Unlike the other 49 states, California’s judicial branch has an ample source of funding and ways to reduce costs to deal with budget cuts that are having a detrimental effect to justice nationwide.
The idea that court executive officers like Roddy (San Diego) and Turner (Marin) are unwilling to accept fiscal realities and attempt to preserve access to justice, choosing instead to push through with cutting court budgets to send a message to a cash poor Sacramento is ample reason to call for their resignations as well as good reason to toss all elected officials voting for those cuts out of office.
Expanding a post from AOC Watcher on nationwide budget cuts, we updated the impact nationwide based on recent news reports. In essence, we are not alone in California’s judicial branch. Such cuts are nationwide. We just happen to be the only judicial branch with the ability to mitigate those cuts. In all, 44 states experienced budget cuts and it appears 41 were impacted.
Here is the roundup of maneuvers employed by states nationwide to contend with their own judicial branch budget cuts:
Alaska – Delays in filling all court vacancies & reduction in hours of operation
Washington – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs & pay reductions
Oregon – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs & pay reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Montana – Delays in filling judicial support vacancies, salary freeze
Idaho – Delays in filling clerk and judicial support vacancies, increase in fees and fines, salary freeze
Nevada – Delays in filling clerk and judicial support vacancies, salary freeze, reduced use of retired judges, reduced hours of operation
Arizona – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs, pay reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Utah – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Wyoming – No impact
Colorado – No impact
New Mexico – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs, pay reductions, staff layoffs
Texas – Delays in filling all court vacancies, salary freeze
Oklahoma – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, salary reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Kansas – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs (including furloughs of judges), pay reductions, reduced use of retired judges
Nebraska – Delays in filling all court vacancies, reduced use of retired judges
South Dakota – No impact
North Dakota – No impact
Minnesota – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs, pay reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Iowa – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs, pay reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges
Missouri – Delays in filling all court vacancies, salary freeze, reduced use of retired judges
Arkansas – Across the board salary reductions for everyone
Louisiana – Delays in filling clerk and support staff vacancies
Mississippi – Salary freeze, delays in filling judge vacancies, reduced use of retired judges
Alabama – Delays in filling clerk and support staff vacancies, across the board salary freeze
Tennessee – Delays in filling judge & support staff vacancies, across the board salary freeze, staff layoffs
Kentucky – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, across the board salary freeze, staff layoffs
Indiana – No Impact
Illinois – No impact
Wisconsin – Reduced hours of operation, reduced use of retired judges, judge furloughs and salary reductions
Michigan – Delays in filling clerk and support positons, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs & pay reductions, staff layoffs
Ohio – Across the board salary freeze, reduced use of retired judges
West Virginia – No impact
Virginia – No impact
North Carolina – No impact
South Carolina – Delays in filling clerk and judge vacancies,salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, reduced use of retired judges
Georgia – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs of everyone including judges, pay reductions, salary reductions, staff layoffs, reduced use of retired judges (appears to be the hardest impacted state)
Florida – delays in filling clerk and support vacancies, increased fees and fines
Maryland – delays in filling clerk and judicial support positions, furloughs of support staff with pay reductions, salary freeze, across the board salary reductions
Delaware – delays in filling all vacancies, increase in fees and fines, across the board salary reductions
Pennsylvania – delays in filling judicial vacancies, increased fees and fines
New York – delays in filling judicial vacancies, increased fees and fines, reduced use of retired judges, layoffs
Connecticut – delays in filling judicial vacancies, increased fees and fines.
New Jersey – delays in filling clerk vacancies, across the board pay cuts for everyone
Rhode Island – delays in filling all vacancies, across the board salary reductions, increased fees and fines
Massachusettes – Across the board salary freeze, furloughs of judicial officers
Vermont – Delays in filling clerk and judge vacancies, across the board furloughs and pay reductions
New Hampshire – Delays in filling clerk and judge vacancies, increased fees and fines, across the board furloughs with pay reductions, reduced hours of operation, reduced use of retired judges
Maine – Delays in filling clerk and support positions, increased fees and fines, across the board salary freeze
Hawaii – Delays in filling all court vacancies, increases in fees and fines, salary freeze, reduction in hours of operation, furloughs & pay reductions, staff layoffs,across the board salary reductions
Sources: NCSC Dec 2010 report + updates from newspapers from around the country
Judicial Council Watcher 
sharonkramer
August 2, 2011
It would be interesting to know what input the non-profit, Justice At Stake Campaign and NCSD had in decisions in all these states that have impacted budgets. This is not a partisan comment or accusation of wrong-doing. But these orgs appear to be how many state courts, including CA, network. http://www.justiceatstake.org/
See SourceWatch for “court-stripping”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Court-stripping
unionman575
August 2, 2011
We need to toss out the AOC bastards now.
We must mitigate the trial court cuts now with the cash we waste on the AOC and its pet projects and wortlhess management.
concerned
August 2, 2011
It appears that several of the states mentioned in the article had staff layoffs. It would be interesting to know if whole divisions were gutted as was the case in SF.
CA has the highest taxes than any of the states mentioned, and if not mistaken some of the states don’t have a state tax at all. So what’s going on here is uncalled for. As stated in the previous post, do away with CCMS and the TC’s would be smelling like fresh cut roses!!!!!
I do wonder why in this state trial court funding isn’t mandated? With the JC being the third branch of govt you would THINK that funding would be mandated. When we ever get out of this mess, steps should be taken to ensure that funding for our courts be funded for evermore.
Also, SF may have been the first to announce they are in dire trouble, but it appears that every other day I read about another court facing problems.
I wonder if Sacramento is listening? Are they just giving just enough rope…………?
SF Whistle
August 2, 2011
Concerned–
I understand your call for mandated funding—BUT—what is clear is that there is much more going on here than the issue of assured funds. The branch has pissed away it’s funding–The AOC has assumed the role as some form of bloated distorted overhead that was designed to cause efficiencies but has become the parasite exhausting funding and giving back nothing other than bad management—-Don’t throw money at the branch until it has been reformed and we are assured that the AOC assumes a proper role—or perhaps none at all—
antonatrail
August 2, 2011
SF Whistle, I couldn’t agree more. The media be damned for representing it wrongly that the legislature is to blame. The AOC/JC/CJ is squarely to blame for the fiscal crisis.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 3, 2011
SF Whistle: Direct appropriations is what is desired by many trial courts bypassing the Judicial Council and the AOC’s ability to tap those funds.
Part of the challenge we face is various constituency leadership, mostly lawyers groups, that haven’t been educated about or are ignoring problems with the AOC and are pressuring the legislature for greater judicial branch funding. Frankly, we’re outnumbered by these groups. Education is critical for these members who are advocating more judicial branch funding unaware of the issues with the AOC.
While some major media has now caught on to the issues. certain media reps won’t cover the JC/AOC in any negative light fearing a loss of judicial branch access and are taking to pinning the blame on the legislature. Unfortunately because the judges are not uniformly organized in large or overwhelming numbers it is difficult for the public to rally behind them and solve the problem. Most media reports we have analyzed the feedbck on the public could care less about closing down courts by the legislature but have a different view when they find out the waste by the obscure AOC.
The legislature goes back into session on August 15th. The best thing you can do is contact a legislative aide by telephone or e-mail them and educate them so they can brief their legislators when they go back to Sacramento.
JusticeCalifornia
August 2, 2011
The entire branch is paying the price for top leadership’s years and years of waste, mismanagement, misconduct, and misrepresentations — and the trickle-down effect.
No one can expect our elected officials (who are paid by the taxpayers) to support well-documented billion-dollar waste and mismanagement and misrepresentations by anyone or any branch– at the expense of taxpayers.
If the branch wants help it better man up and step forward and help itself (especially since 83% — or whatever it was– of those judges answering the CJA poll said they wanted to deal with this mess internally). The branch (not victims/litigants/employees/advocates) needs to tell top leadership AND THE LEGISLATURE in no uncertain terms that it does NOT agree with the idiotic advice given to the cj and jc by two wildly unpopular, ethically-tanked COURT CLERKS –namely Michael Roddy and Kim Turner. These ethically challenged COURT CLERKS essentially advised the JC that the legislature needs to be taught who is boss, and the way for top leadership to do this is to continue to fund failed projects like CCMS, and over-the-top new courthouses for the majority of the voting members of the Judicial Council, so existing courts are forced to shut down and the public gets real mad at their legislators. Wow– so since when do ethically challenged COURT CLERKS lead top leadership around by the nose?
Action talks, bullshit walks. So far, most members of the branch are sitting on their hands, waiting for someone to save them from top leadership, and the Roddys and Turners of the branch.
THE BRANCH NEEDS TO STEP FORWARD. The documentation of misconduct by top leadership (and coverup of that misconduct–and the trickle-down effect) has been widely circulated and increasingly publicized, and new documentation is surfacing all over the place. Ultimately, taxpayers are not going to appreciate or fund this garbage — or legislators or judges who support this garbage.
JusticeCalifornia
August 2, 2011
btw, I have absolutely nothing against court clerks– I respect good ones.
I do have a real problem with historically ethically challenged court clerks — especially those protected by top leadership and/or serving in leadership positions.
sharonkramer
August 3, 2011
Why do the members of ACJ remain anonymous? Don’t they realize that when they do that, they leave their directors who have dared to speak of the problems on their behalf, more vulnerable for retribution? Mass fear of retribution aids retribution of those few who tried to help them. There is safety in numbers – but not if those numbers want to be uncountable for supporting a position displeasurable to the JC/AOC/JC (or Hitler or Hussain or Mexican Drug Cartel or Pontius Pilate) should retailation occur. Its not just the fearless directors of the ACJ that need their members’ to come forward be counted to stop the deceit. Its all of the citizens of Ca who need them. What does that say about the state of the state of California when its protectors of the Constitutional rights of its citizenry fear speaking out to protect their own Constitutional rights to autonomous courts?
autonomous – “not subject to control from outside”
court stripping – “an effort to take jurisdiction or discretion away from a court or a particular judge”
sharonkramer
August 3, 2011
I was searching the internet for clerk of the court info. This warrent for a citizen’s arrest of Michael Roddy came up: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/roddy/arrest.warrant.htm
Wonder what that is all about? The citizen, Mr. Mitchell, states he is an “Inventor and Provisional U.S. Patent Holder: high-speed solid-state data storage technologies”.
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/resume.htm
sharonkramer
August 3, 2011
Who gave the thumbs down on that one? I just posted a document I found of someone wanting him arrested in 2007 and I asked a question. Is Michael Roddy’s mother on here again..and worried of her legacy?
JusticeCalifornia
August 3, 2011
From the July 22, 2011 Judicial Council meeting transcript:
Judicial Councilmember JUDGE Wesley:
“The legislature is looking to see whether we are willing to make the tough choices. They are waiting to see whether the priorities of this body have indeed changed. They made it clear from what they did to the construction funds in CCMS that neither of those projects are legislative priorities. Are we here today to say those projects are more important than keeping our courts open? I am not. I reject that sort of restructuring as unacceptable.”
Judicial Councilmember JUDGE Pines:
“We’ve all heard from representatives of the courts here. But they’re closing courthouse doors. Are we going to walk out of this meeting and allow 25 courtrooms in San Francisco to remain closed to allow all these layoffs? Are we going to tell all these people that have small claims actions in San Joaquin and other courts that there’s no room anymore in the courthouse for them? I mean, these are tough choices. What the motion addresses is a way of trying to keep the courthouse doors open. And justice accessible and administered. This is the problem we face. You can vote against this motion and tell San Francisco, sorry, there’s no money. It’s more important to have CCMS or these courthouses planned and underway than keeping your doors open. And that’s what we’re faced with here, folks. What are we going to do? Are we going to end this meeting, voting for the recommendations and have all these courtroom shut in this city? Come up with another solution. It’s to provide some relief to San Francisco and other courts and, you know, our courts are in bad shape, too, you know, we’re getting by but we 10% of our staff. I mentioned before to this group, Judge, as a working trial judge I’d much prefer having another judge in my building and more staff than anything else, frankly. And that’s what I really need because we’re not able to service the public as well as we should be”.
Nonvoting Judicial Councilmember /San Diego COURT CLERK Michael Roddy:
“I would suggest that if we take the cuts that are suggested in Judge Wesley’s motion we’re going to send a very clear message to the legislature that we can take this and they’re going to do it to us again and we’re going to have this exact same conversation next year ’cause we’ve had it this year, last year, the year before and the year before that and we’re still in the same place. And gee oh, by the way in the process we decimated CCMS and we decimated our buildings so we’ve left no legacy for the people who are going to follow behind us except we’ve been able to keep the doors open so the legislature can take more money from us legislature. I would be real concerned about this. I think the idea of providing access to justice is not only about open courtrooms but it’s about the totality of the management job that we’ve taken upon ourselves. We asked to be a separate but coequal branch of government. We asked for the authority to do these things but we’re saying we’re only going to worry about keeping the courthouse doors open and that is definitely important but we cannot lose sight of the rest of the organization as well.”
Nonvoting Judicial Councilmember/Marin COURT CLERK Kim Turner (re Mike Roddy’s comments):
“Stole my thunder what I was intending to talk which we have, I think, effectively dodged bullet by using a lot of tactical maneuvers that this council has had the authority to do over the last three or four years. I think the message was clear that the governor and the legislature gave us additional cuts because they think we can take it. And, in fact, if we show them again that we have not only fully mitigated but mitigated plus added additional money back into your baseline budget for the trial courts, we have failed in demonstrating to them that we are listening to the guidelines they are giving us.”
Judicial Council Watcher
August 3, 2011
Drug testing. I’m a fan of drug testing for court execs. They had all of the ability to choose between prudent use of taxpayer funds and boondoggles. The guidelines were stated by both Wesley & Pines. The court execs chose to hear other guidelines and send a different message of “We’re not listening, we want our boondoggles”
JusticeCalifornia
August 3, 2011
http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-alpine.htm
The planned Alpine courthouse stats from the ca courts website:
“Facts
Courtrooms: 1
Square footage: 14,841
Estimated total cost: $26,372,000
Estimated construction cost per square foot: $699
Current status: Project is being re-scoped
Expected completion: 4Q 2014”
By my calculations, 14,841 square feet x $699 = $10,373,859. Yet this one courtroom-courthouse was slated to cost $26,372,000.
And Alpine County has a population of 1,175 people. That is $22,444 worth of courthouse per person (man, woman , child). The median household income is $45,391, and guess what? 17.3% of that population is below poverty level. That EXCEEDS the California average of 14.2% of the population living below poverty level.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06003.html
IDIOTIC BOONDOGGLES, INDEED. THIS IS JUST ONE COURTHOUSE.
Nice slush funds, CJ/JC/AOC. You clearly have lots and lots and lots of money to burn.
THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH AND SUPPORTED THIS MASSIVE CJ/JC/AOC WASTE OF PUBLIC FUNDS NEED TO BE FIRED OR VOTED OUT.
IMAGINE THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN WASTED THUS FAR ON CCMS AND COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 3, 2011
The natives that didn’t want the modern courthouse in their rustic community to begin with (mono county) is now rumored to dislike the structure so much that they want it made difficult to see from the street.
Note the nice flat roof where snow drifts get twenty feet high.Word on the street is the AOC will spend a bundle concealing this butt-ugly 20 million dollar building whose primary business is processing speeding tickets from the street so the public doesn’t have to look at it. While the previous court was in a shopping mall, this too was overkill for this community as are most of these rural projects. A little over 1K a square foot…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-mono.htm
JusticeCalifornia
August 3, 2011
Please tell me Mammoth didn’t go from one leaky flat-roof courthouse to another (foreseeably leaky) $20 million dollar flat-roof courthouse. In snow country.
antonatrail
August 3, 2011
JCW, have you seen this? I don’t think this blogger is 100% correct …
http://community.onelegal.com/bid/62234/Nation-s-Courts-Taking-Different-Approaches-to-Addressing-Fiscal-Crisis
Judicial Council Watcher
August 3, 2011
creative commons licensing allows them to modify as they wish…… >”<
sharonkramer
August 3, 2011
“The cuts being implemented in California were not included in the Judicial Council Watcher article.” Say what? The article links to this exact thread.
JusticeCalifornia
August 3, 2011
From the CJ/JC/AOC perspective (Hurray for us, and how are the trial courts making out?), things are working out just fine. They remain firmly in power, and financially solid as a rock while the branch crumbles. The majority of the voting members on the Judicial Council are getting expensive, fancy new courthouses. AOC salaries and pensions are, quite simply, over the top. And with the AOC “budget”, plus clawbacks and court construction/maintenance funds, top leadership’s finances and slush funds are just fine, thank you very much. The only thing that is missing is mass hysteria, blame for this mess placed squarely on the legislature, and MORE money for top leadership to control and waste. The way to get that is NOT to tap AOC slush funds, but rather to starve the trial courts, keep that ca court news propaganda pumping, and call in the lawyer-mouthpieces.
It would be nice if a COALITION of branch members and others ( ACJ, CJA, SEIU, trial courts, etc. ) who object to top leadership’s purple-robed gold-threaded imperialistic brand of governance could agree on a common message/request/plan and schedule meetings with key legislators.
One legislator in particular comes to mind to start with — Senator Mark Leno. He stepped forward already to obtain the BSA audit of the Marin and Sacramento family courts. He represents San Francisco and Marin and is aware of the problems. And he is on the Judiciary and Budget committees.
What could this coalition ask for? Three things come immediately to mind–
1. A COMPREHENSIVE BSA FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE AOC– TOP TO BOTTOM. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Follow the money. (Thank you Assembly member Calderon for already suggesting this.)
2. Democratization of the Judicial Council.
3. Enactment of legislation that removes the current carefully orchestrated vice grip of control from the CJ/JC/AOC. In other words– enactment of a TRIAL COURT BILL OF RIGHTS that was PROMISED back in 1997. If AB 1208 in its current form needs to be tweaked– do it. It is a vehicle for immediately change that is sitting on the table. (Thank you Assemblymember Calderon for keeping this vehicle alive.)
How can anyone argue against any of the above? They all make perfect sense. If anyone disagrees, state your case.
concerned
August 3, 2011
There are those who are of the belief that the powers that be in Sacramento are highly upset with the way the JC/AOC are running the trial courts, ie the way they continue to toss money out the window on such things as CCMS, construction of new courthouses, the list could go on forever.
Their way of dealing with them is to slash money year after year from TC funding. Well as we know that’s not working. The priorities of the JC/AOC are not in the interest of the courts, citizens of this state, or justice. The number one priority is themselves.
Why not state specifically each year that the funding of all monies are to used solely for the trial courts. Wouldn’t that put an end to the waste that’s going on. If they say that specifically, how could they use the funds for anything else?
As for as the other states, it wasn’t stated if any of them had closures such as what took place here in 2009.
As far as SF is concerned, there are protest there almost daily by various people, groups and organizations. There’s always media coverage about protests over there. Yet not a peep about what’s about to happen. Why? Because people really don’t know or understand the impact of what’s coming. More media coverage is needed.
Now that the debt ceiling crisis is over, will Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi work on this crisis effecting their home state. They have to be aware of what’s going on. The question is, will they do anything about it? What’s JB have to say about this? Haven’t heard a peep from him.
The thing about it is, Sacramento can turn this around now. If the expected revenue is not met in January, more and more courts will collapse.
I for one will not vote for anyone I know willingly sat back and let this happen to our TC’s next election. If we all let our feelings/intentions be known, maybe that will get us some results.
Wendy Darling
August 3, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, August 3, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Letter in S.F. Superior Challenges Management
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/03/38705.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
August 3, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, August 3, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
S.F. Courts Have Funds in Reserves, But Plan to Keep Them There
Cheryl Miller
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/index.jsp
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 3, 2011
Ahhhhh, Wendy, the plot thickens.
antonatrail
August 3, 2011
Well, then I hope the union is awake.
concerned
August 4, 2011
Yes, the union is awake, wide awake.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 4, 2011
Something you’ll want to read and maybe someone can explain. While the whole article is worth reading, it was the last four lines caught our attention.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150369956803098&comments
sharonkramer
August 4, 2011
The court ended the 2011-12 fiscal year on June 30 with reserves of $4.6 million, an improvement over the previous fiscal year’s fund balance of roughly $280,000….Aided by “other cost-cutting measures…”
What were the “other cost-cutting measures” that aided to increase their reserve by about $4.5M last year?
sharonkramer
August 4, 2011
Enough already. By now, it should be obvious that we will not be silenced and are not intimidated by the upper echilon of the CA judicial branch that is deceptive, wasteful, malicious, retalitory and adverse to the public’s best interest. By now, it should be obvious that we are not going away. Our numbers and voices are growing daily along with the evidence.
http://www.thewhistleblower-movie.com/
Overpaid & unlicensed contractors. Destruction of court records while under self-investigation. State pensions to non-state employees. Layoffs and closing of courts while funds are stockpiled. A financial black hole of a computer system. Fake legal documents originating from the court to cover the rewarding of crminal perjury over a matter of public health. “Senority” based layoffs. Organized retaliation, spinning of facts and double speak, double speak, double speak. The longer this is permitted to continue, the more damage done and worse it looks for those who enable it to continue. One whistle blower can be bullied. But hundreds of whistle blowers are impossible to ignore.
Jim
August 4, 2011
It seems inconceivable to me that any size court would keep a training director – assuming that is all that person does, or a communications director, rather than keep on staff that provide direct services to court users. Most of the courts in California don’t have such employees, yet manage to train staff and communicate with outside agencies and news outlets without any difficulty.
concerned
August 4, 2011
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disenchanted
August 5, 2011
The training director and communications director are such horrible positions and they don’t actually do anything. Both pretty much walk around all day. One is smoking around the building outside. The other watches TV in her office and forwards staff alert about bus delays hours after we should know. When important items need to be communicated, the CEO or PJ are the ones that inform staff–not the communication director.
The unions seem quiet in SF. SEIU distanced themselves from these letters but what is in these letters is what everyone has been whispering for quite some time. Even before talk of layoffs, everyone knew these 2 people needed to go.
I’m glad the letters were published; I want other news outlet to report on them and force SF management to answer these questions and explain why we have kept a communications director that does a bad job of communicating and a training director that has never conducted a training when courtrooms are closing.
JusticeCalifornia
August 5, 2011
From LinkedIn re Ann Donlan:
Current: Communications Director at San Francisco Superior Court
Past:
Communications Director at Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
Communications Director and Press Secretary at Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office
State House Bureau Chief, Boston Police Reporter, General Assignment Reporter at Boston Herald
Reporter at Boston Herald
concerned
August 4, 2011
What is so very interesting is that as the TC’s fall deeper and deeper into a black hole, nothing has been heard from any of the judges, with the exception of the few who voted alongside with the JC/AOC.
Why aren’t the other judges banding together, each and everyone of them, and make noise in Sacramento? There is power in numbers and they need to use that power and get this mess fixed. What are they doing, sitting around wringing their hands, waiting for someone to fix this? Well guess what there is no genie in a bottle. Do something! Say something!
Where are Boxer, Brown, Feinstein and Pelosi? This is their state. They wouldn’t be where they are if not for the citizens of this state voting for them.
What I’m affraid is that the whole system is going to collapse and then they above mentioned will say they had no idea what went wrong and then do something about it.
Let’s all hope something is going on behind closed doors we aren’t privy to.
tony maino
August 4, 2011
I am a member of the ACJ but not a Director so I do not know everything that is going on. But I do that there is a lot that is happening that I am not privy to at this time. Try to be of good cheer even for those of you who are going to be furloughed and/or terminated because of the actions of the Judicial Council and the AOC for the past decade. I know this sounds outrageous to someone who is in danger of losing their job and dignity because of what your leaders have done. It sounds outrageous coming from someone such as myself who is very secure in economic terms.
There are about 400 members of the ACJ. Some of you know judges and I urge you to contact them and ask that they become members.
The meeting of the Judicial Council last Friday told all that you need to know about what is happening. The courts of this state could stay fully open if that was the desire of theJudicial Council . That was not their desire. They chose continuation of their bloated structure and salaries , CCMS and court contstuction over serving the public. It is that simple.
Ibelieve the legislature and the Governor will not put up with this arrogance.
tony maino
August 4, 2011
Sorry for the way this is written but my machine ( that is what I call a computer) does not let me edit what I have written…it is all obscured by the “Guest, login,login,and login” icons after about 50 words.
I am sure that you know what I am trying to say.
I see the plan of the AOC to take over the fiscal control of all of the courts because of what is happening in San Francisco. Mommy knows best.They will then attempt to sweep all court reserves back to the AOC. Daddy will provide.
Goodby all local control.
Wendy Darling
August 4, 2011
We hear you, Judge Maino, and we’re all trying to hang in there. But it is rather difficult when we are seeing such inaction and indifference from Sacramento.
And what you say about seeing the plan of the AOC to take over fiscal control of all of the courts because of what is happening in San Francisco, is all too true. It’s even part of the “Strategic Plan” Vickrey/the AOC drew up a couple of years back.
Long live the ACJ.
concerned
August 5, 2011
If Sacramento, Boxer, Brown, Feinstein, and Pelosi allows this fiasco to happen and or continue, then if anyone of them are up for election, they will not and should not get our votes. Simple as that! I’m tired of this bs right about now.
sharonkramer
August 5, 2011
Judge Wesley said it all at the Judicial Council meeting on July 22, 2011.
“I reject that sort of restructuring as unacceptable.”