Who’s Responsible:
Elected Officials list
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is the ostensible head of the branch.
Elected officials sitting on the CCMS Executive Committee
These are the people that can mothball, terminate or give lifeline support for further funding of CCMS according to their committee charter. They also can choose a different direction like local installation or direct current older versions of CCMS already deployed to be repaired before moving on and imposing havoc upon other courts.
They also appear to have the oversight power to ask the Executive Director for CCMS to step down for lying to the public and accepting an application “as complete” that is riddled with over 800 coding bugs of varying severity, while asking the public to further fund this folly at a rate of $480,000.00 per day.
Justice Terence Bruniers – 1st District Court of Appeals
Judge Richard E. Albers – Santa Clara
Judge William A. MacLaughlin – Los Angeles
Judge Gary Orozco – Fresno
Judge Kenneth So – San Diego
Judge Ira Kaufman – Placer
Judge Robert James Moss – Orange County
Judge Allen Sumner – Sacramento
If these overseers have not resigned this committee or terminated the executive director of this program for lying to the public AND mothballed or provided only lifeline support by August 1, 2011 they will all be going into digital purgatory. Additionally, a campaign will be launched to recall them from office or to ensure that they are not re-elected.
No more Mr. Nice Guy.
You all risk being tagged as enablers of government waste.
JusticeCalifornia
July 9, 2011
It is July. Aren’t we supposed to have an outside “independent audit” of CCMS by now? Great thread and discussion from months past:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/legislature-pulls-the-plug-on-ccms-pending-a-real-independent-evaluation/
Michael Paul
July 9, 2011
They were also supposed to fully implement the office of the chief information officer’s recommendations prior to acceptance and deployment the application from what I recall, yet the checklist has remain unchanged. It appears to all be window dressing with acceptance of the application having the intended purpose to protect funding for the project.
From where I come from we call that an “epic fail”
sharonkramer
July 9, 2011
JCW, I strongly agree with this post. I don’t know these judiciaries and have no personal opinion of their ability, ethics, etc. But I do know that evil flourishes when good men standby and do nothing.
These judiciaries are sitting on a committee with decision making power. Their collective lack of action to exercise this power is causing the continuance of actions that are a gross waste the taxpayers’ dollars. This waste of tax dollars is draining the trial courts’ coffers and leaving the trial courts with not enough funds to keep their doors open. Court closures adversely impact the trial courts’ ability to provide expeditious justice to the exact same taxpayers who are being forced to fund the waste by these judiciaries’ lack of action to stop the action of waste.
Lack of action can be a form of action. On this issue and involving these judiciaries, their lack of action has been and continues to be a harmful action for Ca citizens and taxpayers. .I think you are 100% right on this. They need to do the jobs they were elected and appointed to do or it is adverse to public’s best interest for them to keep those elected and appointed jobs.
Delilah
July 9, 2011
I only wish we didn’t have to wait until August to start a campaign. And I also wish this post could be forwarded to each one of them personally at their workplace emails. They should be aware we’re bringing this “vote ’em out” campaign into the mainstream and straight to the voting public who is angry and fed up enough to make this happen. These judges can join the swelling ranks of the unemployed, deservedly so, if they don’t live up to their responsibilities and the public trust.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 9, 2011
Vickrey was delegated the responsibility to form these committees and assign the members before he announced his resignation, leaving these gentlemen (and the Chief Justice) holding the hot potato.
Mr. Bruniers was just re-affirmed and likely believes himself to be untouchable for the next 11 years.
The budgetary situation was not known until recently. What that budget situation affirms is we can no longer spend nearly a half million dollars a day supporting this. This money could be better utilized to pay for 1,300 court clerks for a whole year. We feel confident that when and if these clerks (and others) lose their jobs to this pipe dream, these voters are going to want to hold some elected official accountable.
While these people are all judges or justices, they are the only people who are elected by and held accountable to the voters. No amazing case law from the bench will save them from their administrative acts.
Twenty days is ample time and fair warning to take a position or resign. Either they can begin to hold people accountable – or the voters can hold them accountable for not living up to their responsibilities and protecting the public trust.
Edited to add: What we view as lifeline funding would be the 5 million they budgeted on consultants last month and not a dime more.
Wendy Darling
July 9, 2011
How about a list of every member of the Judicial Council and judge/justice in the State who is up for retention next year in the 2012 general election?
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 9, 2011
Democratic principles dictate that those who govern or oversee are the ones to be held accountable. While this group includes members of the Judicial Council (to a lesser degree for Judge Burt Pines who is openly advocating democratic reform,) it cannot not include elected judicial officers from Los Angeles who are suggesting democratic reforms. It does not include members of the Alliance of California Judges who advocate for democratic reform and it must not include those judges from Sacramento that are advocating democratic reforms – or anyone else advocating for democratic reform.
Those who govern have not been held accountable to the people they serve and we aim to change that. We’re out to improve the judiciary as advocates of public accountability, not to take on the whole system – one that is largely functional and serves it’s intended purpose.
Wendy Darling
July 9, 2011
The thought was more about reminding all members of the judicial branch who hold elected ofice and are up for retention next year that each of them must hold branch administration accountable for what has happened, and what is being allowed to continue – that sitting on the sidelines and ignoring these serious problems, not speaking out against them, or failing to demand real accountability, transparency, and open democratic processes at and in the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC on behalf of the voting and taxpaying public who are asked to vote for them in order to hold that public office is no longer acceptable.
And while the members of the ACJ most certainly don’t need to be reminded of this, even the ACJ knows that too many of the judges in this State continue to look the other way and silently permit business as usual at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
We are paying the price for their silent indifference, and it must stop.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 9, 2011
That list, we’re guessing, would represent about 600 or more judges and quite a bit of research to determine where each one stands on the issues. While we’re open to publishing a list on it’s own page, we would also wish to understand where they stand on these issues or if they’re standing on the sideline.
sharonkramer
July 9, 2011
What about a complaint and request for investigation by the “independent state agency”, CJP, on behalf of the taxpayers of CA, and filed under Canons of Judicial Ethics C(1)(4) administrative duties of judges?
Quotes:
The Commission’s [CJP] mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system….Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
C. Administrative Responsibilities
(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.
(4) A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered.
By an amendment to article VI of the state Constitution in 1926, the citizens of California established the Judicial Council. The council is responsible for improving the statewide administration of justice in the California courts, the largest court system in the nation.
The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.
The Commission’s jurisdiction includes all judges of California’s superior courts and the justices of the Court of Appeal and Supreme … The Commission’s authority is limited to investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and, if warranted, imposing discipline. Judicial misconduct usually involves conduct in conflict with the standards set forth in the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Anyone may submit a complaint to the Commission. See How to File a Complaint and The Complaint Process.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 9, 2011
We don’t believe this to be a disciplinary process that would involve the CJP. This is about accountability of elected officials to the people they purportedly govern, the people they serve as elected officials – as well as those public officials designated to provide oversight and protect the public trust.
We’re not willing to go out on limbs or avail ourselves of ineffectual process.
sharonkramer
July 9, 2011
Would it be ineffectual? There are judges in CA right now who are publicly pleading for help to keep their courts open for the good of the citizens. So far, their pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears of those judiciaries charged with administrative duties and allocation of funds in the judicial branch. It could possibly be useful in the big scheme of things to evidence the “independent state agency” charged with overseeing integrity in the judicial branch, the CJP’s, response (or lack there of) to the complaint for abuse of administrative duties by key judiciaries. Especially when faced with such corroborating evidence as this:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/an-acj-message-pertaining-to-the-latest-budget-cut/
and this:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/08/34000.htm
and this:
http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=State&id=4,434&load=ByDepartment&year=2010&EntityName=Judicial%20Council%20of%20California%20( )%20&Positions=&GetCsu=False&ItemCount=0
It seems to me that this situation with our courts has been allowed to fester to the point that it is a systemic problem. Its going to take a systemic solution to install the necessary checks and balances so this does not happen again.
Michael Paul
July 9, 2011
I recall a post that indicated people claim the CJP process to be both petty for small stuff and ineffectual for big stuff. If I wanted checks and balances, I would be heading towards the other two branches of government to ask for them. That’s their job.
This budget cut compels parties to make choices between boondoggles and judge stuff, The Alliance of California Judges last budget cut letter to other judges makes that clear. While I don’t trust that either the judicial council or the AOC will do the right thing in these matters, the ACJ has presented the branch with a viable option to stop the boondoggles and preserve judge stuff.
It really is a matter of “are you with us” (and willing to make huge sacrifices so we can waste more money) or “are you against us” (and willing to make no sacrifices to preserve local trial court operations?)
Sacramento courts, Los Angeles courts and the Alliance of California judges have made their position clear. If 90% of those members endorse the ACJ’s budget position and the L.A. report on governance and a path forward, that represents about 2/3rds of the judges in this state. That’s enough clout to create a whole lot of nose under the tent action and clean this mess up, failing significant changes in the Judicial Council and the AOC.
sharonkramer
July 9, 2011
1. “I recall a post that indicated people claim the CJP process to be both petty for small stuff and ineffectual for big stuff.”
That’s the point that could be well evidenced on this. CJP is a state agency, independent of the judicial branch, whose sole function is to assure ethics in the judicial branch. Its a useless state agency that actually participates and fuels serious breaches of ethics in the judicial branch. Think what it would be like if there actually was a real state agency that assured our judicial branch was ethical.
2. “Sacramento courts, Los Angeles courts and the Alliance of California judges have made their position clear. If 90% of those members endorse the ACJ’s budget position and the L.A. report on governance and a path forward, that represents about 2/3rds of the judges in this state.”
That is the key, isn’t it? Evil can only flourish IF good men stand by and do nothing.
JusticeCalifornia
July 9, 2011
Actually, I believe the main focus should stay upon the head of the snake.
TANI was successfully packaged and marketed as someone who could bring the branch together.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/script-012111.pdf
Instead, Tani dutifully got down on her knees at Ron George’s command, and has been there ever since, disappointing the ethical citizens of this state who backed her.
She is a terrific disappointment to so many (although most assuredly not RG, Vickrey, Overholt, Fuentes, Roddy, Turner, Torre, Nash, etc., etc. etc. ) RG knew a marketable,malleable, not-to0-bright (apparently compromised or why would she act like this?) starstruck gambler/barmaid sycophant when he saw one.
She should admit she is in over her head, and get out. She is decimating the branch– and taking it down to her level–on its knees.
Michael Paul
July 9, 2011
Reading that ironically named script above, one common element permeating the document is that our chief justice is ‘decisive’ ‘strong’ etc. Yet in a mere six months of inaction, she’s managed to alienate everyone and appoint a committee to study the AOC for the purposes of just buying more time and diffusing responsibility. A classic judicial council maneuver. The head of the snake wasn’t missed in the primary post and other elected officials who are charged with oversight were included. I’m a voter. I have no issues holding elected officials accountable for the choices they make.
JusticeCalifornia
July 9, 2011
I daresay needy, inexperienced, footstomping Tani and her compromised “minions” have become #1 problem clients for many of Tani’s (currently politically and financially savvy) backers who thought they were buying into a smart, credible product.
Mrs. Kramer, I like the idea of reporting Tani to the CJP, for helping block public access to public records of public concern, and thwarting the CA Constitution, and supporting the destruction of child custody evidence, and disseminating incorrect information about CCMS and court construction/maintenance projects, and participating in patently irresponsible administrative decisions, and supporting the practice of AOC non-lawyers giving legal advice (John Judnick et al) .. . .
If people really took the time to put together well-thought-out complaints to the CJP, it would be amazing.
sharonkramer
July 10, 2011
Just a thought. What would probably be even more amazing is the response (or lack there of) from the CJP after the “independent state agency” received a well evidenced complaint(s) on behalf of the taxpayers of CA. This is the state agency whose SOLE FUNCTION is to cut of heads of snakes in the judicial branch so the citizens of CA don’t have to.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
A strong judicial branch, based on the prestige which comes from effective and ethical performance, is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of the judge or others.
CANON 2(A.) Promoting Public Confidence A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
2(B)(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.
3(C). Administrative Responsibilities
(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.
(4) A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered.
4(A.) Extrajudicial Activities in General A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially;
(2) demean the judicial office; or
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
4(D). Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has
violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or
initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the
violation to the appropriate authority.*
Michael Paul
July 10, 2011
If you don’t like your McDonalds order you can also take it up with the drive-thru clown at jack- in-the box.
Three people that sit on the CJP are heavily intertwined in California’s judicial branch. One is a judicial council member. Your complaint would never see the light of day but I encourage you to start filing them en masse if you believe otherwise.
sharonkramer
July 10, 2011
“Your complaint would never see the light of day but I encourage you to start filing them en masse if you believe otherwise”
It was just a suggestion. I can do it at own my own McDonald’s, should I decided. (Its just that your Jack in the Box is closer in the neighborhood). Of course the CJP would not do anything. That’s the point. I think it would see the light of day (on blogs). along with their response By law, if you file a complaint they have have acknowledge it and give a reply of how the chose to address it.
On this point, I sent an Op Ed to the Bee last week regarding feigned indignation in the media by our CJ the eve before AB1208 was to be voted on. Have not heard back so I am assuming they chose not to run it.
CANON 2(A.) Promoting Public Confidence A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
2(B)(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.
Submitted Op Ed:
Re: Dan Walters gets personal with Calderon while courts close from mismanagement of judicial funds.
To the Editor,
I was dismayed to read Mr. Walters’ Fourth of July article, “Court bill stalls after Calderon gets personal with chief justice”. His interpretation of Assemblyman Charles Calderon’s comments regarding the many attributes of our new Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, were presented out of context. The article falsely portrays that Mr. Calderon has disrespect for women. In reality, Mr. Calderon is working diligently to assure women, children and all California citizens are being treated fairly and expeditiously in our courts.
We have serious problems within our judicial branch. There is an imbalance of power between the “head office” and the trial courts themselves. This imbalance is making it difficult for the judges to do their jobs when their courts are closed for lack of funds. In large part, their lack of funds stems from the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC) taking money from the trial courts’ budgets to squander on a massive computer system. As described in detail by a recent Bureau of State Audits report, the system has been plagued with problems, cost overrides and mismanagement since day one.
The bill Assemblyman Calderon sponsored, AB1208, was the underlying subject of the Mr. Walters’ article. The bill was to stop the AOC from being able to take money at will from the trial courts without consent of the majority of the state’s judges. It stalled on the floor in June directly because of the false concept that has now been reiterated by Mr. Walters in his Fourth of July article.
The battle cry of the opponents of AB1208 is that our new Chief Justice deserves a chance at the helm to show what she can do. In May, Mr. Calderon was making the point that it is not a personal affront to the new Chief Justice that a law needs to be established giving the trial courts the ability to keep funds allotted to them and to manage their budgets to assure their courts stay open. That is when he made the statements regarding Cantil-Sakauye of, “It isn’t ‘Is she nice?’ Cause she is. ‘Is she smart?’ Cause she is. ‘Is she attractive?’ Cause she is. It isn’t about that.”
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye made no public comment of the matter for over a month. Then, on the eve before AB1208 was to be heard on the Assembly floor in early June, she gave a video taped interview stating Mr. Calderon’s comments offended her. This spooked the legislators by making it appear that if they supported AB1208 they would be perceived by their constituents as having a gender bias against women. The bill was pulled from vote and is now a two year bill.
As a mother of two adult daughters, I have worked hard over the years to assure my daughters’ words are heard based on their merits. I was deeply offended and embarrassed on behalf of females everywhere when our new Chief Justice timely played the gender bias card to the media to stop a bill that helps to restore balance and integrity in the courts. For Mr. Walters to now promote this underhanded political ploy of the new Chief Justice’s timely feigned indignation as honorable and forthright; is an insult to intelligent females everywhere. It is an insult to the hundreds of California judges who have voiced concern of the need to reinstall balance of power in our courts for the good of the people. They have spoken collectively through the Alliance of California Judges and individually through judicial survey.
Mr. Walters owes Mr. Calderon, the so called “rebel” trial judges and the citizens of California an apology for falsely portraying Mr. Calderon in the press as one who is a sexist. This, while justice in California hangs in the balance. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye owes the citizens of California and females everywhere an apology for timely feigning indignation to the media and while using our gender to get what she, personally, wants that is adverse to the furtherance of justice and adverse to the public’s best interests.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Sharon Kramer
Who I am:
I have degree in marketing. I research and write of conflicts of interest/bias within medicine and the courts, i.e., medico-legal issues that stop justice.
I am a published author in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health regarding the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). ACOEM writes the workers comp guidelines that CA physicians must follow under SB899.
American College of Occupational and Environmental… [Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007 Oct-Dec] – PubMed result
I am cited as scientific reference for an April 2011 OSHA health and safety advisory as reference No. 15 (see pdf page 26, Katy’s Exposure)
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3430indoor-air-quality-sm.pdf
I am recognized as the catalyst that caused a Federal GAO audit which changed US public health policy over illnesses caused by moldy buildings.
U.S. GAO – Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal . & http://freepdfhosting.com/b0990d194a.pdf
sharonkramer
July 11, 2011
I don’t understand. Why the two thumbs down? Don’t you all think it is important to nip the false concept in the bud of supposed gender bias against the CJ being used to make it harder to speak against her errors and indescretions without being perceived as being anti-feminist? That is their entire illogical schtick of why she deserves a chance to keep complete control of the money. And it has worked so far and continues to be propogated further.
Its a very clever tactic. People, whose eyes would cross trying to read and understand the ACJ’s important number breakdown, can grasp that (false) message and would probably agree she deserves a chance. It just like when my daughters’ friends voted for Arnold because he was the Terminator. Irrelevant, but effectual. What am I missing? Do I have something wrong?