Judicial Council Watcher is receiving information that members of the California Judges Association are demanding a special telephonic meeting of the board be convened before this Friday’s Judicial Council Meeting. They want the CJA to take the position that the cuts to the AOC are too small and the cuts to the trial courts are too great. It is alleged that current CJA President Keith Davis refuses to do any such thing and that members and other directors are looking for a way to make that happen without Mr. Davis’s consent. Update: It is alleged that Keith Davis has called for a meeting, yet it remains to be clarified as to if it’s a board or the executive committee. (See new Courthouse News Article – click here)
Additionally, if one looks at the tea leaf, statements of current judicial council members regarding implementing cuts in their own courts budgets – they are not fully announced whereas others are. Again, reading into tea leaf, Judicial Council members are saying that they are waiting until after the judicial council meeting on Friday to know what the cuts are going to be before they implement them. Other information suggests Judge Herman’s committee will vigorously argue for full funding of CCMS and greater cuts to the trial courts.
Finally, KCRA Channel 3 ran a follow-up story to the AOC construction whistleblower last night and it has just been posted. http://www.kcra.com/video/28610393/detail.html
Calderon is demanding a statewide investigation into spending at the AOC.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Another perspective from The DailyKos.
San Francisco Courts to shut down (MSNBC national perspective misses the mark as to why.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wendy Darling
July 20, 2011
So many, many, many questions as the Judicial Council meeting approaches this Friday. So many questions . . .
Will Judge Lampe be permitted to speak openly and his credibility respected? Or tolerated for show and then quietly ignored? Will the ACJ finally be heard and listened to, or again just silently dismissed out of hand as “shrill and uninformed,” or, worse, subjected to derision and cursing?
Will it be the day that the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council actually act as they have professed they will, and do everything possible to keep the courts open? And not preserve “sacred cows”? Or will it be a day when, yet again, they say one thing but do another, then pass out self-affirming awards to each other for “excellence” in public service, later followed by Overholt’s promotion as Vickrey’s replacement, or perhaps Justice Hill offered up under the guise of a “compromise”?
Will July 22, 2011, mark the day that the trial courts decide to take back the independence and self-governance guaranteed to them under Lockyer-Eisenberg and the Trial Court Acts? Will it be a day of reckoning? Or is it already too late? Is a California judicial branch that actually practices integrity, accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the law in its administration, already lost to us forever?
And if the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council fail to do the right thing and keep the courts open, will the State Legislature at last do something? Will someone – anyone – with some authority finally act and demand that if branch administration is going to assert the privileges of “separation of powers” and “co-equal” branch of government as an excuse to claim to some kind of untouchable autonomy, then it had also better actually practice co-equal accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and ethical conduct? Will anyone in the State Legislature finally act to demand an end to the hypocrisy going on in the administration of the judicial branch?
At the very least, will the members of the State Legislature finally respect their obligation to the public and enact AB 1208? Or will they just continue to sit by and do nothing? Will it require the public spectacle of a recall of a sitting Chief Justice and ballot initiatives in order to democratize the Judicial Council and mandate reform of trial court funding and branch administration?
And the most important questions of all. In the immortal words of Rabbi Hillel, John Lewis, Robert F. Kennedy, and others: If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
So many questions. Such dwindling hope.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 20, 2011
“It is alleged that current CJA President Keith Davis refuses to do any such thing and that members and other directors are looking for a way to make that happen without Mr. Davis’s consent…Other information suggests Judge Herman’s committee will vigorously argue for full funding of CCMS and greater cuts to the trial courts.”
As I understand it, it is acceptable behavior within the CJA for members to cut and paste a resemblance of the CJA letterhead on whatever they want and send it to whomever they want on behalf of the organization. Mr. Herman and Mr. Davis would have no right to object if the members did this without their consent.
concerned
July 20, 2011
Wendy Darling,
Thank you!
Michael Paul
July 20, 2011
Paragraph one: Solution simple – resign the CJA, send your renewal fees to Lampe and the ACJ – even if he says he doesn’t want them. Wasn’t it a judge that said money=free speech? Go get some legislative free speech.
Paragraph two: Refer to him as the “outgoing president of the CJA” Everybody understands lame ducks are ineffectual.
Paragraph three: I would love to contact this guy and get copies of everything he has. 🙂 . Regarding a full scale audit and investigation? I think everyone’s been waiting for that for a few years now. The AOC’s abiity to dodge bullets is becoming legendary.
Guest
July 20, 2011
Wendy. Thanks for slipping in the reference to the worst kept secret plan to promote Overholt to “lead” the branch after Vickrey leaves. Funny how Bill is set to leave us in just over a month and still no recruitment to fill the position. Soon we should get the chief to proclaim that “Oops. We need to promote Ron to maintain stability while we do our nationwide search”. Any bets?
Judicial Council Watcher
July 20, 2011
Justice Brad Hill is also a lead balloon that’s being floated around in some circles as Vickrey’s replacement.
Guest
July 20, 2011
Why not take the chiefs’ and AOC’s favorite pet Kim Turner, especially how she handled her court’s juvenile remodel recently. Braintrust and Marin court leader Turner decides to install a glass bowl for juvenile defendants and their counsel to “save security costs”. When everyone blasts her idea, especially how the court would need to add security to open the glass door so the attorneys could pass paper, Judicial Council Member Turner decided today to just close the whole juvenile court facility because of the “budget cuts”. Really? But she is showing the right “stuff” to run the AOC. She has met the MQ’s. See her interview this Friday at JC. Does the Marin bench even pay attention?
JusticeCalifornia
July 20, 2011
Yes, closing the juvenile court as she blithely wastes $2.5 mil per year on Marin’s stupid case management system.
I daresay Turner’s got exactly what our gambling barmaid is looking for.
As for the Marin bench, there are many tales to tell, but right here and now is not the place or time.
JusticeCalifornia
July 20, 2011
http://www.baycitizen.org/courts/story/marin-plans-put-juvenile-suspects-glass/2/
http://www.baycitizen.org/courts/story/marin-plan-close-juvenile-court/
Our July 22 Judicial Council Member/featured budget speaker Kim Turner has gotten herself in hot water. . . .again.
SF Whistle
July 20, 2011
It’s Biblical—-“Before you build the tower you must count the cost”…Luke 14:28
Turner is so skillful that she is quoted as announcing that Marin Courts do not know what it would have cost to build her glass-gulag….
Fascinating that Turner is still advanced to the head of the JC sycophant classroom—-she should be an embarrassment to the AOC / JC..yet they keep bubbling her to the surface like fetid-sewage…
King George liked her and RB2 has kept her around as court jester as well…Kim Turner truly is at the head of the hit parade in making the JC look like the bunch of lackie-loyalist buffoons that they are–
JULY 22nd—!!!!! We’ll be there!!!!
Nathaniel Woodhull
July 20, 2011
Many of us have been waiting, quietly, for months hoping that Assembly Member Calderon would move on his issue. The only way that the AOC will be stopped is via the Legislature and someone there having the courage to demand the specific line-item information relating to the AOC Budget.
Everyone should contact Assembly Member Calderon’s office, along with their own representative, letting them know of their support for his actions.
Let’s hope that some light will shine under the accounting rocks at the AOC!
blowthewhistle
July 20, 2011
To everyone here, it is up to you to persuade Assemblyman Calderon (D-City of Industry), the Assembly Majority Leader, to investigate all alternatives to present fiscal approaches on everything from courthouse construction, to computer projects, to local management. Some of us dare not speak up publicly because of our positions so you will have to be the voices. Remind him to be sure that comprehensive whistleblower protection is in place, and that such protections are publicly announced, so that people both inside and outside of specific government agencies are protected, know about that protection, and can and will speak out freely. Urge him to publicly invite suggestions through the major media and to provide an easy and secure mechanism for people to provide information and suggestions. Remind him there needs to be real teeth in any whistleblower laws that will subject those who interefere in any legislative investigations to felony prosecution and removal from office, regardless of their position or standing.
Wendy Darling
July 20, 2011
Anything an AOC employee wants to report can be reported to the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Adminstrative Review, and will be covered by confidentiality. The AOC employee surveys can be returned without giving a name, and sent from any computer with internet access, including a public library or business center, and can also be sent by regular mail to the judges/justices on the SEC. AOC employees afraid to respond because of the known retaliation in the AOC administration, or who have no confidence in the SEC’s claim of confidentiality, can respond to the SEC without giving a name, and state they are an AOC employee that is afraid to respond because of AOC retaliation and have no confidence that confidentiality will be kept. This is the only opportunity AOC employees have been given to inform the Chief Justice and the SEC of the internal administrative problems in the branch. If it is important to you, find a way to be heard and to safely make a record of it. Othewise, the silence will be interpreted by the SEC, the Chief Justice, and the AOC as consent.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 20, 2011
Anyone wishing to submit their survey and answers for ONLINE POSTING here at JCW is also encouraged to do so. This includes former employees who are alleged to have been sent a copy of this survey – but weren’t. Former employees can contact JCW and we can send you a copy of this survey.
blowthewhistle
July 20, 2011
Yes, Wendy, private conversations with legislators and staffer can be kept confidential. And anything said privately to such persons in the context of a legislative investigation is absolutely confidential. But there the protection ends. Be careful about public statements, even in the context of a legislative investigation. There is a gap in the whistleblower laws. They do not extend far enough. Be careful.
unionman575
July 20, 2011
Calderon is a skunk. I don’t expect him to do anything at all worthwhile for us in the trial courts. Don’t hold your breath.
Wendy Darling
July 20, 2011
Published late today, Wednesday, July 20, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:
Dispute Arises Within Prominent California Judges Group
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/38321.htm
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
July 20, 2011
The leadership of the CJA has more explaining to do to its members than just what is in that article. They need to disclose what role the CJA representative on the Ca Commi on Access for Justice (CCAJ), Judge Herman, played in soliciting support from fellow members of the CCAJ that the AOC should remain in control of the money and that AB1208 needed to be defeated. The entire support base orgs for the AOC/JC may be found represented on the CCAJ committee, of which CJA faux letterhead author, Herman, is the CJA’s representative.
It would appear that Mr.Herman and Mr.Davis have committed several violations of the state’s Code of Judicial Ethics while lobbying against the org’s own members’s wishes. And what did the new CJ do to punish Herman/Davis for the fake letterhead and lobbying against their own members? She appointed Herman head of the CCMS committee. Very sneaky and underhanded and and indicative of a void of ethics by the new CJ herself.
California Commission on Access To Justice Members
http://freepdfhosting.com/4474d4a43f.pdf
CJA Rep To CCAJ:
Honorable James Herman
Court house News 5.13.11 by Maria Dinzeo
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/13/36587.htm
“A letter from a Santa Barbara judge [James Herman] sent on apparently fake letterhead earlier this week to California’s chief justice attacked the influence of Los Angeles judges on a controversial bill pending in the state legislature, and it brought a swift and strong reaction from Los Angeles late Friday.”
July 11.11 Letter from CCAJ in support of the AOC not taking budget cuts:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/20110722-writtencomments.pdf
One Who Knows
July 20, 2011
Check out Assembly Member Alejo’s Facebook page today for his post on the latest whistleblower….The Legislature is aware and apprised of the nonsense going on in the judiciary and my guess is that we’ll see some changes coming in the next legislative session. It is too late this year to pass AB 1208. But I think next year will be a different story…..
sharonkramer
July 20, 2011
Something needs to be done Now – not next year. Should the AOC/JC be successful in depleting funding for the trial courts, by next year it will be much harder to reverse course. They will have crippled the courts’ ability to fight back by having starved them out and reduced their numbers. “Rebel judges” will have experienced the wrath of retribution by next year and held out as examples for others not to follow.
Also, legislators are fickle and tend to act on issues that are receiving media attention. NOW is the time to force the AOC/JC to properly allocate funding in the judicial branch for the good of the people – not for the good of those with proven track records of fiscal mismanagement and abuse of authority. Cantil-Sakauye needs to acknowledge, Now, that she is not qualified for the job and resign as Chief Justice. She is fueling the problem, not solving it. Now is when the situation has reached a point that practically an all out mutany is required to restore integrity in California’s judicial system before the inept and corrupt are allowed to become even stronger. Now.
courtflea
July 20, 2011
Well, well, well. So the CJA wants everyone on the same page. Usually that is code for lock step with the AOC/JC party line. Lets hope this time will be different. Sounds like the new prez wants to be that way.
JusticeCalifornia
July 20, 2011
For years top CA court leadership has “built as big a wall as possible, and played defense” against any and all legitimately concerned critics at the expense of the branch and the public. It has partied and played gloriously with its sycophants, and bullied and badgered and baited all others, daring anyone to call its bluff.
The bluff has been called. The due bill is being presented ($650 million thank you very much) and top leadership’s back is against the wall.
lando
July 21, 2011
Thanks Assemblyperson Calderon. A full and complete oversight investigation of the AOC is a huge step in reforming an out of control agency. There are so many areas of inquiry including CCMS , use of contract employees, huge dollars spent on consultants like the National Center for State Courts, the creation of a media center right within 455 Golden Gate,overpaid “regional managers” who have no authority to manage the local trial courts and much much more including paying “Scholars In Residence” . Every one that cares about our trial courts should contact their local state representatives to support this incredibly significant development.
versal-versal
July 21, 2011
I see that the CJA Board may meet in emergency session on July 21st to get a statement together for the July 22nd Judicial Council meeting on the branch budget. The only problem for CJA is that they are way past the deadline established by former CJ George to submit their comments and have them screened days before the JC meets. How ironic is that? The only voice that former CJ George recognized as speaking for the Judges will not be able to address the JC given the anti democratic rules put into place by the former Chief and J Huffman. By the way is there any other part of our democracy where citizens wishing to address an issue of such significant importance as a state wide budget are required to submit their comments days in advance for approval?
Nathaniel Woodhull
July 21, 2011
Versal is 100% correct. If the CJA is allowed to “speak” at the JC meeting on the 22nd of July after their emergency telephonic Board meeting on the 2st of July, it will represent a major departure of the “JC rules” set forth by HRH George and the JC’s Secretariat. There is no way that Minnie-Me, Vickery, Overholt, Hill or whomever, is going to want anyone to address the JC unless the content of that address has been fully vetted in advance and/or has the 100% approval of the powers at be.
The CJA Board and administrative infrastructure is in a full-blown panic. After withstanding all calls for democratization since the Mize-Friedman administrations, the CJA Executive Committe and even Mr. Bissey are seeing their organization fracture and disintegrate. Having received the resignations of many prior Board members and even Board Presidents, maybe some on the CJA Board are starting to wake-up and express concern, despite the fact that this might have a deleterious effect on their future advancement within the Branch. Or maybe, just maybe, these same sycophants are coming to realize that Minnie-Me does not hold the key to advancement within the Judiciary as did her predecessor HRH George. Whatever one may think of Governor Jerry Brown, he is his own person and I believe could care less what Minnie-Me or other members of the old HRH George “gang of thieves” think about who should or should not be put on the Court of Appeals (e.g. Brad Hill, Terry Bruinears (sic), etc.) Without holding that power over advancement within the Branch, Minnie-Me’s perceived goose may be cooked.
By the way, JCW’s prior note that Brad Hill’s name is being floated as a replacement for Vickery’s position is hilarious. Hill’s ego knows no bounds. It is exceeded only by his inabilities toward independent thought and conviction. Few are less qualified for the position, but then again what made Deputy Probation Officer Vickery qualified for that position to begin with???
sharonkramer
July 21, 2011
Visual of the CJA caused by the permittng of rogue members to unethically lobby against the best interest and stated position of their general membership; and in support of a multi-billion dollar defrauding of the CA taxpayer, also known as “The House That George Built”.
L. A. Observer
July 21, 2011
The problem about CJA speaking at the Judicial Council meeting is that Judge Davis, as its president, sits on the Council as an ex-officio member. He always can speak, and does so. As CJA is the self proclaimed “Voice of the Judiciary” he apparently is using his bully pulpit to speak his own voice and not those its members. Each time he opens his mouth more members leave.
courtflea
July 21, 2011
NatWood: right on about Brad Hill. I figured it was because he dyed his hair 🙂 I can’t imagine a judge wanting Bill V’s job…after all, when a judge retires they can make beaucoup bucks sitting on assignment or being an arbitrator. Nothing but grief being the Director of the AOC and hopefully if the JC ever becomes a democratic body, the Directors job will be shit.