Judicial Council Watcher has been privileged with the benefit of viewing a variety of the SEC (Strategic Evaluation Committee) surveys sent out. We share the view that to complete the survey, one must first assume that a large centralized self-serving bureaucracy is required in our judicial branch. If one considers what the judicial council has created in the AOC, it has created not a branch of government; it has created it’s own government accountable to only themselves with predictable results.
_______________________________________________________________________________
August 3, 2011
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES
Response to the Strategic Evaluation Committee
Survey Regarding the AOC
The Alliance of California Judges submits this response to the SEC survey of judges regarding the AOC and its usefulness. Rather than respond to the individual survey questions, we submit this letter. We respond in this way, rather than answer the survey questions asked because we believe that both the questions themselves and the format in which answers are required, presume that some of the AOC’s functions, as stated, have a “direct effect on the administration of justice” (emphasis added), and that the AOC should continue to operate in a fashion closely resembling its current form. We do not agree. The AOC does not adjudicate cases. We believe that if the SEC is to play a meaningful role it must reexamine the entire structure of the AOC. The judicial branch needs a Judicial Council and AOC that serve its true needs as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Our courts are facing a crisis.
The SEC must assume its charge by recognizing the crisis.The survey sent out by the SEC asks judges to describe the services their courts receive from the AOC and evaluate how effective those services are. The survey also asks what requirements and burdens are placed on them by the AOC. While the SEC is to be complimented for broadly seeking input, it is unfortunate that no questions are asked about how effective they feel the branch’s governance structure is as a whole. In a sense the entire survey is a so-called “push” survey, in that it assumes that a centralized AOC should continue to exist and “provide services” and impose requirements on local courts in the current fashion. One would almost think that the National Center for the State Courts, or the AOC itself, had a hand in drafting the survey, which would almost guarantee a biased outcome. We hope that this is not the case. Would you please inform us of exactly who drafted the survey questions? While attempts to improve “customer service” are laudable, incrementally improving the operations of an out of control central bureaucracy will not solve the governance or financial problems of the judiciary. The essential problem of branch governance is not that the AOC is not efficient or user friendly. The essential problem of branch governance is the very existence of the AOC as structured; the existence of a large centralized bureaucracy with the power to manage local courts ensures that the desires and funding needs of the central power will always take precedence over those of local courts.
.
Therefore, asking the level of interaction with the AOC, whether the AOC has been timely, helpful, thorough, and whether respondents are satisfied, completely begs the question. In this environment, the question must be asked whether any function of the AOC is equal to or more important than support for direct adjudication of cases and operation of the trial and appellate courts. If the answer is “no,” then that function must be eliminated. On July 17, 2011, we made a proposal to the Judicial Council to eliminate approximately 50% of the AOC’s functions. We proposed reducing the Executive Division, the General Counsel’s Office, the Office of Government Affairs, the Finance Division, Human Resources, and Information Services. We proposed eliminating the Judicial Education Program, the Executive Office Program (except for the Interpreters element), and all of the Regional Offices. Our proposal is attached at the end of this document. This concept is not arbitrary. It would save $50 million per year that could be reallocated to direct trial court funding within the existing branch appropriation. We believe that SEC must start with a goal of reforming the AOC by a specific dollar amount of at least the amount we suggest and working backwards to eliminate functions and achieve that goal. Otherwise, the committee will “spin its wheels” evaluating anecdotal evidence about “levels of satisfaction” with AOC services which is frankly irrelevant.We use the Judicial Education Program as an example. Almost every judge in the state encounters this program. It is very valuable to many judges. However, we presume that every judge of this state has achieved a very high level of competency. As valuable as these services are, they are not essential to adjudication. Local courts are capable of providing orientation and education for judges. Our organization stands ready to take up the slack and organize local programs for education, particularly emphasizing to judges the role of stare decisis, the minimal value of “benchbooks” that teach only one model of decision, and also that they are independent constitutional officers, while explaining how judicial independence can be threatened by bureaucratic constraint.
In this climate, statewide judicial education which costs $8.0 million should be eliminated.The one overall function that the AOC provides at a statewide level that many in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch deem valuable is that it represents one “place” that these other branches may go to discuss budget and fiscal decision-making. Unfortunately, that “benefit” has put the AOC in charge of the judicial budget. This has led to the “tail wagging the dog” in terms of failed judicial oversight of critical fiscal and budget decisions. That model has lead to the expenditure of $600 million of appropriated branch money expended on the CCMS project without meaningful consensus among the judges of the state of the business need for the system, and without any meaningful and timely cost/benefit analysis. The courts could use that money right now.For this reason, we have sponsored AB 1208, now held on the floor of the Assembly, which would guarantee every trial court a minimum direct funding of a baseline allocation from the Legislature without AOC discretion. This will allow the AOC to substantially reduce its financial and budgetary functions. Those cost savings can be passed on to the trial courts. We will be disappointed if the SEC does not directly address the benefits of such direct funding compared with past AOC allocations, and how the AOC budget could be reduced and the savings passed to the courts upon the enactment of this legislation. Our further suggestion regarding AOC reform is outlined below.
The New AOC
Model: A Cost of Services Agency
The AOC currently operates on the premise that centralizing control over the allocation of resources and decision-making is the best and most efficient way to provide services to “consumers” of that agency’s governmental “product.” This is sometimes true if the service to be provided is simple and routine, and if most of the consumers of that service need the same thing. The Social Security Administration is well designed to issue millions of checks to recipients on a regular basis, and does so quite well.
However, where the services to be provided are more complex and varied, or when the needs of the agency’s “consumers” are quite varied – both of which are true for trial courts which use the services of the AOC – the model of centralized management and mass production of services breaks down. The need of the centralized agency for standardization requires it to force its consumers to accept a “one size fits all” product, even when one size does not fit all. CCMS serves as an excellent example of the problem; the ultimate aim of the system is to require all courts to use the same system of tracking, reporting and maintaining court case data. There is little benefit to most trial courts in this; many of them have systems that function well now and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. The felt need of the central authority (the AOC) for standardization and control of all information dominates the design of the system, which has become overly complicated and “bloated” because it tries to do too much. It is years behind schedule and will end up billions over budget, and will already be outdated by the time of full delivery.California’s 58 local trial courts are 58 different users. Many small counties have traditional small county courts with only a few judges. They have minimal financial resources and relatively few employees, and often only a few cases a year of certain kinds. They need maximum flexibility in using their resources without outside restrictions, but may need professional expertise from another agency to deal with specialized problems – IT issues, personnel management, judicial education, or coverage for ill or vacationing judges. Los Angeles County or other large courts may have no need for these kinds of services, but face other problems unique to their size and urban character.
We propose that the AOC be remade as a “cost of services” agency. The survey asks judges to rate the utility and efficiency of AOC services. The real question, however, is whether these services are worth what they cost to the judicial system and to the taxpayer. That is the true measure of efficiency. Once the AOC has been reduced by 50% to its core functions, any court services it offers may be rebuilt based upon this model. Trial courts should receive a full allocation of money, including money that is currently allocated to AOC service functions. Then the AOC may offer services to the courts, and set a “price” for those services which will be charged to each court’s allocation if the court chooses to use AOC services. In other words, the courts will be permitted to determine whether they wish to obtain certain services from the AOC, provide them in house, or purchase them from an outside provider. They will bear the cost of providing that service (subject to the requirements of law) from their own allocation. For instance, if a particular trial court finds that the AOC provides the best human resource services at the most reasonable cost, they are free to purchase it; if not, that court may provide it in house or outsource it elsewhere. This provides an incentive for the AOC to provide the best possible service to its “customers,” rather than trying to force them to comply with its own requirements and desires. At the same time, trial courts will become more attuned to the cost and efficiency of their own operations, because they are responsible for the cost and must maximize the efficiency with which they use their limited resources. This model also fosters trial court coordination. For instance, some small courts may agree with a larger court under a Memorandum of Understanding or Joint Services Agreement to combine certain functions, such as IT, or human resources. This will foster the utmost level of innovation for the courts. The one thing we hope everyone agrees upon is that centralization is not a model for innovation. This model will have a “market” effect of establishing a true assessment of the need for AOC services. We understand that there are some policy issues that do not meet this market model. However, we believe that voluntary organizations of judges, or collaborative efforts among the courts, can serve these policy oriented functions. We believe that this suggestion provides a concrete basis for the SEC to evaluate the concept of “coordinated decentralization” set forth in the Report on Trial Court Governance presented to the Chief Justice by the Los Angeles Superior Court.
We strongly urge that the SEC consider the matters stated in that report.
Conclusion
We find it discouraging to analogize the current state of the AOC to one of history’s most famous disasters, but incrementally improving the responsiveness of the AOC is closely akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As blunt as this criticism is, we hope that the SEC will take it in the spirit intended – an earnest effort to assess the problems facing California’s judiciary in a time of disastrous financial crisis. Once the AOC has been reduced to its core, we propose an entirely different model of AOC operations, which we believe better serves the needs of trial courts and their users, and makes far better use of their limited financial resources.
Very truly yours,
Directors of the Alliance of California Judges
Judicial Council Watcher 
antonatrail
August 5, 2011
So well done, fine and faithful servants of the law, ACJ! May reason prevail in light of this excellent missive.
Courthouse Mouse
August 5, 2011
Bravo!!
Judicial Council Watcher
August 5, 2011
Links to other related documents mentioned in the primary post have been inserted into the post as underlined links.
Wendy Darling
August 5, 2011
Once again, the ACJ reminds us of all of what the California judicial branch once was, and what it might yet be again – a branch of State government based on common sense, fairness, accountablility, and integrity.
Long live the ACJ.
concerned
August 5, 2011
Will a copy of this letter also be sent to the legislature and anyone and everyone who has the guts, authority and know how to put a end to all of this madness? If not, their letter will be placed in a file. A circular file.
Delilah
August 5, 2011
Yes, thank god for the ACJ! The lone but enduring voice of reason and integrity in a sea of speciousness and criminal ineptitude. I too hope that this letter will be distributed widely, because the AOC has indeed already scoffed and tossed it in the circular file.
And long live the ACJ and JCW.
concerned
August 5, 2011
Would it be possible for the people that read this site make copies of this site make copies of this letter to the SEC and mail a copy to the members of the legislature? What about passing the idea to family and friends and ask them to mail copies? That way the members will have copies from many people and they will become aware that citizens are very much aware of the crisis our TC’s are facing. Just a thought.
concerned
August 5, 2011
I intended to say make copies of the letter and send to the members of the legislature?
Excuse the mistype.
versal-versal
August 6, 2011
While Justice Scotland is an excellent jurist and I believe a fair decent guy, all the studies and overlapping committees cannot ever change the reality that the judicial branch is now controlled by an insular and anti-democratic Judicial Council. The Judicial Council in turn has allowed and no doubt encouraged the AOC to take control of the trial courts. The only way out of this mess is to democratize the Judicial Council. I like the idea of calling for a meeting of any and all that read this excellent blog to meet in real life to come together and start the process of amending our constitution to democratize the Judicial Council so we can end the tyranny that former Chief Justice George and Justice Huffman created and foisted on the citizens and taxpayers of California.Plus it would sure be nice to meet people like Wendy Darling and the many others here who have the courage to speak up and restore some balance to our branch of government.
lando
August 6, 2011
Great idea Versal ! I will be there and would walk on hot coals to end CJ George’s and J Huffman’s dictatorship . Please let me know when where and the time of such a meeting .
sharonkramer
August 6, 2011
Quote from the ACJ letter: “Would you please inform us of exactly who drafted the survey questions?”
Is it possible to actually obtain the above info? Sometimes learning what individuals and/or orgs are composing and dissiminating info sheds light on why the info is being dissiminated. I would like to know how much we taxpayers just paid for that survey and to whom we paid it. I’d love to see the rough drafts and who had input/final say over its content. Seems like that should be subject to FOIA. No?.
Michael Paul
August 6, 2011
I made the inquiry directly with Justice Scotland. His reply indicated that the strategic evaluation committee composed the surveys and the questions, yet according to their charter, the committee itself is staffed by the AOC’s regional directors. JCW had sent a message to Yen with some concerns about the survey wanting us to re-verify some preliminary data and contact Justice Scotland with an inquiry about that data with the intent of publishing the day this post was published. Staff is still analyzing his comprehensive reply and comparing it to the preliminary data. The group doing the work doesn’t work on Saturday so maybe they’ll have something more tomorrow or Monday related to the inquiry – or we may have more questions for Justice Scotland.
sharonkramer
August 6, 2011
Excellent, Michael. I don’t think that sounds too likely that a bunch of people who hold titles of regional directors would actually be ones to physically compose a survey. It would be my guess that they relied on staff people in a designated dept at the AOC to actually do the composition — or they (or the AOC dept) contracted the job out to an org with access to professional survey writers.
What a waste of tax dollars to have a useless survey go out to the entire third branch of government with the foregone conclusion AOC is a necessary, cost effective org. The sending of that push survey itself with its predetermined results establishes they are not cost effective. They are clearly in self preservation mode. I would like to know who actually did the hands on work on that survey, who hired whom for this project, and what were the costs involved.
JusticeCalifornia
August 6, 2011
I believe the fastest way to get the measure on the ballot is to ask the legislature to put it there:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
If it is well-written and simple — hitting on the major themes that the common man/woman on the street can understand and relate to–to wit
a) presently a single person (the cj) asserts almost absolute control of an entire branch via appointment power and
b) the DOCUMENTED results have been detrimental to the taxpaying public (a bloated, out of control AOC that is overpaid and getting outrageous pension benefits and raises while people are getting laid off, use of unlicensed contractors, $500 lightbulb changes, CCMS, wildly expensive courthouses, etc. — resulting in closed courthouses and reduced services to the public)
it would be VERY difficult to argue against a measure to democratize the JC.
The trick would be crafting a noncontroversial proposal for how JC members are elected/selected (unless that can could be kicked down the road –say by designating a peer- elected committee to craft guidelines by a date certain– I don’t know if this is possible/feasible )
Just some Saturday morning ideas.
JusticeCalifornia
August 6, 2011
I was referring to democratizing the JC in my post above. 🙂
Michael Paul
August 6, 2011
The legislature is the fastest way to get an initiative on the ballot as well as the cheapest way to get it there. At this early phase, only a fraction of the public that use the court system have any familiarity with the costs associated with that system. This would make an initiative outside of legislative process costly. That is the idea behind JCW’s petition to democratize the judicial council, to ask the legislature to ballot an initiative.
concerned
August 6, 2011
Just sitting here, perplexed as ever as to how the first and second branch of CA govt can let the third branch of its govt collapse. They know what’s going on. They have to. If not, each and everyone of them in those two branches, must have been living under a rock the past decade.
There’s no reason why judges have to essentially beg anyone for funding for our state’s TC’s.
Not with the money this state pulls in on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis. Justice for the citizens is a right, not a priledge. Why is there no mandate for TC funding? Unless I’m mistaken, there is funding for the first two branches, but not the third? What are they the red headed step-child? It sure seems that way.
The first two branches could have put the breaks on the gravey train aka the AOC years ago, but didn’t. They must be waiting for it to derail before they clean up the mess the have and will cause.
The best bet we have, the people who really and truly care, is to put it on a ballot measure. And let the people of this state what’s going on now and where we are headed if we don’t do something about fast. Soon. ASAP!
Just my thoughts on this beautiful Saturday afternoon.
sharonkramer
August 6, 2011
I like this JCW idea, too.
http://www.petitionvoice.com/a-federal-probe-of-the-california-petition.html
Judicial Council Watcher
August 6, 2011
Over the past twelve months, JCW and our partners have been in contact with a wide variety of individuals and organizations. In an effort to promote their efforts, we’ve begun building links to other justice related organizations and media organizations. As we add new links and new categores, they will be the bottom most navigation panes on the left hand side.
courtflea
August 6, 2011
hey concerned friend, for great reading and to get a lot of answers to your questions read the archives of the AOC Watcher. It will help you quite a bit.
ACJ, great job once again!! You said it well for all courts. There have been many questions about how this survey was put together and you addressed it very well. I think your letter should be distributed to all PJs (if you have not already) and CEOs too so they can see that their same concerns have been addressed or more importantly, the can reference back to the committee the contents of your letter..
Commercial IT
August 7, 2011
Dear Friends, I have some discouraging news for you. Yesterday I attended a social gathering in San Francisco. People attending were mostly from the Bay Area. I was frankly astonished as I realized what a high percentage of these people were in computer-related work. It ranges from graphics/games, to business intelligence, to working at major hardware/software companies, to custom software, to private consulting. Quite an array of highly intelligent people who gravitated to occupations related to computers. Even law-enforcement related work where computers are used. So what did they think of what’s going on?
Well few seemed to even know who the Chief Justice is. They don’t know what the AOC is. Don’t know what the Judicial Council is. Never heard of CCMS. Had no idea that a group of judges was in revolt against central judicial system management. Aren’t aware of the judicial branch’s serious financial situation. Even people from SF weren’t aware that their civil court system was on the verge of being virtually shut down. To make a long story short, most people don’t know and don’t care. They have their own problems and lives.
Blogs aren’t going to get anywhere. You need major media if you want to reform the system. Utter collapse may have to come first in order to get major media attention. I believe the Chief Justice has it within her power to fix all this and I have my fingers crossed. But knowledge is the key, at least when it comes to the CCMS project.
Due to being exceptionally busy with work, plus general disappointment with progress at fixing what is wrong in the judicial system, I stopped blogging some time back. But I, and another person in IT I know, and I think some others were asked to comment on what was being discussed. I put in my two cents worth, then went back to a big project I was working on. I’m finished with that project and have generally looked over this morning more of what has been said here in the last month or so but frankly think none of this attempt at reform of the judicial system’s management is going anywhere fast.
As to the CCMS aspect, there are many, many misconceptions about what current computer technology can and cannot do. There is a sea of misinformation out there among those connected to the judicial system. I think the first step in solving the CCMS situation and helping to ease the budget situation by cutting IT expenditures down to a trickle has to be a breakdown in the wall of resistance to intelligent discussion and to demonstration and analysis of what is and is not possible. Unfortunately, I think that is some time in the future.
sharonkramer
August 7, 2011
Dear Commercial IT,
Thank you for the update. As one who has sat on a technical standards committee for ASTM International (specifically asked to join to help solve a problem because I am not a technical person); its enlightening to see what you understand about what the techies understand and the role they play in the matter. I think you are right.. Definately smart people who help to shape decisions…..but in a kind of different way. I, personally, dont’ think it really has anything to do with the shortfalls of CCMS. I think it boils down to getting alot of good hearted people who are trying to do the right thing in harmony to expose/rid the clowns and deceptors in the judicial heirachy that is out of control.
courtflea
August 7, 2011
Commercial IT, this can’t be suprising to you that your fellow man knows nothing of the judicial branch. The mainstream media has really tried to assist the cause. The problem is, the folks in the state of CA don’t give a shit. That is why the judges of the state must come together and reach consensus to take on the AOC and the JC. Screw the public they must go for the jugular of the legislature.