As we received these images as bitmaps we had to convert them to jpeg’s to post them so the chart is a little blurry. Try to use the browser enlarge feature on your browser. Since Automattic integrated in social networking logons, Google Chrome seems to be the best browser we’ve tested for posting comments with firefox a close second. Internet Explorer has issues. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
________________________________________________________________
July 7, 2011
Dear Fellow Judges:
From the very beginning of the existence of the Alliance of California Judges, we have warned that our courts faced a growing fiscal catastrophe, in part due to the out-of-balance priorities established by judicial leadership. The current budget suggests that catastrophe has finally arrived.
The Judicial Council now faces stark choices. There are few sources available to mitigate these budget reductions without decimating trial court operations. The AOC must, in some combination, drastically reduce its own operations, or drastically curtail needed construction, and eliminate continued funding for CCMS.
The AOCs allocation of the trial court’s share of the $200 million cut in the Governors original budget was $178 million, which we contend was overstated to the local courts by $20 million. Nevertheless, the AOC proposed to mitigate this reduction by other funds. The Legislature has now passed a budget that includes an additional $150.0 million unallocated cut to the judiciary. The Department of Finance has previously projected that this additional cut will be the equivalent to closing our trial courts two days per month in the next fiscal year.
The enacted budget also eliminates an additional $310 million in court construction funding, combined with the previous loan to the General Fund of $350 million from the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and $90 million from the Immediate and Critical Needs Account.
This letter is lengthy and full of financial detail, but it is important for judges to understand the complexity of this fiscal crisis and the specific steps that must be taken immediately to keep our courts open to the public. Our detailed narrative budget analysis follows this letter as an addendum.
The AOC Must Bear the Lions Share of the Budget Cut
Revenue reductions must be allocated so that statewide administrative expenses are reduced to the barest minimum in order that trial court operations are least impacted, and capital funds preserved as much as possible.
The Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts must bear the lions share of reductions to the extent possible. That is the only remaining source available without decimating the construction program and the trial courts. We must preserve the core function of adjudication at all costs, and this means the elimination of much of the AOC. This likely means closing all regional and satellite offices, suspending all consulting contracts, eliminating statewide administrative positions, suspending mandatory CJER in favor of local programs, and other drastic measures, absorbing the entire reduction at the state level rather than at the level of trial court or appellate court operations.
We urge that all funds appropriated by the legislature for local trial court operations, in whatever amount, must be fully delivered to the trial courts without reduction or reserve, and that each court be guaranteed a baseline level of funding consistent with historic practices. This remains the basic premise of AB 1208. This principle should guide the allocation process.
There appear to be sufficient construction funds available to offset the operating budget reductions, only at the expense of completely deferring all capital outlays for construction originally planned for fiscal year 2011- 2012, and which would likely require further legislative approval. Also, the AOC budget for its own operations, including the Court Facilities Program, appears to allow for up to $260 million theoretically available for mitigation.
The AOC has previously proposed a disproportionate cut to the trial courts arising from the Governors original $200.0 million general fund reduction. The AOC and Judicial Council have a budget of $142.0 million and the Court Facilities Program has a budget of $228.0 million. So far, the AOC has only proposed an $8.0 million reduction to the general revenue portion ($99.0 million) of its own budget.
We can no longer afford a top heavy administration where, unlike judges and most court employees, the top 30 executives of the AOC — who earn from approximately $140,000 to $217,000 per year — make no personal contribution to their retirement plan. We request that the Chief Justice immediately rescind her predecessors resolution authorizing this benefit.
Full Disclosure of $247 Million of Unspecified Operating Expenses and Equipment.
We are also requesting that the Judicial Council make an immediate public disclosure of the line item budgets for the portion of the Judicial Council and AOC budget of $142.0 million (Judicial Branch Budget program 250.30) and the $228.0 million budget for the Court Facilities Program (Judicial Branch Budget program 250.35) which provide for $247 million of unspecified operating expenses and equipment. To our best knowledge, these details have so far not been made available. Public disclosure of these detailed budgets will allow every judge of the state and other interested stakeholders to participate and make meaningful recommendations. There is absolutely no reason that these budgets should be secret. Our previous requests that this information be made public have been ignored.
CCMS Funding Must End
This also means that trial court operating funds must no longer be used to advance CCMS. The branch cannot afford this project at this time without dedicated funding. CCMS should be delivered to the courts using it, to be implemented upon local servers for those courts, and the continued maintenance of that product should be managed by each of those courts within their own operating budget. In this way, the CCMS product will be preserved for future further development and deployment when the Legislature makes specific funds available, beyond current operating needs. All other expenditure for development and deployment should be immediately suspended.
The recent report by the AOC to the Legislature released in May 2011 reveals that the AOC has so far expended $454.0 million on the CCMS project through the end of fiscal year 2009- 2010. In this fiscal year 2010- 2011 the report states that the Judicial Council and the AOC will spend $93 million on CCMS, notwithstanding these dire budget forecasts. The report indicates a projected expenditure of $125 million for fiscal year 2011-2012 and a further expenditure of $88.0 million for 2012- 2013. These payouts must stop immediately. The following is an excerpt of this report:
The AOC Must End All But Absolutely Essential Expenditures
The AOC simply cannot continue with business as usual. We are also concerned about the AOCs long-standing practice of engaging in many consulting contracts. Past and on-going contract costs include, by example:
(1) $224,476 to the “Institute for the Future” (according to the Institute’s website: ‘We work with organizations of all kinds to help them make better, more informed decisions about the future. We provide the foresight to create insights that lead to action’) to “Develop strategic vision for the California Judicial Branch.”
(2) $522,602 to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a workload assessment of superior court judges and trial court staff. We believe that this is in addition to approximately $500,000 that the AOC pays annually to the NCSC as a state assessment.
(3) $209,000 to Patton Boggs, LLP for legislative and budget advice.
(4) $78,820 to (Ret) Judge Roger Warren, Special Consultant. Judge Warren currently serves on the Board of Directors of Justice at Stake and is a former president of NCSC.
There are millions of dollars more of examples like this of AOC spending. Can we continue this level of consultant spending within the branch (which does nothing to actually adjudicate cases) while we are compromising our ability to serve the public directly in our communities?
The AOC Must Close All But Basic State Facilities
While we talk of closing courts, the AOC has opened satellite offices in the state, like the office in the picture below taken in San Dimas, California:
The Alliance of California Judges looks forward to participating in a transparent allocation process among all concerned, and we intend to meaningfully participate in that process to ensure the greatest degree of balance between state and local functions and between operational and long-term capital needs.
Very truly yours,
Directors of the Alliance of California Judges
_________________________________________________________________
Addendum Narrative Budget Analysis
Our view of the budget numbers is as follows:
The original cut in March to the trial courts results in a proposed allocated reduction to the trial courts of $178 million. This amount was to be mitigated by a one-time reduction of $10 million from CCMS funding, $20 million from the Modernization Fund, and the balance of mitigation from construction funds.
However, construction funds have been depleted as follows:
Fund Condition Statements reveal that the State Court Facilities Trust Fund has a beginning balance of $382 million. There is $141 million of projected revenue, and a General Fund transfer of $350 million, leaving a total fund balance before expenditures of $173 million. Of this amount, $71 million is budgeted for state operations, leaving $102 million for budget mitigation.
This amount will leave a balance to be mitigated (from the original $200 million cut) of $46 million.
The Immediate and Critical Needs Account (SB 1407) has a beginning balance of $366 million with projected revenues of $319 million, for total resources of $685 million. There has been an AB 110 loan from this account to the General Fund of $90 million, leaving $595 million. Of this amount, $26 million is to be expended for state operations, and $420 million for capital outlay on court construction projects. We understand that court construction will be delayed one year, and the enacted budget sweeps $310 million back to the general fund. Deferring construction completely leaves approximately $260 million in this account available for mitigation. Using these funds to mitigate the remaining trial court cut from the original budget leaves $214 million for mitigation.
Thus, there are sufficient construction funds available to offset the operating budget reductions, only at the expense of completely deferring all capital outlays for construction originally planned for fiscal year 2011- 2012, leaving a balance of approximately $64 million between the SCFCF and ICNA. This could not be done without legislative approval, nor are we suggesting that this type of cut to planned construction is wise.
The only other source of funding to mitigate other than trial court reserves is the AOC Budget of $142 million and the Court Facilities Program budget $228 million.
The AOC has already allocated $8 million of the original $200 million cut to its own budget, leaving a budget of $134 million. If we assume that the $8 million is applied pro rata, then of this amount, $98 million is for personnel salary and benefits, and $36 million is for operating expenses and equipment which is not otherwise detailed.
The Judicial Branch Facilities Program has a budget of $228 million. Of that $102 million is from the Court Facilities Trust Fund, and this amount is needed for court maintenance, which is already underfunded, so that amount is unavailable for any mitigation, leaving potential mitigation resources of $126 million. Of this amount $21 million is budgeted for salaries and benefits, and the balance of the $105 million is for unspecified operating expenses and equipment.
Therefore, between the AOC budget for its own operations, including the Court Facilities Program, there appears to be $260 million theoretically available for mitigation. We are not suggesting the complete elimination of all AOC services, but the statewide operation must be reduced drastically, and the funds diverted to court operations.
________________________________________________________________
Note from JCW: There are at least six known leased satellite offices for the Office of Court Construction & Management and there were 14 planned overall. The reason was that the Office of Court Construction & Management alleged that they could not find available office space in the courts they served.
This is in addition to two floors in SRO/Burbank & 2850(Finance) 2860(Office of Court Construction & Management and NCRO regional office) and 2880 Gateway Oaks Parkway in Sacramento. (one whole floor each in 2850/2860 and an additional 1/4 floor in 2850 and a 1/4 floor suite in 2880)
The main suite in 2860 Gateway Oaks has been almost completely remodeled 4 times in the past 10 years.
_______________________________________________________________
An article from Cheryl Miller on Legalpad
…
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
July 7, 2011
Powerful truths, plainly spoken. Unfortunately, no one at 455 Golden Gate Avenue appears interested in listening.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 7, 2011
That is an excellent letter that clearly spells out the adverse ramifications of having a top heavy, fiscally irresponsible, judicial system.
It would be interesting to see documentation of exactly what advice via which liasons has been given to the AOC/JC by the Institute for the Future, the National Center for State Courts and the Justice at Stake private sector non-profit. Something tells me that this arrangement and advice “given” over the years is a greatly contributing factor to the lack of funds available to keep our courts open.
(1) $224,476 to the “Institute for the Future” (according to the Institute’s website: ‘We work with organizations of all kinds to help them make better, more informed decisions about the future. We provide the foresight to create insights that lead to action’) to “Develop strategic vision for the California Judicial Branch.”
(2) $522,602 to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a workload assessment of superior court judges and trial court staff. We believe that this is in addition to approximately $500,000 that the AOC pays annually to the NCSC as a state assessment.
(3) $209,000 to Patton Boggs, LLP for legislative and budget advice.
(4) $78,820 to (Ret) Judge Roger Warren, Special Consultant. Judge Warren currently serves on the Board of Directors of Justice at Stake and is a former president of NCSC.
Michael Paul
July 7, 2011
Michael Paul
July 7, 2011
Regarding the note at the bottom of the post from JCW:
The nice thing about being in charge of all of these networked systems is that I know where they all exist building-wise since I designed and/or installed all of them. I’m only too happy to share that knowledge with others.
courtflea
July 7, 2011
Excellent letter. You guys are on it! ACJ. Wendy, of course no one at 455 will listen. What makes you think something has changed?
Wendy Darling
July 7, 2011
I neither “think” nor believe any such thing, just stating the obvious – the very disappointing and disturbing obvious. One need to look no further than the Judicial Council and the AOC opening new “satellite offices,” especially in places like San Dimas. Blind, deaf, and dumb – the ultimate trifecta of administrative insanity. Playing fiddles while Rome burns.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 8, 2011
As far as the top 30 administrators and their self-dealing? Get rid of them. These top 30 people got everyone into this mess. Hold them accountable. No one in the AOC is an indispensable asset like the upper management perceives themselves to be.
The AOC has over SEVENTY attorneys. Laughable when you consider everything they do inside amounts to really, really bad advice and everything else they send out to private law firms. Twelve attorneys could give really, really bad advice and send stuff out. Cut the other 58 attorneys and send that money to your core operations or out to the trial courts so they can have in-house counsel.
Of course there is the 7 management layers all reporting to each other so that they have purpose and a broken, sporadically enforced chain of command that excludes executive management.
This all resulted in the birth of a paralyzing bureaucracy which has only been going on since about 2006 and gets worse with every passing day.
Stuart Michael
July 8, 2011
ACJ is fortunate to have members and resources to analyze what the budget numbers really mean.
In my trial court management career I found that although many judges don’t have much experience in dealing with budget & management issues, they certainly have the ability to come up to speed quickly if they are motivated to get involved. Since local judicial leaders/executives may be co-opted by the JC/ AOC, while other concerned judges are marginalized if they ask too many questions or challenge state/local decisions, more judges need to get out of their courtrooms and get involved in what is happening in their own courts, as well as statewide. Although most judges are very busy dealing with what’s happening in their own courtrooms, and are content to stand by while a selected few usurp leadership, the current crisis can only be addressed by more of them becoming actively involved, and staying involved after it’s past (if that ever happens)
The regional offices are a complete waste of money that should instead go to the trial courts. I watched the Sacramento office grow from a floor full of empty offices to an ever-expanding empire requiring more space, and more staff, in just a few years. Most local courts got little real benefits from this expensive duplication of AOC “services” in multiple locations.
Michael Paul
July 8, 2011
I’ve been both shocked and amazed to discover how little input and influence this states’ constitutional officers have had on AOC’s operations in numerous arenas, while the AOC utilizes an awesome propaganda machine to skew the facts, control the message, control the people and control the money. Never in my life have I encountered anything like this and it’s my hope that I never again will.
Mr. Krause at the AG’s office is a former AOC attorney looking out for wrongdoers at the AOC instead of prosecuting the bastards.
I have provided him with ample evidence to prosecute ABM as part of “Team Jacobs” and they remain untouched. Instead, they’re rewarded with a ten year contract for Southern Regional Office! I provide him with ample evidence to show AOC’s involvement and there remains no investigation regardless of what Ron Overholt told reporters that the AG’s office is “looking into how this could have happened”.
My own taxpayer lawsuit I am forced to sideline because I am told that no discovery will be permitted and it is the attitude of the bench that the AOC must be trusted to do the right thing, when they have not done the right thing in these matters. If they did do the right thing, then ABM would be experiencing a prevailing wage audit as an unlicensed subcontractor or as an unlicensed joint venture, they too would be sued for their unlicensed participation. Instead, some of the best attorneys in the business indicate that “These people are going to get away with this and there is nothing that can be done about it” and if I continue to move forward, I risk having to pay AOC’s attorney fees. Upon dismissing the litigation, we go our separate ways because they fear the same thing will happen to any employment suit.
Committed to fair and equal access to justice my ass. The system is rigged a hundred ways to Sunday.I am barred from seeking justice in California’s judicial branch for an unlawful termination where I blew the whistle and potentially saved this state tens of millions of dollars. To my knowledge and through my research,
I appear to be one of the only whistleblower in state government whose disclosures will return to the state a really sizable amount of money, yet I remain unemployed and I appear to remain without any redress, reward or anything else. No recognition whatsoever, no thanks, no “you did the right thing”, no justice, no nothing.
Having interviewed with HUNDREDS of law firms, I am told I have a good case but no one wishes to take it on because of my opponent. With four days until the statute of limitations expires, I have yet to find any counsel that will take on the AOC. I’m contemplating filing a in-pro-per complaint just to preserve my rights and buy more time to continue to look for counsel.
I too wish to see this states judges and justices take a more active role. My disclosures were out of concern for the trial courts losing substantial budget to overpriced ash tray emptying and light bulbs. It is ironic that those same trial courts are the same place where I am told that justice will never happen, where I can look forward to getting railroaded by the AOC for years and where attorneys doubt that they will ever be able to get paid.
I’m still looking for an attorney. Failing that, I am looking to pay someone to assist me file an in pro per skeleton complaint to preserve my rights in the next four days while I continue to look for an attorney. I’ve contacted hundreds of law firms to no avail, a dizzying list that I’ve completely lost track of. Most point to my past attorneys as being some of the best in the business, though not specialists in employment law. Yet they cannot get past that those attorneys would not try to take on an employment action and to them, this speaks volumes.
If you happen to be ANYONE who would be willing to assist me in finding redress in any capacity I can be reached at 510-684-8706. Short of someone calling, I have just about given up that justice can be had in the California Courts and instead will redirect and redouble my efforts to dismantle this apparatus that pretends that there is nothing wrong.
Michael Paul
July 8, 2011
Amazing. Someone called and is willing to work on a pro-per complaint to buy me time.
L. A. Observer
July 8, 2011
Excellent letter. The ACJ is to be commended for sticking to facts and suggesting workable solutions. The specificity of their suggestions is remarkable and shows a knowledge of the inner workings and budget of the AOC not known to most judges.
It is a slow process but inroads are being made into the elite inner circle on Golden Gate Ave. In my view, the audience who are judges and are critics of the AOC and concern of lack of oversight by the Judicial Council continues to expand. Even the CJ has given a token nod by placing an apparently very capable ACJ Board member on one of her oversight committees. Regardless of their public face, I suspect those in the upper echelons of the AOC and those who are members of the Judicial Council are not as smug as they once were.
Change may take time, but it continues in a positive manner.
Newbee
July 8, 2011
Do the superior courts (judges?) have standing to bring a claim against the AOC to ensure that the budget cuts are allocated in a pari passu fashion?
JusticeCalifornia
July 8, 2011
The ACJ is showing itself to be comprised of certain fearless leaders who do their homework, are flexible and tenacious, and have quickly learned their way around the power block(ade).
I do believe the current CA judicial power struggle will go down in American history books. What has gone down in less than two years is nothing short of remarkable.
The truth will out.
JusticeCalifornia
July 10, 2011
Freedictionary.com:
“bring to (one’s) knees”:
To reduce to a position of subservience or submission.
We on this blog can challenge the status quo, and promote change by educating and agitating, but at the end of the day it isn’t our job.
Members of the branch must stand up and be counted. While top leadership plays musical chairs with each other, trying desperately to keep secrets secret and maintain a clearly failed status quo, the ACJ and others (BSA, the legislature, non-ACJ judges who are stepping forward and speaking out) have opened the door for dialogue and REAL change in a branch that isgoing down.. . .
unionman575
July 10, 2011
The bloated AOC bureaucracy must be cut now before our trial courts are decimated.
JusticeCalifornia
July 10, 2011
Yes. And start with the AOC lawyers and highly paid directors, managers and significant others who got the branch into this mess.
To do otherwise would be stupid, irresponsible, and very, very suspect.
Say, I hear Fuentes is getting paid very well for doing nothing but sitting in his office watching TV.
What say you, Tani? What service is Ernie presently performing for the public that pays him?
And just how many compromised AOC and other branch suckups are, with your approval, biding time, to get superb elevated pension benefits at the expense of the public that elected you?
Phoenix
July 15, 2011
Question. Besides San Dimas how many other offices are there? How much does each cost?
Michael Paul
July 15, 2011
The initial budget to establish each office was set at $14,000.00, furniture, fixtures and equiment. They never initially planned for a couple thousand in tenant modifications that included ethernet and telecom wiring, printers, faxes, computers etc.
Due to an initial lack of cost controls, certain offices were directed to sole source furniture via a sky-high cost vendor that would just deliver the AOC private offices standard rosewood finshed furniture in weeks.
Because they were initially “just processing orders” without looking at costs, I believe two of these officed purchased $30,000.00+ worth of rosewood laminated furniture (The AOC standard for private offices….) Subsequent offices stayed within the furniture budget when the cost-conscious facilities management administrators were authorized to visit local office furniture stores and deviate from the AOC standard for private offices and their vendor.
Each office is budgeted at somewhere around 2.5K for the lease. Each has a hardwired and wireless DSL network designed and installed by me. Each has PacBell Centrex or equivalent. Each has at least one mutl-function printer/fax/copier and most additionally have local printers and laptop docking stations. Most have at least two private offices, some have more. Most have “hoteling” space for visiting court or AOC personnel. Most have at least one private conference room.
They’re located in Poway, San Dimas, Redlands, Santa Maria, Bakersfield and Redding. There are a few more I didn’t work on that ordered telecom services through me. I don’t recall where they were. There were initially 14 slated in OCCM’s budget. After these initial offices blew that budget due to a lack of front-end planning an effort was made to try to find space in existing court facilities or having these people work out of AOC offices.