It’s a baby step but it is a baby step in a positive direction. Released just this afternoon- The link has a video. http://courts.ca.gov/15171.htm
Isn’t it time? It must be time….
Court of Appeal Justice Douglas Miller, newly-appointed chair of the council’s Executive and Planning Committee, today announced that the Chief Justice requested that the council take a “fresh and thorough look at every aspect of how the council operates and governs.” As a result, several new procedures have been established.
“Beginning August 26, 2011, the council’s business meetings will now start with an expanded public comment period,” Justice Miller stated.
“In addition, anyone wishing to comment on a matter related to judicial administration can speak directly to the council and comments will be welcome at the time the specific agenda item is presented.” In the past, public comments were made only at the beginning of council meetings and limited to items for council decision on that agenda.
Another important change is that the Judicial Council’s educational meetings, also known as “issues” meetings, will now be open to the public as a way of improving communication between the courts and the public. The Judicial Council’s next issues meeting on Thursday, August 25, 2011, will feature presiding judges and court executives discussing how to manage courts in times of declining resources.
On behalf of all citizens, we wish to thank the Chief Justice for taking this significant step towards public participation and eliminating the rarefied air.
Score one for transparency!
_______________________________________________________________________________
.
Note: After the revelations of the continued requirements to submit comments in writing for pre-approval prior to the meetings, we’ve come to the conclusion that the issue of expanded public comment is not all it is chalked up to be. It appears to be a minor change that still involves prior restraint. Members of the public attending judicial council meetings should have the freedom to address or challenge not only the issues but council members views on these issues, which may only be revealed to the public during the course of a judicial council meeting.
Judicial Council Watcher 
sharonkramer
August 16, 2011
That is encouraging. I wonder what public will be there to comment on Aug 25th and 26th? Hopefully some. It would be a loss of a great opportunity to be directly heard and a slap in the CJ’s face for her to make this effort of transparency, and no one show up.
JusticeCalifornia
August 16, 2011
10 calendar days notice of this change? Really?
For a lawyer or judge or other working legal or other professional with an inflexible working schedule?
And tell me again when the JC agendas are going up? And when the reports/materials regarding which someone might want to comment at an “issues” or JC meeting are available? (Seriously, we ALL know those massive JC binders and “updated”/ “revised” binder inserts on multi-level carts are available the day of the damn meeting).
The “revised” agenda for 7/22 went up on 7/20. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/age20110722.pdf
The “revised” agenda for the 6/24 agenda went up on 6/24.
Click to access age20110624.pdf
And so tell me again what the deadlines are for asking to be able to comment at a JC meeting?
And may I be so bold as to suggest that the August 25 and 26 events will be very well choreographed by the CJ/JC/AOC, for public and press consumption?
Sorry to be jaded, it is just that I have attended JC meetings and committee meetings, and just want all the facts, maam.
In other words: Dear Tani, please make sure the meeting materials for the “issues” and Judicial Council meetings are available at least 9 court days in advance of said meetings; and that sign ups to speak extend at least 5 court days beyond the release of such materials. This is consistent with normal CCP procedural filing/service deadlines.
Regards, JusticeCalifornia
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
JC, you write, “And so tell me again what the deadlines are for asking to be able to comment at a JC meeting?”
That’s a great question. I see nothing mention of this in the (forget his name) replacement of Robert’s Rules. One would have to assume that if we are operating under the new rules for JC meetings beginning on Aug 25/26th as is stated in Justice Miller’s video; and there is nothing in the rules about needing prior approval to comment before the meeting – then the public should be able to go and speak. Right? And if not, on what premise of law and protocol would they be basing a denial?
antonatrail
August 16, 2011
I’ll wait for the other shoe to drop.
I do appreciate the subtle change from “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” to simply “For Release.” The former was so pretentious. It could also just say “News Release,” for heaven’s sake.
I wish all those who step up God speed. I imagine however long it takes to do a background check will be the allotted time that names are to be submitted of those who wish to speak to the JC.
lando
August 16, 2011
Progress ? All this means is that there is no longer a prior restraint on First Amendment rights that we all should have. This cosmetic change will not mean anything. Unless and until the Judicial Council is democratized, nothing of importance or substance will ever change.
Chuck Horan
August 18, 2011
Rule 10.6(d) still exists, and has the force of law. Until the council actually votes to repeal the rule, requests for public comment must still be made in advance, in writing. Does Justice Miller mean that the rule will simply be disregarded when and if he chooses? I really don’t know. Staggering the public comment throughout the council meeting is something I personally like, but it also means that one must stay through the entire council meeting until a particular agenda item comes up. For those traveling from hundreds of miles away, this might prove problematic.
My take is that this is a VERY small cosmetic change. Allowing a few extra moments of public comment means absolutely nothing until and unless we have a mechanism in place guaranteeing that those speaking will be heard. Yes, democratization is essential.
sharonkramer
August 18, 2011
So, if this rule is still in effect, what has changed to offer more transparency? Is it that the new Exec Comm will exercise less descretionary exclusion of who may speak as opposed to the last members of the Exec Comm?
How can one submit a letter four days in advance to address a specific agenda item, if the agenda is sometimes not prepared more than four days before the meeting date?
Rule 10.6 (d) Requests to speak-general
The Executive and Planning Committee, in its discretion, may allow a member of the public to speak at a business meeting. Unless the Chief Justice waives this requirement, any member of the public who wishes to speak at a business meeting must submit a request of no more than two pages to the chair of the Executive and Planning Committee by delivering it to the Administrative Office of the Courts at least four business days before the meeting.
(1)Contents of the request
The request must include the following:
(A)A description of the agenda item to be addressed;
(B) A specific recitation of the proposed statement with an explanation of its relevance to the agenda item and the reasons it would be of benefit to the council in its deliberations;
(C)The name, residence, and occupation of the person asking to speak and, if applicable, the name, address, and purpose of the agency or organization that the speaker represents;
(D) If available, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the person asking to speak and, if applicable and available, the telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail address of the agency or organization that the speaker represents;
(E) The words “Request to Speak at Judicial Council Meeting” displayed prominently in letters at least one-quarter-inch high on the envelope containing the request; and
(F) A copy of any written materials the speaker proposes to distribute at the meeting.
(2) Notice of decision
The Executive and Planning Committee must respond to the request at least two business days before the meeting. The committee may grant the request in part or whole, request additional information, circulate any written materials, or take other action it deems appropriate.
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 17, 2011
Lando is 100% correct. It is not a matter of being jaded, rather it is understanding that history does repeat itself when one is dealing with the crew in SF. Nothing done by that Juggernaut at 455 GGA is not without a reason. Doug Miller’s carefully scripted broadcast is as important for what it does not say as it is for what was said.
As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. There is no way that the JC and Minnie-Me are going to permit open and honest public discussion of any issues being addressed by the Council. The practical realities alone, such as time, would not permit the JC to have open access and discussion by the public at their meetings. Out of necessity caps would be put in place to limit the time, place, and manner of any such public discussions. Otherwise, these meetings would go on forever.
Rather than laud Mr. Miller and his committee for their baby steps allegedly toward allowing some form of public comment at JC meetings, why not ask the fundamental question posed by Lando: Why didn’t the Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the Judicial Council be democratized???
Judicial Council Watcher
August 18, 2011
People who hold power are often unwilling to give that power up, which is what democracy would result in.
After the courthouse news story and with Judge Horan pointing to rule 10.6(d) as still being alive, well and SOP, this is change is window dressing until 10.6(d) is repealed.
This appears to be a public relations ploy.
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
There is really just one way to establish if they are sincere or not with their intent of transparency and wanting to hear from the public. (What are people’s favorite restaurants in San Francisco?)
Has anyone been following Senate Bill 326 regarding the court’s computer record keeping?
Click to access sb_326_bill_20110510_amended_sen_v97.pdf
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0301-0350/sb_326_bill_20110816_status.html
Wendy Darling
August 17, 2011
Published late today, Wednesday, August 17, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Moves Towards Transparency
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/17/39074.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2011
After reading the article, prior restraint is still alive and well. Comments still need to be submitted in advance. Why can’t they just have a sign-up sheet and give everyone that signs up before the meeting begins up to 5 minutes similar to what other government agencies conducting public meetings does?
MrsKramer
August 17, 2011
What are the rules? What does one need to submit ahead of time? How far in advance? Where does one submit this? Thanks.
Michael Paul
August 17, 2011
Good question. Based on the press release web page, one is left with the impression that this would be conducted like any other public meeting. It was only after Maria asked the question of Miller that the remaining issue of submitting comments a couple of days in advance was made apparent. This is one of the reasons for suggesting a block of time, like 5 minutes per speaker on a first-come/ first served basis: A sign-up sheet before the meetings. That way it wouldn’t have the appearance of prior restraint based on any number of issues, such as allowing supporters to take the stage and informing critics there’s not enough time to allow their public comment.
I also recommend the continuance of accepting public comment via e-mail, the continued publishing of public comment on the internet and the circulation of that public comment to judicial council members if an email arrives prior to the opening of business on any Judicial Council day. Given the AOC’s considerable media resources, they should televise and stream evvery JC meeting including public comment.
JusticeCalifornia
August 18, 2011
The agenda and materials also need to made available well in advance of the meetings.
But the bottom line remains– nothing will truly change until a) the method of selecting Council members changes and b) genuine oversight of the branch is implemented. There cannot be judicial independence without diversity and accountability.
Letting the cj continue to handpick the majority of the voting members of the jc is like letting a judge handpick members of the jury. The outcome becomes orchestrated.
A huge and unprecedented number of trial court judges and court personnel have made their concerns about CCMS known, and the BSA and legislature have made their concerns known. The judicial council and AOC have for the last very many years continued to assure all that CCMS is “almost” done and that it is vital to pay Deloitte millions per month to keep it alive. They say they are not hiring but rumors of recruitment and engagement of highly paid consultants abound.
In other words, all three branches of government as well as members of the public have talked themselves blue in the face about waste and mismanagement of CCMS and new court construction projects, and yet we all saw what happened at the last meeting, one month ago– the JC took the advice of two ethically compromised court executive officers/JC members– Michael Roddy and Kim Turner– who suggested that if the JC diverted money away from CCMS and new court construction to fund trial courts, it would be sending the “wrong message” to the legislature.
And the cj cannot be unaware of the folly of even considering Ron Overholt as a Vickrey replacement, temporary or otherwise– but there Ron Overholt is, in the catbird seat, along with Huffman the committee overseer.
Same as it ever was.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 18, 2011
The underlying post has been edited and appended to reflect additional information.
sharonkramer
August 19, 2011
CAOC Suggests Broad Plan to Raise Trial Court Revenues, Spend Down Reserves
Cheryl MillerContactAll Articles
The Recorder
August 18, 2011
SACRAMENTO — The Consumer Attorneys of California have endorsed a broad framework for a statewide deal that would raise revenues for trial courts.
This article requires premium access