First we have our friends at ABC News & Judge Dan Goldstein saying it like it is about these budget cuts.
Then we have our other friends at Courthouse News on L.A. Report on Court Bureaucracy Sets Stage for Battle of the Cuts in San Francisco HQ
Then we have even the CJA joining the fray with a letter to their members-
Dear Judicial Officers:
CJA stands for this core proposition: keep our courts open and staffed to their fullest potential even in dire budgetary times. How this is achieved requires a commitment to fund trial courts in their efforts to carry out the needs of justice for our stakeholders.
CJA Vice President Judge David M. Rubin (San Diego) is at the Budget Working Group meeting today in San Francisco and is actively working to share CJA’s position that keeping the courts open and funding at levels that continues to allow the public access to justice is paramount to any discussion about the future of the Branch in the face of massive budget cuts. Judge Rubin stated at the meeting “CJA wants to support the Chief and her stated goal to keep the courts open full time. The cuts that we are discussing at this unprecedented time are catastrophic, however, our basic functions must remain intact and court services to the public as high and unaffected as possible. Any cuts to the public service part of the judicial branch must be as minimal as possible and administrative costs should bear the brunt of any proposed reductions — we can all agree that we do not want to see a part time Judiciary.”
Thank you for your support of CJA and please know your association is working hard on behalf of every individual Judge, Justice, Commissioner and Referee — regardless of membership status — we are all in this together.
Sincerely,
The Executive Board
Then we have ANOTHER BOGUS APPOINTMENT of yet ANOTHER useless committee chaired by who? Pay particular attention to the part in bold.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye yesterday announced the creation of a new Court Facilities Working Group, tasked with providing oversight of the statewide program that maintains, renovates, and rebuilds courthouses. The 25-member group headed by Justice Brad R. Hill, of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, is charged with responsibility for supervising the Administrative Office of the Courts in its management of 20 million square feet of court facilities statewide, as well as courthouse construction projects. It is also being asked to review policy issues, business practices, and budget monitoring and control and make recommendations as necessary to the Judicial Council. Cantil-Sakauye remarked yesterday that “providing safe, secure, functional courthouses remains a critical priority that we must balance with other challenges” during “this era of severe budget constraints and shifting priorities.” She predicted that this new group “will provide comprehensive oversight to ensure that we make good decisions and maximize our limited resources in this crucial area.” Hill said the “state Legislature has swept $310 million this year from the judicial branch’s fund for immediate and critical needs of court construction and modification,” which requires the courts to “review the program’s priorities to make sure we can continue to make the most of the resources left to us.” The justice is a past member of the Judicial Council and chaired the California Facilities Transitional Task Force, which oversaw development of strategies for the transfer of more than 500 court facilities from county to state responsibility. More recently, he chaired a working group that oversaw development of policies for third-party use of court facilities.
Are you ready? Wait for it….. wait…… Yep, that is the SAME COMMITTEE that signed off on hiring the previously unlicensed contractors! Oh, we’re not done yet, this “winner’s” committee also endorsed the Facilities Contracting Policies & Procedures written in concert with who? Wait for it………. wait…….. got it yet? TEAM JACOBS.
Mr. Brad Hill is being hired to clean up the mess he made. Note the lack of “justice” here. Insanity still remains doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Maybe with a 310 million cut, Mr Hill was called in to re-divvy the looting. And who can forget that it was his turn at the presidential suite?
Sacramento Judges unknowingly join Judicial Council Watcher in saying Court Bureaucracy Should Be ‘Dismantled Forthwith’ in Courthouse News.
Seems to be a busy day today. We will update this post as more becomes available.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Published late today/this evening, Wednesday, July 13, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Lavish Pensions for Upper Crust Cour Execs
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/13/38132.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
And the news continues . . .
Also published late today/this evening, Wednesday, July 12, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
AOC Budget Group Endorses Cuts in Trial Courts, 1-Year Delay of CCMS
Cheryl Miller
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202500812371&AOC_Budget_Group_Endorses_Cuts_in_Trial_Courts_1Year_Delay_of_CCMS&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Long live the ACJ.
Disenchanted
July 13, 2011
So the cuts agreed to appear to be the cuts proposed in the July 11 report. Am I reading this correctly? I can’t access Cheryl Miller’s article to see how she interprets it.
I especially enjoy what Ron says at the end about the “devastating” cut to the AOC, i.e., positions eliminated, furloughs, etc. –there is simply no regard for the people of the State of California who will be losing access to justice or the actual courthouse employees who will no longer have a job.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
ABC News and Judge Goldstein rock!
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/OC55-11.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 13, 2011
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
Working Group and Appellate Leaders Wrestle with Judicial Branch Cuts to Maintain Services to the Public
Judicial Council Meets July 22 to Consider Proposals
SAN FRANCISCO—The Trial Court Budget Working Group and the Appellate Court Leadership today recommended an 8.8 percent cut in funding for California’s 58 trial courts to deal with a $350 million reduction for the judicial branch that was approved by the state Legislature and the Governor.
In a joint meeting, the two groups also recommended a one-year suspension in the deployment of the California Court Case Management System (CCMS), a 9.7 percent cut in funding for the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal, and a 12 percent reduction in funding for the Judicial Council and its staff arm, the Administrative Office of the Courts. There would also be a 15.2 percent across-the-board reduction for all judicial branch entities in the next fiscal year of 2012-2013.
The recommendations came after seven hours of lively debate and several split votes as the working group and appellate leaders struggled with the difficult challenge of balancing the judicial branch budget while maintaining the highest level of service to the citizens that use the courts on a daily basis. A proposal to put CCMS on hold for six months was narrowly rejected by a vote of 11-13 while a proposal to suspend the program for a full year was adopted by a 15-10 vote.
The 34-member working group is composed primarily of presiding judges and executive officers from throughout the state while the appellate leadership is composed of the leaders of the state’s appellate courts.
The recommendations will be considered by the Judicial Council at its special July 22 meeting in San Francisco. The council can accept, modify or reject the recommendations, which will be posted on the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm
The council is also scheduled to allocate the available funding to the trial courts which will then decide how to implement the reduction in funding.
Over the last four years, the state has reduced funding for the judicial branch by $647 million. Judicial branch leaders, led by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, argued vigorously against the deep cuts to avoid the $350 million budget cut, warning that it could mean fewer services for the public, individual court closures or reductions in operating hours and the possibility of more furloughs and layoffs for court employees.
“The current year 12 percent cut to the Judicial Council/AOC will result in continuing furloughs of at least one day per month, which have been in effect for 2 1/2 years, elimination of positions vacated through attrition and not filled, staff layoffs, and other service reductions to the courts and public” said Ron Overholt, Deputy Administrator of the Courts.
# # #
The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the Courts carries out the official actions of the council and promotes leadership and excellence in court administration.
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
What does this mean? No funding for CCMS for a year unless the JC decides otherwise? Or does it mean its still funded, it just won’t be deployed for a year, unless the JC decides otherwise?
“…a proposal to suspend the program for a full year was adopted by a 15-10 vote…
The recommendations will be considered by the Judicial Council at its special July 22 meeting in San Francisco. The council can accept, modify or reject the recommendations,”
tony maino
July 13, 2011
Who will bell the cat?
Our work in the ACJ is useless unless each and every one of you will send our material out to your legislators, your local presss contacts, to the Govenor, and to all of your local leaders.
Yes, you will be held in comtempt for doing this. In 2007 I pointed out to a member of the Judicial Council that CCMS had no business plan; no cost-benefit analysis; no authorization by the Legislature; and that it did not work. The answer from this Judicial Council member was that I had too much time on my hands and that I should buy a good book or rent a good cowboy movie.
Please do what you can do to help.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Judge Maino,
Please be assured that many of us are doing exactly that, and are looking for ways to try and do more.
Long live the ACJ.
antonatrail
July 14, 2011
I’ll be held in contempt? A common CA citizen? Bring it on!!
SF Whistle
July 13, 2011
Judge Maino—
I was born and raised in Northern California—-where I come from Cowboys are always heros…
I like the suggestion of this esteemed member of the JC—I interpret his comment as recognition of you being reliable–honest and hard working…the cowboy ethic…
I think you’re a hero and you should show up July 22nd with your posse comitatus…let the JC know you’ve seen a few movies and that the movie they are all cast in is much more about mafia than cowboy—
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Speaking of bells . . .
The article by Maria Dinzeo on the AOC’s “lavish pensions” for the agency’s top 30 bureaucrats, giving the AOC’s “most privileged a full 22% ride on top of their rich salaries,” with “all of it paid for with public money tithed against the taxpayer,” quotes “a spokesperson for the AOC” as responding “It is not uncommon for public sector employers to pay for all or most of employee’s share of the retirement benefits.”
As the article observes, “It is, however, uncommon to topload a pension by almost a quarter of the salary, even for government institutions.”
The AOC’s response sounds very similar to what Mr. Rizzo first said in response to initial questions about the self-authorized raises and increased pension benefits at the city of Bell.
Note to Judge Maino: SF Whistle is right, and remember to wear your white hat.
Long live the ACJ.
Jim
July 14, 2011
The information about the retirement benefits found in the link posted by Wendy Darling is appalling. Even if the amount were somehow justified in a robust economy (which is obviously not the case with the current budget climate), why on earth should top level staffers at the AOC receive a retirement that exceeds anything that is offered to judges and staff of the trial courts? Small wonder that we have no credibility with the legislature.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 14, 2011
It’s time to consider some more camel nose under the tent. Some might disagree but this whole situation remains pretty much out of control. Pensions, management, ccms, court maintenance and the judiciary seems unable to heal thyself.
sharonkramer
July 14, 2011
JCW, you have my blessing to delete this post if you feel that is inappropriate. Let’s add a couple of more noses under the tent here. I heard from someone yesterday who had a writ denied by Huffman. Within the writ was evidence that Huffman’s son was involved in aiding corruption while at the DA’s office – I am told.
About two months ago, I got a call from a Pro Per who had evidenced McConnell was involved in willfully causing a wrong opinion that then impacted a lower court ruling. When he appealed the lower court ruling, it went right back to McConnell who deemed him a vexatious litigant – which means he now has to post $25K before he can file anymore lawsuits. The guy is now destitute at the hands of the overseer of ethics for all CA courts.
I appreciate all the hard work the trial judges have done to defend themselves and I support them whole heartedly. But I am sorry, trial judges, in many ways this is your own fault that you are now being starved out – and you are taking the rest of us down with you. I am absolutely appauled that Michael Paul is having to represent himself, Pro Per, when he has done so much to help so many trial court judges and dared to speak the truth when so many of you remained silent. You can’t solicit support if you don’t shore up those who you are asking to support you.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Michael Paul
July 14, 2011
A lack of representation is mostly on me Sharon. The system that exists where attorneys believe that the AOC is untouchable and they won’t get paid is problematic. The judges of the state are doing what they can to bring about change. They owe me nothing.
JusticeCalifornia
July 14, 2011
Those top 30 execs who get those unconscionable benefits should be on the top of list of first to go from the AOC, as firing them would appear to give the AOC the biggest bang for the buck. And any who are not forthwith fired should voluntarily give those benefits up. As a cost cutting measure, and sign of good faith.
Does anyone have names for these people getting these pension payolas? Or an aggregate amount that has been paid to each?
Delilah
July 16, 2011
JC, speaking of unconscionable and budget cuts, I thought this may be of interest. It showed up as a “related” story on the “courtmaggedon” page.
http://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/pulse-of-the-bay/defense-lawyers-decry-plan-put-marin/
sharonkramer
July 14, 2011
That’s nobel of you, Michael, and I know you are sincere. The reality is, we would all be better off I you had some legal help. Multi-millions of dollars going to overpaid, unlicensed contractors by those who oversee law/policy and are now mismanaging funds to the point that courts are closing doors is no small matter. So while the judges and everyone else may owe you nothing because you did what you did because it was right, we all know what is really going on here.
Is corruption and croynism going to rule our judicial branch or not? You having legal help could help to cause “not”. I know the judges have been working hard to stop the corruption. But maybe its time to stay that course while also adding new directions. And God knows, you deserve some help.
courtflea
July 14, 2011
While I am proud of the budget working group for making these decisions, of course we all know that the JC will overturn their recommendations and do what they wanted in the first place, that is not have the AOC take any cuts at all and fully fund CCMS.