have been too frightened to do such a thing. Again and not sarcastically, I just don’t understand how that could be or why then judges choose to have CEOs.
While my focus on JCW comments regarding “Court Administrators” may seem off the point of the important issues here, I hate to see the hard working good CEOs of the branch dissed because of a few bad apples. That is like saying that all employees of the AOC are corrupt because of the few bad apples in the organization. Or that all family law judges are scum because of what you report about the judges in Marin. Or all court employees suck because of a few bad apples.
The supposed political power of all of the bad apple CEOs can be instantly stopped here and right now. They can be fired by their bench.
Nuff said from me. Happy weekend.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 23, 2011
Regarding the list and your court admins observation: We received this list who received it from someone, who received it from someone, etc. When we read it, it made sense to us until you asked about court adminisrators. Then we got to play judge and determine what the ‘legislators’ meant. 🙂
antonatrail
April 23, 2011
The proposed solutions are Spot on! Excellent job. Very well written.
JusticeCalifornia
April 23, 2011
Gotta love this blog.
Courtflea, you are right– one, two, three or more high profile bad CEOs don’t actually spoil the whole branch, and I did not mean that all CEOs are bad— but they do indeed tarnish the REPUTATION of other CEO’s in the branch. The same holds true for other compromised branch members.
Turner, Torre and Roddy are all JC party line CEO’s in counties (Marin, Contra Costa/Santa Clara, Sacramento/San Diego) notorious for spawning public anti-court demonstrations and dedicated court reform activists. Why these three haven’t been bounced is a very good question. . . . .except of course they have been protected by certain local bench members and top leadership. . .and at least as far as Turner goes, she and/or her staff have reportedly metaphorically serviced certain old-school bench/branch members in return. . . in many ways. . .
So I am so interested — who on the Marin bench is publicly supporting 1208?
I (and I am sure others) would love to see “the list” and whatever else JCW refers to above. JCW?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 24, 2011
The list I refer to is the initial post. The build-a-grievance list.
JusticeCalifornia
April 24, 2011
got it.
Happy Easter, JCW.
lando
April 24, 2011
You know sometimes we don’t just stop and reflect as we should. In the last two years significant and positive progress has been made in educating the courts , the legislature, justice partners and the public about the anti-democratic insular JC and its operating arm – the AOC. Please never forget how then CJ George and JHuffman tried to amend Article 6 to give the JC the constitutional power to do exactly what they have been doing all along without authority, dictating to the trial courts. The efforts to amend Article 6 failed. Then the AOC tried to get a trailer bill introduced that would have allowed them and the JC to pick Presiding Judges and court CEOs. Once again after this was exposed that effort also failed. When the Alliance called for a full audit of CCMS then CJ George, J Bruiniers and the AOC lobbyists worked hard to prevent that audit including having J Bruiniers testify against it. Thanks to the good sense and independence of the legislature the audit took place resulting in a legitimate and fair concern about the JC and AOC spending up to 2 billion dollars on a state wide case management system that doesn’t work. The state audit of CCMS in turn has opened countless eyes around the state about the JC’s management or lack thereof of the AOC. Through all this the Alliance emerged and grew significantly despite efforts by CJ George and J Huffman to marginalize and ignore their concerns. (Remember the ants on the trail and “clowns” remarks) This site , the JCW has been a huge vehicle for spreading the word about the need for reform and change thanks to the many dedicated and thoughtful commentators here.Most importantly, the long time legislator and great public servant Assemblyperson Calderon sponsored AB 1208 which rebalances and recognizes the constitutional authority of the local trial courts.Taken together , all of the above represents huge progress to taking back our branch and democratizing it . Have a nice Easter everyone.
wendy darling
April 24, 2011
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
April 24, 2011
As a novice to what has been occurring with this aspect of the meltdown of our judicial system, I am shell shocked from reading this web site.
Who is responsible for hiring the unlicensed contractors? There has to be one decision maker or one committee who signed documents/contracts that okay’d this, right?
And why would a state run agency whose function is supposedly just administrative matters have or need to have a lobbyist? Is he registered as a lobbyist (who is paid with my tax dollars)?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 25, 2011
Not only does the AOC have lobbyists that it pays but it has the Office of Governmental Affairs whose only function is interfacing with legislators, commonly known as lobbying. In essence, you’re paying twice.
Mrs. Kramer
April 25, 2011
Well that just doesn’t seem like acceptable behavior for an agency who is to be comprised of administrators, not decision makers. They asked me to come back tonite to Truth Squad Radio. They want me to finish the story of how corruption in the CA legal system has aided the affiliates of the US Chamber with billions in insurer fraud over the mold issue.
I am going to TRY to intelligently talk about what is going on at the AOC (I can do JC and CJP, no problem). If you have the ability, please listen and call in to discuss some of the problems with a Ca judicial heirarchy that is out of control. It starts at 6PM PST:
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/truth-squad-radio-whistleblower-sharon-noonan-kramer-is-back/
Whistleblower Sharon Noonan Kramer will be back!
Sharon Kramer is a researcher of how concepts market their way into public health policy… Tonight, Sharon is going to talk about the corruption in the California judicial system at its highest levels that aids this scientific fraud to remain in policy and what several brave California judges are doing to put law and democracy back in the California courts.
courtflea
April 25, 2011
Justice CA, my bad, I get those counties in the bay area mixed up.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 25, 2011
This is the right thread to leave this message.
We’ve received both communications and ancedotal evidence that AB 1208 will not be heard by the Assembly Committee on Accountability & Administrative Review as widely reported here and elsewhere.
Comparing inside the capital notes from the not too recent past, there was some word that judiciary would possibly hear the bill instead of ACAAR if the bill went through judiciary unopposed by the JC/AOC/Chair.
Can anyone assist us in confirming this? If not, we can wait until tomorrow.
wendy darling
April 25, 2011
Mark Martin at the State Legislature did notify at least one person today that the April 27 hearing on AB 1208 before the Assembly Committee on Accountabiity and Administrative Review has been cancelled, and will be moved to the Judiciary Committee. Martin did not provide any date for the re-scheduled hearing on AB 1208 before the Judiciary Committee, or the reason for it.
And the JC/AOC/Chair wouldn’t need to oppose AB 1208 before the Judiciary Committee; Fleur will take care of that for them.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 26, 2011
I think Feuer was the chair being referenced in the dealmaking. This has now been confirmed by several sources.
Re: The Assembly Committee on Accountability & Administrative Review is no longer hearing this bill on April 27th. Instead, it will be heard by the Judiciary committee some time in early May
JusticeCalifornia
April 26, 2011
Mark your calendars
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1208
AUTHOR(S) : Charles Calderon.
TOPIC : Trial courts: administration.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/25/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule
96.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM JUDICIARY
HEARING DATE : 05/03/2011
TITLE : An act to add Section 77001.1 to the Government Code,
relating to courts.
antonatrail
April 26, 2011
Assembly Rules
“Motion to Withdraw or Re-refer Bills
“96. (a) A motion to withdraw a bill or resolution from committee, or to re-refer a bill or resolution from one committee to another committee, may be made during the regular order of business. A motion to re-refer may be debated only as to the propriety of the reference, and shall require an affirmative recorded vote of 41 or more Members.
(b) A bill or resolution may not be withdrawn from committee and placed upon the file, unless a motion to withdraw has been heard by, and has been approved by a majority vote of, the Committee on Rules. This subdivision does not apply to a bill in a fiscal committee that has been amended so as not to require its reference to a fiscal committee, as indicated by the Legislative Counsel’s Digest.
(c) A motion to continue a motion to withdraw a bill or resolution from committee requires a majority of those members present and voting. A motion to withdraw a motion to withdraw is not in order.”
I wonder whether (a), (b) or (c) was the pertinent excuse — err, I mean rationale. I guess I’m just obtuse.
And I don’t have a law degree.
Mrs. Kramer
April 26, 2011
“96. (a) A motion to withdraw a bill or resolution from committee, or to re-refer a bill or resolution from one committee to another committee, may be made during the regular order of business. A motion to re-refer may be debated only as to the propriety of the reference, and shall require an affirmative recorded vote of 41 or more Members.”
With regard to AB 1208, where does one find the documentation of the “affirmative recorded vote of 41 or more Members” that permits the legislature “to re-refer a bill or resolution from one committee to another committee”? Who are these “41 or more Members”?
Mrs. Kramer
April 26, 2011
Where does one find a bookie on this? I would like to lay 10 to 1 odds with someone that Sacramento is currently teeming with insurance, pharmaceutical, biotech, building, banking and Chamber of Commerce lobbyists — who do not want to see AB1208 come to fruition. Law and democracy being able to be applied in the courts without direction from the judicial monarchs of California are hazardous to their best interests.
JusticeCalifornia
April 27, 2011
Once again:
Many of us have witnessed the trickle-down effect. The self-dealing waste, corruption, retaliation and/or even (let’s call it what it is) fraud fostered by current top leadership has trickled down into many trial courts and other branches of government. At this point, we all know who the “usual suspects” are, who has done what to get where they are, and who is willing to do what to stay where they are.
I believe Judge Woodhull suggested talking about selling points regarding 1208.
I am going to be blunt.
Selling point No. 1: ISN’T 1208 WHAT THE LEGISLATURE AND BRANCH INTENDED AND PROMISED IN 1997? IF NOT, WHY NOT? IF SO, WHY HAS TOP LEADERSHIP RENEGED, AND WHY WOULD THE LEGISLATURE REFUSE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON A PROMISE?
Under pressure, is the legislature REALLY going to refuse to follow through, 14 years later, at the expense of the legislature’s constituents, and even after all it has been told by so very many people (check your records, please) about almost two decades of third branch waste, corruption, retaliation, mismanagement and misconduct?
If the legislature is reneging, why? Who were the brokers, what was the backroom/backdoor deal, what was the price, what are the goods to be delivered, and to whom? Please be prepared to answer all those questions. Especially legal/political sophisticates Feuer and Steinberg, who many say have obvious conflicts of interest.
Selling point No 2: CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES
A. The first alternative is the status quo, which nobody except top leadership likes, and therefore is doomed to fail.
B. The second is a far more widespread, organized public rebellion. This is a likely outcome if postive change that protects litigants is not effected, but quick.
Selling Point No. 3: THE RG TITANIC IS SINKING, AND THIS CANNOT BE STOPPED. His handpicked inexperienced mininimi and his trusty but compromised top leadership have dutifully called in all favors to get anyone they can to plug leaks and frantically bail water. That may work, temporarily.
But it’s kind of like patching a bald tire that is most assuredly going to blow. Or using a thimble to bail out a leaky rowboat.
The problem is fundamental, and it won’t go away. Oppression will not be tolerated here.
The present state of the judiciary is causing those forced into prolonged contact with the court system to become dedicated, vocal activists.
At a basic level this includes CA drivers– traffic court casualties who are now viewed as the most likely target sources of revenue to support a wasteful third branch. Drivers are now cash cows and are being mistreated as such.
Also at a primary, visceral level this includes parents subjected to the bizarre money-go-rounds in family, juvenile and civil court that end in financial devastation and harm to or even the loss of their children — and brutal retaliation if they complain.
And, on an entirely different level, it includes those who are within the system (judges, lawyers, court employees), who believe that the third branch should stand for truth, justice and the rule of law, not a glorified system of organized crime.
So if top leadership thinks that business in the branch can and will continue as usual, it is very, very wrong.
Those who have been dragged into and gone through the court reform war for years, and watched the battlefront change drastically in a relatively short period of time, know this.
In 2006, charismatic Ron George was at the top of his game. Four years later he turned tail and ran, and no one has seen hide nor hair of Mr. George ever since. Is he the power behind minimimi? Who knows, and really, at this point, who the heck cares? What matters is that under his leadership the branch lost all pretense of integrity and respectability.
Top leadership ought to be very careful about rejecting responsible, positive, moderate change, because the branch may very well get something far worse.
Like public rebellion, and perhaps (if court victims have their way) an organized demand for elimination of judicial immunity – because if no one will protect the public, the public must protect itself.
Oh yes.
Top leadership should be VERY careful about what it asks for, and what it tries to forcefully shove down the public’s throat.