Here is a proposal that was sent to all judges from the Alliance of California Judges a few hours ago. In this model, the Alliance has provided reasonably clear case examples of places where cuts can be made within the AOC. By working their numbers they’ve produced significant savings out of the AOC’s bloated operations. What they haven’t done is gone the extra mile to ensure there weren’t so many chiefs and so few indians. With respect to leaks coming out of the AOC’s HR department, the impacts and reductions won’t be hitting the management ranks. They will be hitting worker ranks. Knowing the AOC like we do, the management ratio will drop to less than 2 workers for every one manager. If you combine many of the ideas between Judicial Council Watcher and the Alliance of California Judges, the savings are more dramatic and more realistic. The challenge is who dares tell a bunch of managers at the AOC that they’re out of a job due to management bloat?
Food for thought being passed around and sent in by a regular reader: Just one year ago today, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy was castigated by Chief Justice George and Bill Vickrey for laying off non-essential staff rather than eat into his court reserves. They said McCoy was “playing politics” with people’s lives. The Chief said that he and Bill never had and never would preside over court closures and layoffs. Apparently the San Francisco Superior Court believed this, and blew through a $10 million reserve hoping to avoid layoffs. Now San Francisco is having to lay off two hundred employees including commissioners and close courtrooms, stating that the public may have to wait in line all day to pay traffic fines or wait five years before a civil case is heard. Meanwhile, L.A. still has its reserves. Commissioners and courtrooms will be the last to go.
George and Vickrey never would preside over court closures and layoffs. They both bailed, leaving everyone else to clean up their mess.
The magic number Judicial Council Watcher would be looking for in this proposal would be 850+ judges that support it from all over the state. This kind of number will engender greater legislative and media support in the event that the Judicial Council doesn’t do the right thing.
___________________________________________________________
July 17, 2011
Dear Fellow Judges:
The Alliance of California Judges specifically proposes that on July 22, 2011, the Judicial Council direct staff to provide for $134 million in mitigation to the trial courts for 2011- 2012 beyond the proposed mitigation which emerged from the Trial Court Budget Working Group meeting on July 13, 2011. We call upon voting members of the Judicial Council to move, second, and support this option, or a similar option. Furthermore, the Judicial Council must not act now on the proposal for across the board 15.2% reductions next year; that proposal is premature.
As noted in our letter of July 7, 2011, there are funds available to accomplish this one-time additional mitigation. We suggest that this additional mitigation be apportioned among (1) further AOC staff and operations reductions, (2) construction funds, and (3) maintenance and operation of CCMS V2, V3, and V4, and CCTC hosting of CCMS (including a complete cessation of CCMS activities, if necessary).
The Alliance continues to speak to the Legislature. We were there last week. All methods of mitigation proposed must be reported by law to the Legislature as part of this last budget package. We believe that the Legislature is looking closely to ensure that the Judiciary is making every possible effort to put resources into the trial courts to keep as many local functions available to their constituents as possible. Continuing with an overstaffed central bureaucracy and continued funding of an improbable computer system is simply not an option.
We also remind judges of the importance of enacting AB 1208. That law assures every trial court of a basic baseline level of funding without reduction for unapproved statewide initiatives that lack legislative approval or broad consensus within the branch. Had AB 1208 been the law, $600 million would not have been wasted on CCMS.
We urge that every judge read this letter. If you agree, we ask you to join us. Simply reply to this email that you wish to be a member and give us your preferred email address. If you know of a judge who has not received this letter, please provide a copy.
The additional mitigation is essential for the purpose of allowing the trial courts to phase in the most reasonable application of reserves over a three year period (to Fiscal Year 2013- 2014) to implement and plan RIF/RIS (reduction in force/reduction in service) incrementally, rather than an immediate cessation of what appears to mean a minimum 15% to 20% reduction to be achieved for most courts (with some courts like San Francisco having to impose immediate 40% reductions). Since the courts are required by law to give 60 days notice to implement major reductions, the window to get to the 15% to 20% reductions is compressed to less than 7 months.
The money is there. It needs to be used to support the Chief Justice’s call for open and available courts as the judicial branch’s first priority.
The following table reviews the AOC’s current calculation of trial court reductions after action by the TCBWG:
|
Base Reductions
|
|
| Baseline Reduction 09- 10 | -$92,240,000 |
| Baseline Reduction 09- 10 | -168,569,000 |
| New Ongoing Reduction 10- 11 | -25,000,000 |
| Ongoing Reduction 11- 12 | -175,174,607 |
| Add’l Ongoing Reduction 11- 12 | -144,300,430 |
| Total Reductions | -$605,284,037 |
| Funding Transfers FY 2011- 2012 | |
| Facilities Construction Funds | $130,000,000 |
| Facilities Modification Funding | 20,000,000 |
| Modernization Fund | 20,000,000 |
| CCMS | 10,000,000 |
| Subtotal | $180,000,000 |
| Add’l Funding Transfers 11- 12 | |
| SCFCF | $25,000,000 |
| ICNA | 38,000,000 |
| CCMS | 56,391,289 |
| Court Interpreter Reserves | 4,800,000 |
| Subtotal | $124,191,289 |
| New Revenues (2009 Act) | $6,500,000 |
| New Revenues (2010 Act) | 64,080,000 |
| Total Reduction | -$230,512,748 |
| Reduction Adjustments | |
| Share of Other Prog. Reductions | $6,662,815 |
| Security Share of Reduction | 17,049,000 |
| Court Appointed Counsel Shortfall | -3,537,500 |
| Cumulative Allocation Reduction | -$210,338,433 |
| Less: Prior Year Reduction | 75,832,000 |
| Trial Court Operations Funding Adj. | -$134,506,433 |
The AOC has a salaries and benefits operation of approximately $100 million. The TCBWG proposal reduces AOC operations by only 12 per cent. This number needs to be substantially increased in favor of trial court mitigation. An example follows at the end of this letter, saving approximately $50 million. In the example, this level of savings is achieved by reducing the operational level of the Executive Division, General Counsel, Office of Government Affairs, Judicial Education, the Executive Office Program, the Regional Offices, a 25% reduction to the Finance Division, and 50% reductions to Human Services and Information Services.
There remains further funding associated with CCMS. There is at least $34,925,534 of maintenance and operations and project funding as follows:
|
Maintenance and Operations |
|
| Criminal and Traffic (V2) (Fresno) | $6,554,167 |
| Civil, Probate, etc. (V3) | 13,787,927 |
| CCMS (V4) | 8,867,477 |
| Projects | |
| CCMS Development | 3,399,687 |
| CCMS V4 Deployment | 2,316,306 |
| Total | $34,925,564 |
This continues to represent $35 million as an annual expenditure to support only a portion of case management systems of seven courts. This product should be delivered to these courts to be operated on their own servers by their own IT staff within their own budgets. The CCMS project cannot continue.
In addition, as we have explained in our July 7 letter, there remain additional construction funds as we see the budget for further mitigation. Fund Condition Statements reveal that the State Court Facilities Construction 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.
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.
We are not suggesting that any one of these sources be completely depleted to increase trial court mitigation, but all possible available funds must be devoted to that purpose. The Judicial Council must act independently of staff to achieve this outcome.
Also, this further mitigation must come with recognition by all trial courts that this is not an opportunity to continue to defer structural reductions in the hope of a better budget outcome. This proposed mitigation must be viewed as a one-time opportunity to blunt the immediate impact of reductions and to phase those reductions.
Very truly yours,
Directors of the Alliance of California Judges
Andrew Banks
E. Jeffrey Burke
Tia Fisher
Mark Forcum
Maryanne Gilliard
Daniel Goldstein
W. Kent Hamlin
Michael Hayes
H. Thomas Hollenhorst
David Lampe
Susan Lopez-Giss
Kevin McCormick
John Somers
Steve White
Example of Staff Funding Reductions for the AOC
| Reduction of AOC Staff Services | ||
| Executive Division | No. of Positions | |
| Appellate and Trial Court Services | ||
| Division Director | 1 | $221,952.00 |
| Supervising Court Services Analyst | 2 | $234,274.00 |
| Lead Management and Program Analyst | 1 | $95,856.00 |
| Senior Court Services Analyst | 1 | $91,296.00 |
| Supervising Administrative Coordinator | 1 | $87,108.00 |
| Court Services Analyst | 1 | $83,100.00 |
| Senior Administrative Coordinator | 2 | $151,464.00 |
| Administrative Coordinator II | 3 | $202,656.00 |
| Administrative Coordinator I | 1 | $59,158.00 |
| Administrative Secretary | 1 | $58,824.00 |
| Subtotal | $1,285,688.00 | |
| Office of the General Counsel | ||
| Managing Attorney | 3 to 1 | $156,548.00 |
| Supervising Attorney | 3 to 1 | $141,765.00 |
| Senior Attorneys | 8 to 4 | $571,660.00 |
| Attorney | 21 to 10 | $1,280,428.00 |
| Supervising Administrative Coordinator | 1 | $82,082.00 |
| Court Services Analyst | 2 | $164,796.00 |
| Administrative Coordinator II | 2 | $134,172.00 |
| Administrative Coordinator I | 2 | $116,205.00 |
| Regional Office Assistance Group | All | $1,373,533.00 |
| Civil Justice Center | All | $210,105.00 |
| Subtotal | $4,231,294.00 | |
| Office of Governmental Affairs | ||
| Senior Attorney | 2 to 1 | $136,260.00 |
| Attorney | 1 | $107,785.00 |
| Senior Government Affairs Analyst | 3 to 1 | $169,912.00 |
| Supervising Administrative Coordinator | 1 | $82,620.00 |
| Administrative Coordinator | 2 | $115,753.00 |
| Overtime | $1,476.00 | |
| Subtotal | $613,806.00 | |
| Judicial Education and Research | All | $8,237,842.00 |
| Executive Office Program | All but Interpreters | $6,255,808.00 |
| Regional Offices | All | $5,372,789.00 |
| Finance Division | 25% | $6,569,460.75 |
| Human Resources | 50% | $2,290,575.50 |
| Information Services | 50% | $7,114,470.50 |
| Total Reductions | $41,971,733.75 | |
| Plus Approx. 25% Benefits Savings | $10,492,933.44 | |
| Total Savings | $52,464,667.19 |
Judicial Council Watcher 
SF Whistle
July 17, 2011
I believe it goes something like:
“Long live the ACJ”….
This is a smart succinct letter….A true message of hope and resolution….
One can only hope that membership grows faster than “mushrooms after a Spring rain”….
Disenchanted
July 17, 2011
As I anxiously wait to find out if I receive my lay-off letter this week, I can only hope that something happens to save the SF. After reading the article about the state bar president willing to pay more fees, maybe outreach should be done directy to the bar associations, state bar, and trial lawyers associations. They should know what’s happening and use their money and clout to get the word out.
antonatrail
July 17, 2011
Very well reasoned letter from the ACJ. Yes, long live the ACJ!
sharonkramer
July 17, 2011
Let’s hope the state’s judges quickly voice their overwhelming support for this Alliance of California Judges endeavor before the Judicial Council meeting five days from now. With a strong showing of support, the legislators will surely act to keep the courts open should the Judicial Council and Chief Justice fail their duties to the public to do so.
courtflea
July 17, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-crime-data-20110717,0,4634531.story?track=rss
Michael Paul
July 17, 2011
This is a second article from the Los Angeles Times about this subject. The problem as illustrated is a data input problem from police departments, courts, probation and parole offices and other justice partners. This is a behavioral and management issue. This is the same behavioral and management issue that Ming Chin wrote an op ed about the virtues and needs for ccms. Ccms does not change the behavior or management of the police department, the court employees, probation, parole or other justice partners. Given the complexity of the system and human nature, CCMS will result in shifting all responsibility of data management to the courts. They won’t be able to change management practices or behavioral issues with justice partners or radically change their business processes. Most especially with a system that takes more time to do just about anything.
CCMS is the disease, not the cure.
Wendy Darling
July 17, 2011
A note to the Directors of the ACJ:
The AOC needs to be asked, and required to answer with proof, how much money they’ve been moving around/parking/hiding between various accounts, specifically including how much money has been moved into the “temp employee” contract the AOC has with Apple One. With one hand AOC line staff employees in the HR division are being told four to six of their positions will be laid off, but none in management, and with the othe hand the HR Director and Assistant Director are continuing to hire or maintain temp employees, including two “attorneys” at over $14,000.00 a month . And this is but one example.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
July 17, 2011
Yes , like the assigned judges fiasco, all should be concerned about the AOC ‘s OVERpaid “temp employees”. And also the OVERpaid, downright high-falutin’, amazing salaries and benefits packages given to AOC “managers” who are “managing” one or two employees. And also the amazing AOC/CA Courts OVERpaid DAMAGE CONTROL public relations department. (say Lynn Holton, you know where the bodies are buried– what have you and yours– including family members –done except cover everything up?) And also the amazing OVERpaid construction and OVERpaid IT contractors, and their sub-contractors. And also historically so very, very many other OVERpaid corrupt branch “leaders”.
As they say, the devil is in the details. And as they say (and this especially goes for top leadership), actions speak louder than words .
OVERpaid branch baddies and entities have thrived because they are being backed up with the entirely unregulated power and protection of the CJ/JC/AOC/CJP/and various bought and paid for “others.”
I mean really–who the heck needs a 1,000-member power-mad, fiscally/ethically irresponsible AOC? NOBODY. Period. End of Story. So why is the branch (read: the taxpayers) paying for that garbage?
Which leads to a necessary (albeit perhaps admittedly uneasy) confluence/congruence of purpose of court critics, court reformists, court employees, ethical judges, concerned legislators and executive branch members, and the public.
The only way out of this mess is to democratize the Judicial Council and de-centralize power. And that takes legislation or initiative. It must be done, one way or another.
TomT
July 18, 2011
Roughly 6 million from General Fund was dumped on to the AppleOne contract on June 30, even though the contract says April 1.They always back date to cover their tracks. This covers temps for OCCM, CFCC, HR, IS, and Finance. Temps are fully funded for the entire 11/12 fiscal year using unspendable 10/11 funds.
Michael Paul
July 18, 2011
The AOC was trying to recruit me around that time so this makes sense. They also recruited other people for CCMS deployment. This money should have been transferred across the street but to preserve the funding the AOC spent it themselves.
Typical.
Business As Usual
July 18, 2011
Apparently, while 4-6 HR staff will need to be laid off. According the the HR management team, temps and promotions are still needed. I’m going out on a limb but I’m guessing they’re gonna make someone a manager or supervisor! Less staff to do work but they need more supervisors. How about some common sense? If you cut people, you need to cut services too. Otherwise, what’s the point of kicking your own people to the curb only to replace them with temps???
Michael Paul
July 17, 2011
It’s a radical proposal and a workable proposal. It returns the AOC to the size it was when I initially started working there as a consultant. It’s the right thing to do.
tony maino
July 17, 2011
I believe that any attempt by the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council or the AOC to get more money for the courts will fail until the Legislature and the Governor know that no AOC employee and no local CEO has compensation that is greater than what the taxpayer pays to the Governor of this state. It is as simple and as complex as that.
SF Whistle
July 17, 2011
How about passage of 1208—–and a purge of the AOC—and democratization of the bloated, cronyistic JC before there is any discussion of more money?
There are so many things wrong (corrupt) with the AOC that money does NOT provide a cure for….
How about real accountability?….NO MORE INTERNAL “INVESTIGATIONS”….self serving “committees”? How about a real–functioning CJP?
DRAIN THE F#%KING SWAMP—-
Delilah
July 18, 2011
In the flurry of all that is happening, this point has been lost. Who determines the salary of the local court CEOs? The PJs? A legitimate question. These salaries may all be “local” determinations that vary by county, but the AOC determines the compensation for its own employees. So will trial court employees be the ones to continue to be punished by the Gov and the Legislature even though they have no say in how these salaries are set? Is it court employees who are supposed to answer this question when it is way out of our pay grade? What the hell happened that the burden is borne by employees because of the machinations of the muckety-mucks who are supposed to make these determinations? And they get the big bucks to do so while the rest of us do the real work of the people.
unionman575
July 17, 2011
The ACJ plans sounds like the way to go. It’s time to turn up the heat up North.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
The largest judicial system in the United States could not have become or remained so compromised by accident. It must be by design. With a mountain of evidence of collusion to defraud from several angles and retaliation against whistle blowers, why are there no criminal charges being filed by the CA Attorney General’s office?
Who is Ron George and how did he become Chief Justice of California? Who is Richard Huffman and why is he still sitting in the cat bird seat?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2011
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18497333
Notable quotes from Keith Davis and Richard Loftus: Note- When one has a new courthouse under construction by the AOC you can expect all sorts of support from that court for the AOC.
“But the chief justice and other powerful groups, including the California Judges Association, defend the across-the-board cuts and say the bureaucracy and tech project are being unfairly targeted.”
This Alliance plan was released on a Sunday and Tone Deaf Keith is already speaking for the rest of the judiciary without measuring support.
“It (The Alliance Plan) is an idea that doesn’t have a lot of support along the broad base of the judiciary,” said Keith Davis, president of the judges association. “We want to try and make cuts that are fair and appropriate”
Then we have this from Richard Loftus:
“I think they did this very thoughtfully,” Loftus said of the proposed cuts. “But I think it’s going to be painful in a lot of ways.”
________________________________________________________________________
Let’s see how three years of no cuts to the AOC while there’s been three years of trial court cutting goes over with the balance of the state judges. Mr. Davis should be looking at the past pay raises and continued hiring before being a blind (and deaf and obviously dumb) supporter of AOC waste.
______________________________________________________________________
If the legislature doesn’t see cuts in the judicial bureaucracy, they’re liable to assume that they are still appropriating the judicial branch too much money. A consequence of that will likely be greater unanticipated cuts next year to try to prevent the resurrection of CCMS.
Note: We have correctly and accurately gauged every budget cut this year including the (unanticipated to most) last cut. Without the termination of CCMS, without a reduction in the size of the AOC you can add another hundred million plus in budget cuts next year on top of what is already anticipated.
Again, we’ve been correct about all other cuts.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
The Mercury article states, “But the chief justice and other powerful groups, including the California Judges Association, defend the across-the-board cuts and say the bureaucracy and tech project are being unfairly targeted.”
Who are the “other powerful groups” that say the bureaucracy and tech project are being unfairly targeted? Are our legislators being lobbyied by those from outside the state?
Michael Paul
July 18, 2011
Mintz wouldn’t write a story that is disagreeable to the local bench, just like Elko in San Francisco Chron wouldn’t write a story that is disagreeable to the local bench. They don’t want to lose the judicial access that permits them to do their job.
The AOC has rallied the leadership of lawyers groups to advocate for CCMS.
SF Whistle
July 18, 2011
King George carefully put together an organization that is very resistant to change….Obviously this organization will fight any attempt to dillute or diminish the power that has allowed this “inner-circle” to operate without any accountability…
King George was able to make the CJA a pretty meaningless organization that answered to him—likewise the Bar Association–the CJP….
There are many current illustrations worldwide of how persons in power respond to challenges.
Libya is not unlike what is going on with our judicial branch with the exception of NATO involvement and airstrikes….RB2 has taken to her bunker and makes the same type of public proclamations that Qaddafi does. Qadaffi feels no need to answer to the Libyan public and Minimimi (RB2) is equally “insulted” by any suggestion that any change be imposed upon the branch—
Qadaffi and RB2 are both operating on borrowed time—
JusticeCalifornia
July 18, 2011
I do believe you are right JCW. The legislature is watching this circus. It has specified its questions and concerns about the bloated AOC– and the projects, practices and policies the AOC has been pushing.
If you read AOC watcher from a year ago it is obvious that the handwriting was on the wall. Top leadership didn’t read it. The ACJ and the legislature did.
Top leadership has been encouraged to cut AOC bloat, and become more inclusive and ethically and fiscally responsible. Instead, we continue to see them re-arrange deck chairs, and fiddle while Rome burns.
Again, this is war. Ron George’s handpicked gambling barmaid and gang of thieves are NOT going to willingly give up the AOC war propaganda/war machine, or the absolute power over billions of dollars and ALL of the state’s judges. They are not going to open their books to outsiders, either, so they cannot “democratize” the branch– at least until all the incriminating documents/evidence are destroyed.
The judges of this state need to take back the branch.
Does the ACJ have any way to tally support for their proposal from the state’s judges, so that information can be used on Friday?
lando
July 18, 2011
Great letter by the ACJ but I would cut more. The AOC has no statutory authority to manage the trial courts. They assumed this role without constitutional or statutory authority under the failed leadership of former CJ George and J Huffman. Accordingly all of the overpaid “regional managers” should be fired or not replaced saving around $ 800,000 a year. One also has to ask why we have a Deputy Director of the AOC. That position should be eliminated forthwith. The savings in just those proposals amount to well over a million dollars. The AOC also pays the National Center for State Courts about half a million dollars in consulting fees which is excessive and not needed. So just right there an additional 1.5 million can and should be allocated to the trial courts who actually serve the public.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
SF Whistle,
I know you are right. It’s concerning that such an accurate analogy can be made between the current state of our judicial brance and Libya. Call me a damn Polyanna, but I believe with all my heart that the Constitution of the United States is worth fighting for to defend her against her enemies both foreign and domestic.
SF Whistle
July 18, 2011
Libya is lead today by an opportunist—-Qaddafi was a 27 yeat old soldier in 1969 when he recognized an opportunity to take over a country with the 10th largest oil reserves in the world.
King George was also an opportunist—He recognized the opportunity to take over an entire branch of State government and impose an unopposed, iron-fisted monarchy….a government within State government that operates with no accountability and makes it own laws —provides whatever exemptions it deems appropriate—retaliates and ruins those that oppose it—To Qaddafi’s credit he brought in skilled investment managers and has amassed wealth rather than debt…although there are many that have been made wealthy through the inner-circle of cronyism of the AOC….
I have asked on this board any number of times for someone to provide an example of any opposition King George ever encountered from his hand-selected bunch of sycophant lackies at the JC—I have never seen anyone post an example–
Despots don’t like opposition—-Minimimi (aka RB2) truly does speak and defend her kingdom invoking language much like Qaddafi—-
Qaddafi will be removed—-and it certainly seems that RB2 is likely to leave her kingdom as well…
It is rumored that Qaddafi once enjoyed high-stakes gambling–do you suppose the two ever met?
Wendy Darling
July 18, 2011
Published today, Monday, July 18, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
CJA Says It Will Seek Jobs for Laid-Off Judicial Officers
By a MetNews Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2011
Update: This Alliance plan has experienced about 1,300 reads since it was posted about 24 hours ago. There are 20,000 judicial branch employees. Surely we can do better than 1,300.
courtflea
July 18, 2011
Even more important Lando is why we need Assistant Regional Directors (usually a former court crony of the director)? Why do we need a Director over Phoenix (Curt Soderlund)? For that matter why do we need Phoenix? And you can probably dump the whole Programs Division, who needs that? I mean just look at the division’s purpose on the AOC website. I agree with SF Whistle drain that swamp. And another thing (now that I am on a roll) cut way back on travel for this idiotic committees. Let them use teleconferencing. Can you imagine the travel bill alone for JHuffman? Not to mention the cost of staffing these useless committees? How about OGA? or HR. I bet it would be cheaper for each court to have their own HR staff than to fund the AOC’s version.
While I am sad that commissioners may be laid off, where is the concern for the regular Joe employee? I’d be their chances of finding another job are a lot lower than a commissioners. I guess some judges will have to learn to do more with less like their staff has been doing for some years, but at least their jobs are safe which makes them very fortunate indeed.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
For those who have the email address, this post is very easy to forward in an email to those 20,000 court employees. One could write something short or cut and paste the below.
Subject: Please Forward~Alliance of Judges Work 2 Save Our Jobs
Dear All,
The Alliance for California Judges (ACJ) has put out a new budget plan to help keep the courts open instead of wasting tax dollars on top heavy management at the Administration of the Courts (AOC). Below is the link to read the ACJ Budget Plan.
~Pass It On~ Call Your Legislator & Tell Your Judge To Support The ACJ Budget Plan!
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/the-alliance-plan-for-trial-court-funding-stabilization/
~Pass It On~ Call Your Legislator & Tell Your Judge To Support The ACJ Budget Plan!
JusticeCalifornia
July 18, 2011
Important:
Click to access age20110722.pdf
“10:35–11:35 a.m. Public Comment
The Judicial Council is aware of public interest in the items on this agenda and the desire to provide comment. Written comments emailed to JudicialCouncil@jud.ca.gov, mailed, or delivered to Judicial Council of California, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94111, Attn: Nancy E. Spero and received by midnight, July 21, 2011, will be distributed to council members. [Also see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 10.6(d) and 10.6(e).]”
Gotta love the “usual suspects” doing the presentations. . .
antonatrail
July 18, 2011
Re: The “usual suspects.”
Yeah, couldn’t agree more. The inmates are running the asylum.
Wendy Darling
July 18, 2011
Published today, Monday, July 18, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cynthia Foster:
S.F. Will Close Complex Litigation Courts
Cynthia Foster
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202502886361&SF_Will_Close_Complex_Litigation_Courts
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
July 18, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/san-francisco-courtroom-closure_n_902097.html
Judicial Council Watcher
July 18, 2011
Paul Elias put it out on Associated Press. Now our ostensible “leadership” is the laughing stock of the free world.
“justice takes a back seat to platinum priced light bulbs and vaporware crapplets”
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
“San Francisco will shut down its complex litigation department, along with most other civil courtrooms, as part of a plan to deal with a $13 million budget deficit, Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein said today. The two-judge department, which caters to big-ticket business disputes, is largely funded by an AOC grant and paid for by special filing fees….But she said she hopes to create “a robust settlement program” that will assist in guiding civil cases toward resolution pretrial….shutting down complex litigation departments could have a large impact on local economies. And he said managing cases ‘without moving them toward a trial date’ is an unprecedented process.
Any questions of why the Chamber wants to see the money remain in the hands of the AOC? We are now into an “unprecedented process” of “big-ticket business disputes” and white collar crime flourishing through “a robust settlement program” or be starved out by the five years before it can go to trial. The insurance industry executive must be down right giddy about now.
Delilah
July 18, 2011
Bingo, SK. This is about so much more than just the mismanaged, bloated bureaucracy that is the AOC. It is actually so very well and impenetrably constructed that perhaps it’s doing exactly what it was set up to do. Stepping back and beholding all the ramifications of saving the AOC and destroying the trial courts, one can see collusion on so many levels, personal, private, business and governmental. And it is happening all around us, even as we fight to do the right thing and to achieve the proper outcome. Sadly, though, it may be that the handwriting is already on the wall.
SF Whistle
July 18, 2011
WHAT A MYSTERY—–WHY IS TAX REVENUE IN FREEFALL??????
“Top 10 reasons Companies are fleeing Calif.:
“10. Unfair taxes (Tax Foundation ranks California as 48th for tax fairness.)
9. Most expensive business locations (Rose Institute for State and Local Government has many California cities as the most expensive U.S. places in which to do business.)
8. Worst performing labor (Pacific Research Institute rates California’s labor performance over a five-year period) as lowest in the nation.)
7. Dreadful legal treatment (Civil Justice Association of California ranks California as 44th in legal fairness to business.)
6. Worst regulatory burden (Consultant Bain & Co., in a 2004 report for the California Business Roundtable, said California is far worse than any other state on its “regulatory hassle index,” based on cost, uncertainty and complexity of government regulations.)
5. Harsh treatment motivates exits (Bain & Co. also said more than half of California’s business leaders said their companies had a policy to restrict job growth in this state.)
4. Unfriendliness (The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks California 48th —
3. High misery index (Associated Press publishes a monthly economic stress index that ranked California 3rd highest in December.)
2. Uncontrollable spending (Several pollsters say people are angrier about California government than at any other time in the polls’ history.)
1. Worst state to do business (Chief Executive magazine surveyed company executives to conclude that California is the worst place in which to do business.)”
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
Businesses are paying higher costs such as workers comp insurance than they were pre-Arnie “reform”. Workers are receiving less and often have to litigate to receive just compensation for injury. A large number of people have stopped making their house payments because of lack of ability. The banks can’t foreclose because they sold the loans so many times, no one knows who actually owns the property. And now our courts are dwindling down to nothing to where they can’t help undo this mess. Who is getting fat off of this?
Attractive Dissenter
July 18, 2011
I can no longer stay silent! Hard working court employees are being sold down the river by those trying to hold onto power which wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t so incompetent. Friday is the big days at the Judicial Council! Who does Stephen Nash work for? The AOC or San Bernardino? Both! Another YES man like Roddy, Torre, and Turner, all former or “wannabee” AOC staff. And San Francisco Court are hurting, but did you see their audit? SFO did it to themselves, but isn’t their CEO also a former AOC employee? And Overholt? What more can you say? The walking definition of sleazeball. So Judge Davis (from San Bernardino) wants to defend the AOC on the cuts, just after his court hired one of the incompetents responsible for the fiasco at the AOC that is smearing the entire judicial system in California. Why do all the people responsible for our mess always seem to have close ties to the AOC?
robin
July 18, 2011
People welcome to our plutocracy. Phil Kay could have told you this. When you start to take out the very lawyers who have been successful against big corporations, as Judge [i use that term loosely, her mom knows everything] Feinstein is allowing, by overseeing and eliminating the complex litigation dept., employees will suffer everywhere. [Guess who hears class actions?] This was done on purpose. Now these cases will be heard by brand “new” judges who are beholden to the State Bar [JNE commission] and are lap dogs to the State Bar, and Beth Jay. When lawyers who represent the little person, are being threatened,and the State Bar is going to go after the prevailing parties, in order to overturn lawful verdicts, in favor of some of the biggest corporations in the state the game is over. SF Whistle has got it right.
King George and his henchman Huffman, want to close the courtroom doors to the average litigant. Look at their decisions. They are doing now what they cannot do in a written decision. Why? The law doesn’t allow it. So they created all these machinations. AOC. CJC, the State Bar, [JNE commision], and the CJP. so they can operate without any oversight. No court is willing to review anything they do. These shadow organizations are now rewriting the law [which is the legislatures job] under the guise of “court rules”.
They’ve even gone so far as to try to rewrite Statutes and the law regulating employment law through jury instructions, in violation of the legislature’s clear language and law about discrimination and retaliation. Most employment [plaintiffs] lawyers are to naive, or unaware of these slight removal of words that turn the law on its. head. Why do you think they took out Phil Kay? He called them on it.
Huffman, has had his hand in jury instructions, judicial oversight, PR relations for the judiciary, everything.
The office i work for even received a panic call from the jury instructions commission,[a lawyers who was working on behalf of an appellate justice who knew what they were doing was wrong, begging us to write a memo, stating and giving them law as to why they couldn’t rewrite the jury instruction about sexual harassment. They were going to do it, under the radar till we cited US Supreme court cases and Cal Supreme Court cases, which forbid that language.
These Guys aren’t subtle. They are corrupt and beholden to big business, that includes DiFi and her corrupt daughter.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
I agree!! The next step is going to be a push that judges in CA should be appointed, not elected. The spin will be that this will assist to stop conflicts of interest and the wasting tax dollars. Disregard that minor detail that the most conflicted and biggest wasters will be in the position to appoint. This is already in the works.
Justice McConnell quotes
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/foru052410.htm
Justice at Stake Campaign
http://www.justiceatstake.org/issues/state_court_issues/election_vs_appointment.cfm
SF Whistle
July 18, 2011
Mrs Kramer—
Thanks for catching this—-McConnell is truly someone to be watched—-small wonder that the CJP is such a big joke….
The CJP should be closed down to provide pay raises to the AOC—it is such a sham—
Take a good look at their website–they have filed 1 (ONE) case in all of 2011—they are working on a new record…..
Interesting that when Katherine Feinstein was the Chair at the CJP (resigned June 2010) at least they managed to open 8 complaints in 2009—McConnell took over and got the number down—-she’s a real fixer…..
JusticeCalifornia
July 18, 2011
When I was a kid (maybe 6 or 7) I saw an incredibly scary afternoon movie on TV. I watched it with some older kids who lived across the street.
The movie was called “The Blob”.
AOC blobs in (or coming soon) to a courtroom near you. . . .family court, traffic court, civil court, probate court, juvenile court, criminal court. . . .
robin
July 18, 2011
McConnell is as corrupt as they come, she learned at the feet of Huffman. Right now she chair the CJP.
sharonkramer
July 18, 2011
Yes. McConnell is very corrupt. Without going into detail, 🙂 I sent her letter telling her she needs to fall on her political sword as she steps down off the bench. I attached exhibits that prove why. Huffman got a copy, too. It is so sad that one would even think judges could and should be so disrespected. They earned it by practicing politics from the bench – not law. All in due time!
robin
July 18, 2011
sorry should be ” she chairs the CJP “[ the feeble excuse of disciplining judges] I think there is something in the water in San Diego. You had a huge judicial corruption scandal in the early nineties, you have Duke Cunningham scandal, Huffman, McConnell are from there. They can’t even dispute anything i say. It’s documented, and they are on the wrong side of the documentation.