Since the day San Francisco Superior Court (and others) issued layoff notices to employees, we’ve counted down the days until these notices are to take effect. Today marks 38 days left in that countdown. Today also happens to be the deadline for the SEC committee survey and their push questions that assume the AOC must continue to exist but be reorganized to serve you better.
Next Monday, the state legislature goes back into session and there remains an eerie calm of insignificant news – mostly comprised of a carefully orchestrated effort of the AOC’s office of communications to work with local supporters – judges – to push the CCMS agenda as a way to save money when it won’t and to push back on the state legislature on judicial branch spending cuts, while ignoring the boondoggles and misplaced priorities. To support this endeavor, they’re turning detractors of the AOC into sound bites to promote their own self-preservation agenda.
We don’t believe that the Alliance of California Judges desire to dismantle the Center for Judicial Education & Research and have deep cuts in the Executive Office Programs and Information Services as purely coincidental. These are the three main groups that represent what we all affectionately know as pravda – the AOC media machine that promotes disinformation.
We’re left to wonder what other individuals and groups are doing and what general direction they’re headed in. Coming as somewhat of a surprise to us was finding out that reserves over at San Francisco Superior Court are actually higher at the start of this fiscal year than they were at the start of last fiscal year. That does not win them brownie points in the public relations department nor the employee relations department. It also doesn’t sit well to discover that these cuts don’t hit management ranks but strongly hit those who serve the public.
Meanwhile, we continue to receive reports about bundling service work orders as to conceal the true costs of doing maintenance projects and to run the maintenance operation, while also continuing to receive reports indicating that preventive maintenance, such as changing filters and decontaminating chiller tower water has fallen by the wayside for over a year now. We’re left wondering – do a bunch of court workers and the public have to be exposed to or die from legionnaires disease before the Facilities Management Unit of the Office of Court Construction & Management re-establishes preventive maintenance in buildings to protect the health and safety of workers and the public?
Also in about 38 days – the previous contractors AGS and Jacobs will be out of a job and there appears almost intentionally, no continuity or coordination between the outgoing contractors and the incoming contractors for building maintenance. There appears to be no formal turnovers, no knowledge transfers, no interviews of current employees that might already know the systems and the buildings. Does this mean that Pride Industries and Enovity, who currently appear to enjoy no continuity of operations from the old contractor to the new contractor, will walk in to court buildings cold turkey with no knowledge base to rely upon? Southern Regional Office won’t experience such a disruption as all current Jacobs workers in the southern regional office courts get their pay checks from ABM. If there is any doubt about this, go ask them. They will just change shirts.
We think a clean formal transfer and the ability of the new operating entities to interview current employees attached to buildings is really important. It is in the courts best interests, it is in the AOC’s best interests, yet we’re not hearing that any of this is happening as of yet. We think it is in the best interests for each court to question the facilities management unit, the old contractors currently in the buildings and the new contractors inheriting the buildings about their planned transitions, formal turnovers and knowledge transfers.
There’s lots of eerie silence out there and even more things to be concerned about on top of the budgetary challenges. Budgetary challenges that nearly everyone expects to get worse – not better.
Yet, unlike other judicial branches across the country, in California the money already exists in the judicial branch to solve most judicial branch problems. At the beginning of the last legislative session, we heard Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher (D) San Diego, indicate that the AOC would be getting extra attention from the committee on accountability and administrative review. We heard Assemblymember Calderon ask for a statewide investigation of AOC spending. We hear of back room discussions, yet we haven’t heard anyone go public with any plans and by now, it should be obvious to all that AB1208, while it is an important step, it does not go far enough in protecting the trial courts from the reckless decisions of the Judicial Council and the AOC.
____________________________________________________________________________
Note: Recent reports denote that Verizon has marked email coming from hushmail as spam. Unless you don’t want email from hushmail users like JCW, you might want to contact Verizon and have them whitelist hushmail.com users.
Jim
August 9, 2011
It is my understanding that at least some of the people who work at court facilities doing building maintenence will transition over to the new providers, so at least in those instances an interview process, formal transition, etc. would likely not be necessary.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 9, 2011
In southern regional office, the new provider is the same as the old provider. They always received their paychecks from ABM. Now ABM will contract directly with the AOC for building maintenance without using Jacobs as a middleman. The other two areas, BANCRO (bay area northern california regional office) and NCRO (northern california regional office) are the areas of concern.
NCRO is where most of the negative reports are coming from with BANCRO running a distant second. Those same handoff concerns aren’t coming out of the southern California regional office area as of yet. (SCRO)
anonymous
August 9, 2011
http://www.simplyhired.com/job-id/uref75usem/court-clerk-jobs/
I recall in another post an indication that Georgia’s judicial branch was making the most drastic of all budget reductions of all judicial branches.
sharonkramer
August 9, 2011
Breaking News from 455 Golden Gate Ave:
“San Francisco district Presiding Judge Richard L. Newman will take over as acting chief judge of the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on Sept. 6, newly appointed Division of Workers’ Compensation Administrative Director Rosa Moran announced moments ago.
Newman has presided over the San Francisco office since 2009 and was a workers’ compensation administrative law judge for 14 years, the DWC said in a press release. Newman also served as lead counsel to the DWC administrative director from 1991to 1995.
Log onto WorkCompCentral to read a breaking news alert. Full coverage on Wednesday”
Judicial Council Watcher
August 9, 2011
Controller John Chiang released his July collections report today. July collections are running 10.3% below forecast or a projected 3.3 billion short on forecast through year end. Should things not get any worse we can decrease 10 million from our predicted judicial branch midyear adjustment.
courtflea
August 9, 2011
The courts are just not a sexy enough topic for the politicians of the legislature. The folks back in their district are screaming about jobs, school and law enforcement cuts. A very unfortunate fact that our friends, relatives, and neighbors have no clue. So when it comes time to vote for judicial officers that are lick spittles to the AOC, that is when we must work hard to inform these people of what is going on in the judicial branch.
unionman575
August 9, 2011
JC I am not surprised at the revenue/tax situation. The next controller rrevenue report in a month will be simiilar.
Mid year ‘adjustments’ are coming with more crushing RIF’s coming in a second or third wave for many if not mpost trial courts state wide.
Wendy Darling
August 9, 2011
Published late today, Tuesday, August 9, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Petra Pasternak:
Court Crisis Q&A With BASF President Priya Sanger
Petra Pasternak
The Bar Association of San Francisco has marshaled some familiar names to draw up possible lines of attack in San Francisco’s court budget crisis. Among the approaches BASF is weighing are legislative changes, fee increases and a legal challenge to court closures. BASF President Priya Sanger, a senior counsel at Wells Fargo Bank, said she expects each topic to come up in a meeting Thursday with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who is hosting a budget crisis-driven get-together with Bay Area bar leaders. Sanger said some of the other names on the invite list include plaintiff attorneys Joseph Cotchett Jr. and Elizabeth Cabraser, and Morrison & Foerster litigator James Brosnahan. Sanger discusses the options and the surprise $4.6 million found last week in the court reserves . . .
Entire article is by subscription access only, so maybe someone out there with subscription access could provide a synopsis ??
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202510685517&Court_Crisis_QampA_With_BASF_President_Priya_Sanger
Long live the ACJ.
Mrs. Kramer
August 10, 2011
How was SF able to increase their reserves from $180K to $4.6M in one year? If they could increase their reserves by that substantial amount last year with the current number of opened courts and employees, then why is there a need to close so many courts and lay off so many employees this year? What triggered the increase and what is different this year?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 10, 2011
Today Matier & Ross (SFCHRON) cover yet another edition of the 250K+ judicial college being run by the AOC at dolce hayes mansion. http://t.co/znkf0ie
Will these bar leaders be ignoring all that is the AOC and the real issues that are challenging trial court funding in the branch, pretending that these things don’t exist or will they be tackling them in concert or as a prerequisite to lobbying the legislature?
If you know Ms Sanger, Mr Cotchett, Ms. Cabraser or Mr. Brosnahan you might want to drop them a call or an email and suggest they to advise the chief justice to come back to the real world of reality, budgets and taxes. In some cases, these lawyers have been put on notice that it will be five years before they see a pay check, which will serve to virtually erase contingency representation.
JusticeCalifornia
August 10, 2011
Query why the new judge training basics cannot be filmed and made available to new judges and others on DVD? Not only would that be fiscally prudent, it would also provide public accountability regarding what precisely is being “taught”.
JusticeCalifornia
August 10, 2011
I would like to see the “invite list” for the “get together” of lawyers sakauye is “hosting”.
I wonder if it is the same list the SF court (along with a certain appellate justice) used to host that elite and highly controversial shakedown (I mean fundraising effort) for Judge Ulmer’s retention election.
Top leadership’s agenda has nothing to do with access to justice. It is all about money, power and control– and hiding what has gone down in the past. While sakauye organizes and pushes that agenda, I wonder what our state’s judges are doing to defend themselves, their courts and those who elected them, from that agenda?
What is that saying? God helps those that help themselves.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 10, 2011
Synopsis: Priya Sanger is considering three different routes to secure additional funds from the legislature. Litigation, lobbying for more funds from the legislature and extra fees piled onto extra fees. She, like most other attorney group leaders sees nothing wrong with the JC or the AOC. The leadership of all these attorney groups hums like drones blaming the legislature, even though it was the judicial council that refused to divert additional funds from their boondoggles.
tony maino
August 9, 2011
The article is about adequate court funding. Mr. Stephen N. Zack, the President of the ABA, says, “This is the number one issue facing our country.”
This statement lacks all connection with reality.
tony maino
August 9, 2011
oops. My comment was about an article dated August 8, 2011 in which President Zack and others talked about the lack of adequate funding for the judicial branch and set out a plan to address this. It is an ABA publication.
Wendy Darling’s post is about another article.
Robert Rully
August 10, 2011
Scary times for my co-workers and I.
sharonkramer
August 10, 2011
Something is just not adding up here. The AOC/JC is keeping money for a computer system that BSA came close to describing with practically foul language. We’re taking money to build new courts while closing other ones. SF was able to substantially increase reserves last year with its current number of employees and courts. But now must close 40% of its courtrooms for lack of funds. We are going to lay off many people. So instead of using our tax dollars to pay them to work, we are going to use tax dollars to pay them not to work (unemployment).
And now say ye what???? The CJ and the state’s lawyers think the legislature is going to give them more money with which to work or they will threaten to sue? On what grounds? Most quiet of all in this scenario seems to me to be Governor Brown. I haven’t seen a word written of his opinion on what is occurring in the judicial branch.
When you start pitting one branch of government against another over money and threats of litigation are made, it seems to me that the currently neutral uninvolved branch will be taking a stand soon. JCW, I sure hope you are right – that things are so quiet because it is the calm before the storm. And Robert, I am so sorry for the emotional stress this is causing for all the court employees and their families.
sharonkramer
August 10, 2011
I don’t know that the numbers support this, but could it be that the court employees are being used as barganing chips in a game of chicken? Meaning, either the legislature give the judicial branch tax dollar to pay them to work and the courts stay open – or – tax dollars are used for state unemployment to pay them while citizens stand in line to have their legal matters addressed. How many court employees, state wide, are slated to be laid off? How much is that in unemployment? How much money is lost when cases can’t be addressed? How much does it cost p/person p/day for someone to be jailed? Is it possible that this is what they are thinking?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 10, 2011
It’s more insidious than that. People who hold power, are influential or are rising stars don’t want to cross the judicial council. Maybe these people in leadership positions aspire to be a judge or wish favorable considerations in future court matters. Regardless, they look the other way at AOC impropriety because it is not their concern. Their concern is protecting access to the justice system and no one really wants to inform the blackjack dealing barmaid that the empress is wearing no clothes. Same brown-nosing reasons as Herman or Davis.
There remains hundreds of attorneys who do not share Ms. Sanger’s belief about where the real problems lie. They don’t lead the San Francisco Bar Association, nor does anyone wish to tell the empress that she is without clothes. All of the judges sitting on the Judicial Council that are getting new courthouses if they just have the willpower to gut trial court funding are equally to blame but would you want to be the attorney who pointed this out?
Remember that in ancient Greece, the messenger of bad news must be killed.
sharonkramer
August 10, 2011
Ancient Greece? I thought Michael lives in San Francisco. 🙂 If that is the case, then I would think the odds are better that the other two branches of government would push back. I find it really interesting that Brown has not said a word about this – to my knowledge.