“I include myself in the growing list of judges that is very frustrated with the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts”
Thank You Judge Feinstein.
When we see court cases of public interest (like a certain taxpayer lawsuit) grind to an abrupt halt based on a demurrer (Which is the legal equivalent of “So What?”) and we hear statements like “discovery would not be permitted” and “You have to trust that the AOC and (the former AOC attorney at) the Attorney General’s office are doing the right thing” being told to a litigant by his attorneys as a reason that a taxpayer lawsuit will not be permitted to move forward, we’re left questioning the impartiality of the courts making those decisions. Are they out to protect the AOC?
Recent developments (surrounding the budget) and the Judicial Council’s demonstrated lack of willingness to keep ALL trial courts fully staffed by cutting back on their own programs is unconscionable.
San Francisco did get themselves into a financial pickle by diving into reserves and some questionable spending. In San Francisco’s defense, the AOC and the Judicial Council was telling courts it was unnecessary to lay people off. They told courts to dive into their reserves to avoid layoffs and to pay the bills. This was the “leadership advice” that they followed, this is the “leadership advice” that the Judicial Council gave everyone. This is the “leadership advice” that is leading to 200 people losing their jobs across the street from the AOC.
So last night when we viewed this video from Katherine Feinstein, we’re left wondering: Are the San Francisco courts no longer a wholesale franchise of the AOC?
Katherine Feinstein criticizes the poor management and misplaced priorities of the Judicial Council and the AOC while lamenting cuts that do anything but permit access to justice in San Francisco. KGO-TV Channel 7, ABC News last night. San Francisco courts make drastic cuts.
Question: What action are you personally willing to undertake today to motivate public outrage against the Judicial Council and AOC’s misplaced priorities?
How can we help?
A MSNBC piece about SF Courthouse layoffs.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
July 19, 2011
Published today, Tuesday, July 19, from Courthouse News Service by Dave Tartre:
S.F. Superior Court Lays Off 200; Top Judge Calls It a ‘Dismantling’
By DAVE TARTRE
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38254.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
July 19, 2011
Also published today, Tuesday, July 19, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Sherri Okamoto:
Eleven San Francisco Hearing Officers, Commissioners Laid Off
Presiding Judge Says Justice System ‘Collapsing’ Due to Budget Cuts
By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
July 19, 2011
What all trial court judges must understand is that they are paying the price for top leadership’s waste and mismanagement. They will continue to pay the price for top leadership’s waste and mismanagement.
Why would the legislature give more money to the judicial branch when it is run by an inexperienced gambling barmaid and a gang of thieves, who have NO intention whatsoever of cleaning up their act? People, our gambling barmaid has selected KIM TURNER, who a) covered up for $650,000 in IT court contracts funneled by her former “boss extraordinaire” (Marin’s former CEO) to his girlfriend, and other improper expenditures; and b) spends $2-$2.5 million a year on Marin’s horribly flawed case management system (way more than other courts a lot bigger than Marin); and c) blocked a state audit of the Marin family court while she engaged in the mass destruction of child custody evidence– to be one of the key featured budget speakers this Friday. Who the F*&% in their right mind would hand over money to be managed by “court leaders” like Turner??? Or Overholt? Or Nash? Or the others who have gotten the branch into this mess?
It is FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to hand over more money to people who have wasted and are wasting billions in taxpayer funds. So those judges sitting on their hands thinking it will all work out should fasten their seat belts. And those judges who care about the branch, and the public that elected and pays them, should do what is necessary to democratize the branch, and de-centralize power. NOW. Why should the legislature help those who refuse to help themselves?
JusticeCalifornia
July 19, 2011
Speaking of Kim Turner, our cj’s favorite document destroyer, I would love to see all of the following article about document destroyers and what that means for lawsuits:
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202502881203&CEOs_Destruction_of_Documents_Results_in_Sanction&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Attractive Dissenter
July 19, 2011
I think you are right JC. These cuts to the branch are punishment for gross mismanagement in the courts. They are punishment for Vickrey and Overholt. They are punishment for the new chief not firing Vickrey and Overholt. We were punished more when the new chief defends Vickrey. We are punished more for the new chief telling the state to mind their own business. They are punishment for Turner, Torre, Roddy and Nash being given “leadership” roles in the court. Why would Sacramento NOT take the Courts money when SF Court mismanages its funds but promotes their CFO to CEO as a reward. SFO’s PJ is another opportunistic Feinstein who is seeking to gain power through another man made tragedy at the Civic Center. The hard working employees at the SFO Court are the ones who will pay as many other hard working court employees up and down this state. All due to the arrogance of the few you have all mentioned in this site.
Michael Paul
July 19, 2011
There’s no doubt in my mind that this is a bitter pill being presented to “an independent branch of government” whose leadership consists of a small, insular group of shady characters doing shady things with those funds. Maybe if the CJA didn’t ask the now infamous push question, they would be dealing with AB1208 instead of a 460 million extra in budget cuts and diversions.As they say, be careful of what you ask for. You just might get it.
SF Whistle
July 19, 2011
I found myself misting up watching PJ Feinstein’s statement—-blotting little tears from my eyes…until one considers that she thanked the previous PJ McBride (the wifebeater) for making the inner-circle of management of the SF Court a part of her life for the two years prior to taking on the job as PJ—-she was McBrides assistant and well aware of goings-on at SF Superior Court–
OK—Now she claims to have had a come-to-Jesus event—–Let’s see her join up with the ACJ—then I’ll be a believer.–
She claims that she had an expectation of economic recovery—?–based upon what?
Feinstein played the role as an AOC / JC insider while she was chair of the CJP—It is well known that NOTHING happens at the CJP that is not approved by the AOC…
I agree with JusticeCalifornia—–RB2 has the fiscal restraint and business accumen of Imelda Marcos at a Bloomingdales Spring shoe sale—–so it is NO great shock to see what she has done with the branch—Where does Feinstein come down on CCMS??
I wait with eager anticipation to see Feinstein’s next moves—let’s see her take on credibility and become a strong player in the ACJ—otherwise she looks like a whiner to me…pass the kleenex pleez—
Judicial Council Watcher
July 19, 2011
As we’ve explained on our “action campaign” page, many courts have been suckered into trusting AOC management to become a wholesale franchise of the borg collective, only to be severely burned by AOC mismanagement and abruptly pulling back.
It would be no surprise to discover San Francisco in this camp today, just as several others that have preceded them.
Jon Wintermeyer
July 19, 2011
Suckered in because of a new courthouse construction project and given the blinders and Kool-aid glass that go along with it. That’s what CC Court Management and Judges bought into and they are still on the list for favors owed and get placed on the committees for their YES vote.
It’s not just any desrving court that got to vault their project from the back of the list at forty-something to be in the front, it’s those that will sell their soul and last shred of honesty.
That’s how Bruiniers got the appointment to be a Justice and then quickly became the chairperson of the CCMS. Then their next PJ and CEO get placed on the CCMS study committees.
courtflea
July 19, 2011
In defense of SF Court spending their reserves, the AOC has been asking courts to spend down their reserves for years, mainly with the the threat of taking them away. Courts are now only allowed a pitiful reserve of that would not even cover payroll for a couple of months in a crisis. The AOC also knows that a court’s power is diminished significantly if they must come to the AOC for funds. Its all in the master plan.
unionman575
July 19, 2011
The question of spending or holding on to local trial court reserves is always a tricky business. Many of us are unionized trial court workers and we (AFSCME) wanted reserves spent in past years to save jobs THEN.
Now many trial courts reserves are depleted and it’s decision time for the AOC to either SPEND NONEY ON TRIAL COURTS NOW or deny/curtail access to justice to millions in CA.
Jon Wintermeyer
July 19, 2011
CEO Kiri Torre ahd np problems spending through the CC Court reserves spending it on lavish remodel for her office and furnishings and donig remodels on spaces in a rental building when there were already empty rooms that had been remodeled and furnished that still remain empty.
Then she had the Facilities Unit leave most of the good salvage furnishings like cushioned theatre seating that remained in the Pittsburg Court building scheduled for demolitiion instead of reusing it to upgrade the old wood ones in the second floor courtrooms in Richmond .
No expense, like the expense of paying salaries for the manhours of sheriff’s deputies sitting in her former office lobby location for the entire day behind locked doors when there were no deputies ever on duty at the Court Record’s lobby, that had a front door that was open to the public all day.
They chose a moving contractor from out of the immediate area for the Pittsburg court that quoted a fee that was twice the price of the low bid movng vompant, who had a history of many years of working for both the Court and County.