By any measure we’ve demonstrated how some 180+ million could be sucked out of the AOC’s operations to preserve access to justice. We anticipate two arguments being presented as to why that will not happen. One argument will be “We’re not going to make any deeper AOC cuts because the Strategic Evaluation Committee hasn’t completed their work.” and the second argument will be “The CCMS Executive Committee has not recommended or authorized any diversion of CCMS funds to the trial courts” While both of these statements are true, let’s not forget that these two committees were formed to provide the AOC some cover duing these long anticipated budget negotiations. To top it all off with teflon-based icing, the trial court budget working group is presented “options” produced by Vickrey and the finance department. No matter what is accomplished today, no matter how much work or homework was completed by the stakeholders to push these cuts against the AOC’s operations, no matter how solid of an argument is made by the TCBWG that is stacked with Nash, Hansen & Patel to guide you to what you need to be choosing to preserve the status quo. At the end of the day the work that this committee does we anticipate to be utterly derailed with the executive director choosing his own path to AOC preservation.
In short, this is a case where we would like to be wrong again and that this event doesn’t turn into simulated debate on the merits. But Mr. Vickrey needs to cover his ass as he leaves office. This is one of the reasons he is making retirees sign non-disclosure agreements that endure until just after he leaves office. Having any AOC layoffs whatsoever is absolutely not in the cards because loose lips sink ships. Furthermore, these recommendations might be made to Mr. Bill today but you can bet your sweet ass he will sit on his decision on what recommendation to make to the Judicial Council under deliberative process probably until the very day of the Judicial Council vote on these issues.
Did you sign up and submit your comments for pre-approval to E&P like a good little governed? What? You don’t know what to comment on or how to address the council without knowing what the outcome of today’s TCBWG meeting was? Tough luck baby. The AOC did this by design. While the JC was to have their meeting this Friday, they moved it back to next Friday to simulate deliberative process. The TCBWG will be thanked for their service and used as pawns to support Vickrey’s recommendations that will be nothing short of gutting the trial courts and access to justice, while preserving intact the entire AOC operation.
We tried to get someone in our JCW offices to bet lunch on it and got no takers. We then went to Yen Interactive & Shadow Mountain to bet them lunch on the outcome and got no takers. So now we’re offering that same bet for lunch to our readers. Any takers?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2011
I’ve been around the block and am neither naive nor gullible. L.A. Observer mentioned the rabbit hole in the none of the above thread. I concur. How the rest of the juicial branch addresses what’s about to happen to them will be fascinating.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, July 13, by The Metropolitan Press Enterprise:
Panel to Consider AOC’s Cost-Cutting Plan in Light of Budget Hit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Also published by The Metropolitan News Enterprise today, Wednesday, July 13:
Chief Justice Creates Court Facilities Working Group
By a MetNews Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Because obviously what is most needed in this dire hour is yet another committee.
Long live the ACJ.
Chuck Horan
July 13, 2011
Yet another committee indeed, and this one chaired by none other than the ultimate insider/habitual committee member Brad Hill. With Justice Huffman returning, and now Justice Hill coming back on board, we are officially almost exactly where we were when Ron George departed. Yes, change indeed!
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2011
We find the appointment of poor Justice Hill worthy of his own special post. 🙂
Michael Paul
July 13, 2011
doods.hold your post. look at what’s blasting over YenWire before you post. 😉
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
“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.”
Did she happen to mention anything about the critical priority for these “safe, secure, functional courthouses” of being able to pay for court employees that are needed to staff them to make them function?
Jim
July 13, 2011
The TCBWG should not wait for any other committee to complete its charge before making it own independent recommendations about how to deal with the budget situation. The SEC & CCMS committees will simply have to deal with the results. Moreover, if nothing is off limits, the TCBWG should not limit its discussion to the options provided by the AOC. The status quo is not working and tough decisions need to be made. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case.
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
Shouldn’t this TCBWG meeting of elected judges to be opened to the public and the media under the Bagley-Keene Act?
The Bagley-Keene Act of 1967, officially known as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, implements a provision of the California Constitution which declares that “the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny”, and explicitly mandates open meetings for California State agencies, boards, and commissions. The act facilitates accountability and transparency of government activities and protects the rights of citizens to participate in State government deliberations
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2011
They conveniently exempt themselves.
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
I am expecting a JC policy in the near future that reads, “the State of California shall now be renamed the State of the Judicial Council of California. All articles of the Ca Constitution shall be rewritten accordingly.”
There are alot of civil rights and Constitutional violations by the JC against judges that are evidenced in the 17 page report by the LA judges. I think the judges should get the ACLU to help them with a multi-plaintiff case and sue the JC (and the CJP)!
In all seriousness, the judges can’t protect the citizens, if they can’t protect themselves from those who have deemed themselves above the law.
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
There is also the Brown Open Meeting Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq.
As for the AOC’s self-annointed “exemption” . . . is that another one of the AOC’s “legal opinions” from John Judnik? And with as much credibility? Maybe someone out there in media land, the public interest law groups, or better yet – law enforcement – could look into that.
Speaking of which, JCW – any idea of the status of the investigation by the State Contractor’s Licsening Board regarding the AOC’s other “self-exemption” from the law, namely the AOC’s use of unlicsened contractors? And did the AOC ever respond to that PIA request about who in law enforcement the embezzlement of public funds in the AOC’s HR Division was (allegedly) reported to? Or does that also fall into the rabbit hole of “self-exemption”? Or maybe one level down, under “deliberative process”?
It’s getting a bit difficult at this point, trying to sort through the degrees of grey shading for the practice of non-disclosure from the Minstry of Truthiness and the The Office of Newspeak.
Long live the ACJ.
SF Whistle
July 13, 2011
“Badges—-we don’t need no stinkin’ badges”….
Laws—we don’t need to follow no stinkin’ Bagley-Keene Act….
SF Whistle
July 13, 2011
“B-Day…”???
The “B-day” we should be reminded of is celebrated in France tomorrow—Bastille Day–
We should storm the Bastille on Golden Gate Avenue and take back the branch—
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2011
Another fan of French history that picked up on the plural meaning…. 🙂
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
If one “monkees” around with the truth long enough, there are no longer shades of gray. This becomes evidenced in black and white. Does anyone know how to determine who made those contributions to the JC, when they made them and for how much? CCP Section 425.16(j)(1) states: “Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees.”
Section 425.19 states…well, you know!
Wendy Darling
July 13, 2011
Great video. And sooooooo appropriate.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 13, 2011
Glad you enjoyed it. I am looking for a video of the song, “Tie a yellow Post-it round the dark knight’s neck”. Today I got word that the court administration lawyers have said they will not turn over the Register of Action. I may not be lawyer, but I am pretty sure that by law, the courts can’t mail a Pro Per a yellow Post-it notice of a judgment never entered and not found in the court file and then write an Appellate Opinion based on this fake judgment document. I think I need to add to the definition of CCP425.19 🙂
antonatrail
July 13, 2011
Cantil-Sakauye told the Bee in 2005, “One of my favorite sayings is, ‘There is no one truth, only versions of it.’ “
WTF?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 13, 2011
If you don’t hold that belief, there is no way you can pull off “The Big Lie”
antonatrail
July 13, 2011
Taken from Courthouse News Service article of July 13, 2011, by Maria Dinzeo:
“The AOC,” said [a] judge, “serves no needed service and should be dismantled forthwith.”
More music to my ears! California is alive with music lately. It may have seemed like a dire move at one time, but no more. Eliminate this useless bureaucracy. I’d love to shake that judge’s hand.
courtflea
July 14, 2011
Forgive my ignorance Michael, what the heck is Yen Wire?
I imagine one day JCW that all AOC employees will have to sign non disclosure agreements ala working for the Royal Family in the UK.
If this report saying the AOC should not take cuts immediately like the courts does not inspire Judges to get off the dime and follow the ACJ’s example and join the revolt, then I don’t know what will. I take that back, impacting their own pocket books would!
Michael Paul
July 14, 2011
YenWire is a messaging client.
courtflea
July 14, 2011
PS speaking of Bastille day…..sounds like the AOC is taking the less than sucessful tactics of Marie Anntionette with the courts: “let them eat cake!”
courtflea
July 14, 2011
Michael, now I am totally exposing my lack of knowledge: how would one access such a thing to read what you were posting about? Thanks!
Michael Paul
July 15, 2011
It’s a company proprietary subscriber based multi-channel secure messaging service managed by and originating out of that one country with legendary subpoena proof information security and not available to the general public.Contained therein is a channel called CalCourts.
“From the desk of JCW” used to carry censored cross-postings from YenWire. Sometimes JCW still posts materials off of YenWire. We’ve stopped directly cross posting because it was too tedious and there is a marked lack of security..
Judicial Council Watcher
July 15, 2011
Courtflea: It contains raw material that becomes the story that by itself is unsuitable for public consumption.
It contains evidence, files or links behind the story. Some of the material is released through other media sources, some of it is released here. Information on CalCourts is available to most journalists. When we get a direct media inquiry about if we have something, that media is released to the requesting journalist.
If only the AOC were as transparent….
courtflea
July 16, 2011
Thanks JCW and Michael for the 411 for dummies like me 🙂