A beefed up Assembly Bill 1208 is going to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee this Friday, May 27. Yen Media will be covering this hearing for JCW.
We expect the current language to pass out of the committee intact as this language more accurately represents the agreement that the Judiciary Committee came to with Assemblymember Calderon. According to our analysts, the implementing language coming out of the judiciary committee was contrary to the agreement struck between the judiciary committee and Calderon. As such, these amendments were required.
We’ve reviewed two articles that exist behind paid firewalls. One by Cheryl Miller titled “Calderon puts new spin on AB1208 but to what end?” . This article speculates that the judiciary committee is none too happy with Calderon. He beefed up the implementing language after the judiciary committee’s implementing language, which smashed the bill and was contrary to both the agreement and the vote that passed it out of that committee. She writes that she cannot imagine that the current implementing legislation would make its way to the governors desk as written and that it will be smashed or buried by Steinberg, Corbett or Evans in the Senate.
The latter part of this article, although not a foregone conclusion, we largely agree with as both Corbett and Steinberg are looking for judicial branch favors when they’re termed out and Evans sits on the judicial council. There will be ample time for political maneuvering following this Friday’s appropriations committee vote before the bill is heard in the Senate judiciary committee. Frankly, we feel most of the AOC supporters only need to be educated to turn them over as the AOC makes this bill out to be a return to feudalism, while concealing that feudalism is the situation we currently have.
We don’t necessarily agree with Cheryl’s assessment about the governor not signing the legislation. There are many serious issues that have been brewing for some time. Our new Chief Justice was presented with an opportunity to conduct a regime change and so far, she’s only re-arranged the titanic’s deck chairs ever so slightly. By the time this legislation makes it to the Governors desk, our Chief Justice will have had nearly a year to analyze and assess the issues and the challenges. If all she has accomplished in all of that time is casual re-arrangement of the deck chairs while mostly ignoring both the detractors and the issues, not only do we see this bill being signed by the Governor but Tani C-S will likely be facing a recall election in 2012 as dissenters continue to organize and get more vocal about her inaction.
The second article is in the Daily Journal and was authored by Emily Green. That article is titled “The Judiciary goes committee crazy” and parallels much of what we said in our own article “Why the media is increasingly skeptical” and only confirms our March 30th article.
Committees are not the solution. Committees are part of the problem.
On one hand, the JC/AOC appoints committees in an attempt to represent that they’re transparent. On the other hand, these committees work behind closed door meetings which is about as non-transparent that you can get.
It was shennagins like this that was happening in California government that underscored the need for the Brown open meeting act long ago. If the Chief Justice were serious about transparency, then these meetings would be open to journalists and the public. It is all a charade that has been played out to a dead end and we the media are calling you on it. The judiciary is not the NSA. Transparency implies that these activities will be accessible to the public and the media. Secrecy plays no part in transparency.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Mrs. Kramer
May 26, 2011
5.25.11
AB1208 Assembly Summary http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1208_cfa_20110525_164610_asm_comm.html
Purpose . The introduced bill has been narrowed to only address trial court budgeting issues, as summarized on page 1. In support of the bill, the author contends that, since enactment
of the Trial Court Funding Act, the Judicial Council “has siphoned funds from trial court operations in favor of its own pet projects, statewide objectives and priorities?AB 1208 will
prevent court closures by ensuring that trial courts get 100% of funds allocated for trial court operation. AB 1208 will also require that Judicial Council to obtain either Legislative or the trial court (66%) approval before diverting any trial court operating funds for a statewide IT system or any other project.”
The author also states that, “In 2009 the Judicial Council closed courts for the first time in California history. Even during the Great Depression, the doors of the court remained open. While closing courts down, Judicial Council decided to take $72 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund for its pet CCMS project without permission from the trial courts or the
legislature.”
The AOC responds that the CCMS spending was known by the Legislature prior to enactment of the budget, and that the court closures were authorized in a budget trailer bill.
The author also notes that, “The AOC recently submitted a list of department cuts to Judicial Council pursuant to the Governor’s request for a Ý2011-12] budget cut of $200 million in general funds. Instead of an equitable reduction of 6.8% to all departments within the judicial branch, the AOC disproportionally cut an additional $20.4 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund, saving the AOC a total of $3.45 million in cuts to their budget.”
The AOC responds that it looked at all available funds to the judiciary, not just General Funds, in proposing a 6.8% across-the-board reduction. Moreover, the AOC contends that the $178 million in reductions to the trial courts were backfilled with redirections of special funds for courthouse construction, from the Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund, and from extension of a court security fee.
5) Opposition to Current Bill . According to the Judicial Council, “AB 1208 is an inappropriate intrusion into the fundamental governance of the judicial branch.” The council adds that the
bill “would eliminate the authority of the Judicial Council to transfer funding to finance specific trial court projects or assist courts confronting unanticipated budget shortfalls or
other urgent fiscal needs.
“ÝB]y striking references to the goals that are to inform council decisions on allocating funding, the bill appears to seek to dismantle the goals of a statewide judicial branch,
instead making the paramount consideration each court’s individual needs and interests, without regard to uniformity and consistency for the users of the court system, and seeking
to ensure equal access to justice statewide.”
(Below does not seem a logical fiscal analysis to me. Seems to me that the overall effect of AB 1208 would DECREASE the costs of the overall system by assuring AOC and trial court budgets are efficiently planned and adhered to. It is well demonstrated that judicial braonch funds have been used for wasteful, centralized adminstrative costs. They have been disproportionately and inefficiently allocated by AOC to AOC, to the detriment of needed operational court costs, statewide. Why write budgets at all if there are not safeguards in place that they will be adhered to by all concerned? One party able to just take money at will from the other party, if the first party did not budget their allotted funds properly seems fiscally irresponsible and encouraging of waste to me.)
FISCAL EFFECT
To the extent the bill’s limitations hinder the efficient allocation of resources within the judicial branch, costs within the overall system would increase. The impact of this bill would
largely depend on the extent to which the AOC’s requested budgets accurately delineate the resources required for all statewide programs and the Legislature schedules each of these
programs in the annual Budget Act. (Past practice has been to schedule certain statewide programs in the Budget Act, such as court appointed special advocates, but not all programs, such as information technology projects and activities.) Given the inherent uncertainty in budgeting for IT projects in particular, the budgeting restrictions in this bill could be particularly problematic, as the need for additional resources subsequent to budget enactment would require concurrence of two-thirds of the trial courts on a proportionate basis.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 26, 2011
The fiscal effect provided by the analysis is based on the theory that the trial courts won’t be working together or working with the AOC to leverage their combined buying power, something that many courts already engage in.
It also appears to assume that it may cost the state more because the legislature would then need to appropriate funds to statewide projects as opposed to the trial courts funding statewide initiatives by gutting their internal operations. These two issues can be addressed in short order by supporters.
The most important item it addresses is the ability of those with common sense to send a wake-up call to those who are whistling dixie, pretending all is well. 66 2/3% accomplishes this well given it is the smallest courts that will suffer the most from CCMS implementation as envisioned.
There’s no brightline rule that says you can’t have a program like CCMS run by someone competent – like Orange County.
Mrs. Kramer
May 26, 2011
Personalities, players and politics aside I don’t see how AB1208 could fail to pass. Its obvious that there is a glich in how funds are distributed within the judicial branch in need of correction. The way the system is currently set up allows too much opportunity for ballooning and wasteful administrative costs to the point that tax dollars for required court operational expenses are not readily available. The protection of the balance of fiscal responsibility is off kelter.
I got a wiff in that fiscal analysis that “they” are trying to promote that the new CJ should be given a chance to lead as a reason to deny passage of AB1208. Silly argument. It is not about a new CJ or their ability. Its about installing safeguards in a multi-billion dollar, publicly funded system for better function of the judicial branch of government – no matter who is CJ now or in the future.
The AOC computer fiasco and the unlicensed contractor debacle coupled with the closing of courts because of lack of funds paint a clear picture of why this AB1208 safeguard is mandatory. AB1208 adds a needed check and balance in the system that deters waste and abuse like this from occurring again. I would think that a fiscally savvy CJ would welcome the aid of this self policing safeguard in the system they oversee.
So…best of success to all of you tomorrow. You deserve it and so do the people of California.
Chuck Horan
May 27, 2011
AB 1208 passed the appropriations committee a little while ago by unanimous vote, with one abstention. On to the next step we go, which is a vote by the full assembly next week. This is when we need your help. Anyone in favor of the bill, please contact your local assembly member and seek their support for the bill.
Thanks,
Chuck