Yesterday L.A. superior court unveiled it’s own budget troubles by indicating that the states largest trial court system will have an 85.4 million dollar shortfall by the end of this fiscal year.
In the current fiscal year, L.A. will avoid layoffs and court closures by burning through their own reserves and relying on one time fixes. That does nothing to cure the anticipated 200 million dollar projected shortfall in the following fiscal year where the states’ largest court system is looking at having to lay off as many as 750 people. Equating that to court and courtroom closures, JCW estimates that a cut this deep will close not only courtrooms but entire courthouses as scores of courtrooms are shut down. No worries though because the AOC will be building scores of empty new courtrooms in L.A. County to add to those being shut down…….
If someone can please explain the logic behind that last line written in the above paragraph, it would be helpful as John Q. Public just doesn’t understand why one would build new courthouses that the local courts and the local counties cannot afford to staff while shutting down even more courthouses.
Anyone?
It also appears all eyes are on the AOC’s 9.8 milion in reserves to be utilized to assist trial courts in an emergency, yet the largest contingent of available funding, the one source that could cure what ills every court, can be found in the AOC’s court construction program. Given this remains as true today as it was on the date of the last judicial council meeting, John Q. Public is even more puzzled why new courthouses are being built when the judicial branch cannot afford to staff the perfectly suitable courtrooms that already exist statewide. Why is it again that we need new judgeships when there is no support staff or courtrooms for them and they can’t be furloughed or laid off?
Just like jails they can’t afford to staff….
The Pitchess Detention center in L.A’.s North County houses just two inmates. The reason it houses just two inmates out of the 1,600 it maintained just a few years ago is due to budget cuts. Closing the jail completely would require it to be re-permitted which would likely involve costly remodeling to bring it up to current code. Yes, it could be more costly to shut it down completely than to maintain the two inmates there to ensure it does not need to be re-permitted. Many courthouses also have holding that would run into similar permitting problems should whole courthouses shut down. This isn’t the only L.A. jail with a problem.
In mid 2009, the LAPD finished construction on their new 84 million dollar Metropolitan Detention Center. Designed to hold 512 inmates, the jail remained empty for two years after construction because the city of Los Angeles couldn’t afford to staff the jail. This year, a decision was made to take 88 sworn police officers off the street to man the jail at a cost considerably more to the taxpayers than their civilian counterparts in the department. They also closed four other city jails to be able to have staff for MDC. It’s no surprise that occupancy remains low at the new jail. It makes sense when you pull officers off the street that you’re likely to experience fewer arrests and fewer resulting incarcerations.
How many empty courthouses are to be built that no one can afford to staff?
Judicial Council Watcher 
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 24, 2011
Since HRH Minnie-Me, the JC and AOC all seem to feel that they are above it all, perhaps it requires the filing of a FOIA request to get accurate information from the Borg collective :).
Maybe the LA judges or those on the chopping block ought to look into the spiking of the Southern Region Office Director Sheila Calabro’s pension. It seems that her friends at the AOC wanted to make sure she had a soft landing by significant adding to her final year compensation; upon which her retirement will be based. Nice…their arrogance has no bounds.
sharonkramer
August 24, 2011
They could kill three birds with one stone if they moved some of the AOC offices to jail cells and paid laid off court employees to be guards..
This would:
a. cut operarting expenses for the courts;
b. free up police to do their jobs; and
c. instead of using tax dollars for unemployment checks, the court workers would again be compensated for doing a valuable service to the public. .
keeping the FAITH
August 24, 2011
Enough is enough. When is someone in our govt going to step in and put a stop to the AOC? Every day more courts are stating that they are going to close courtrooms, courthouses and layoff hundreds of employees, thus denying access to justice for this states citizens. When is the CJ going to open her eyes and see that the ‘good ol’ days (ten years) @ 455 Golden Gate Avenue are coming to an end? Its believed by many through out the courts that the AOC has millions if not a few billion in secret accounts, which should be used to keep the courts open and functioning. But in trying to ‘fit in’ the CJ wants to keep things the way RG ran things. Open your eyes, there’s a reason why he and BV left. When the crap hits the fan, you and only you, will take the blame.
Where’s Gov. Brown? He’s been mighty silent. If LA and SF fall this state’s justice/court system will surely fail.
Wendy Darling
August 24, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, August 23, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Sherri Okamoto:
AOC Responsible for Court’s Dire Financial Straits—Judge Feinstein
Edmon Says L.A. Will Not Seek Emergency Funds, but Judicial Council Needs to Step up for Trial Courts
By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 24, 2011
This week’s Judicial Council meetings agendas:
Click to access age20110826.pdf
If you want to speak, let the JC know by 4:00 p.m. today.
sharonkramer
August 24, 2011
JC, from the doc you linked, this agenda item description pretty much sums up the problem. Item 1 on the 25th: “Judicial Branch Administration: Effective Practices in Managing Trial Court Budgets In Times of Declining Resources No Action Required. There are no materials for this item.”
And why is Huffman still doing work that is assigned to the Exec and Planning Comm of the Judicial Council? Look how they justified this. Item 2 on the 26th
“The Judicial Council at its August 27, 2010, business meeting approved the following two
recommendations that established a new process for review and acceptance of audit reports:
1. Audit reports will be submitted through the Executive and Planning Committee to the
Judicial Council. Audit reports will not be considered “final audit reports” until formally
accepted by the council.”
Presenting is: ,”Hon. Richard E. Huffman, Chair, Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch”
When you read the actual doc for this item it says:
“Rationale for Recommendation
Council acceptance of audit reports submitted by the Advisory Committee on Financial
Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch through the Executive and Planning
Committee is consistent with the council’s policy for such matters (described under “Previous
Council Action”) and with its responsibility under Government Code section 77009(h), which
states that “[t]he Judicial Council or its representatives may perform audits, reviews, and
investigations of superior court operations and records wherever they may be located.”
So now Huffman is no longer on the JC….but is a “representative” of the JC under GC 77009(h), who has the authority to do “audits, reviews, and investigations of superior court operations and records”?
GC 77009(f) states, “The Judicial Council, in consultation with the Controller’s office, shall establish procedures to implement this section and to provide for payment of trial court operations expenses, as described in Sections 77003 and 77006.5, incurred on July 1, 1997, and thereafter.”
Where does that say anything about Huffman being in charge of audits and investigations of the trial courts and having access to all their records?
From personal experience with some funky, stealth, clean-up entries in the computer file, I can tell you it is SCARY STUFF to have this man even be able to touch files!
sharonkramer
August 24, 2011
Wait a minute. (h) not (f) and does state that. But still, WHO is now in the position of deciding what gets (and does not get) audited? Looks like Huffman to me.
keeping the FAITH
August 24, 2011
Hold up??!!?!!
The Ronald M George State Office Complex? Is this the reason this character pilferred and plundered the trial courts funds so he could have a building named after him? What else has he ever done besides run the trial courts into the ground??? He’s not even dead yet and they name a building after him? SMH!!!
Wonder how much it cost?
SMH. SMH.
sharonkramer
August 24, 2011
Was thinking about CJ George today. Where is he? You never hear anything of his whereabouts. You never see him quoted in the press of the mess of the courts, or in social columns or in Retirement Living, etc. Its like he just fell of the face of the earth.
keeping the FAITH
August 24, 2011
No. You’re not going to hear from him. He was well aware of what was coming, that’s why he retired. He’s keeping a low profile, so when the you know what hits the fan, he can boast to anyone who is dumb enough to listen, that when he left things were not in the dire shape they are now in. Oh, how I long for the day when I turn on the news and see the feds surrounded around 455 Golden Gate Ave, carrying out box after box of evidence.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 24, 2011
George is doing the conservative talk show circuit and bragging about his legacy. We’ve tuned into him a couple of times. He indicated that he and Vickrey would never preside over trial court cuts and he was correct.
With respect to naming civic center after George you can thank Senator Ellen Corbett for that by ensuring she never occupies another public office.
Delilah
August 24, 2011
Where to post the links to these articles. This is all such a well-orchestrated travesty.
From Cal Bar Journal:
http://www.calbarjournal.com/August2011/TopHeadlines/TH5.aspx
I especially like Tonto’s statement about the AOC currently “eliminating 100 vacant positions.” Which all of us know is a big load of crap, and that AOC “back-fills” with temps and consultants they don’t include on their books, which is why won’t answer Judge McCormick’s simple question that any legitimate, transparent and functional entity would be able to answer within the hour. Just like Tonto said they would be “looking into” who dropped the ball on not checking on whether their contractors were actually unlicensed. or not. Gee, minor detail Guess you have to be a laid-off worker who actually would have been tasked with performing essential job duties, rather than one of a myriad of six-figure honchos who can’t be bothered with such mundane details.
NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/us/24courts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=us
Judicial Council Watcher
August 24, 2011
Tonto left out that the 100 vacant positions were recently created and went unfilled just so he could say he eliminated them. There are few in the AOC with less credibility than Mr. Overholt.
keeping the FAITH
August 24, 2011
Ok if that’s what they are doing, and if the JCW knows about it, why are they allowed to keep doing this. There are so many lies and dishonesty and fraud reeking from 455 GG Ave, and know one seems to want to step in and do anything about it. The federal building is directly across the street.
If the JCW knows then surely the people in Sacramento know about it. Can anyone, someone please explain why nothing is being done about it?
What is amazing is that Ronnie boy, is such a liar. How does he sleep at night? How can he look himself in the mirror, knowing he’s a liar. All I can do is shake my head and keep the faith that pressure from every direction is applied until this ten plus year wrong will be corrected for the benefit and good for all of those who seek, want, need and demand justice in this state.
Delilah
August 24, 2011
>>Tonto left out that the 100 vacant positions were recently created and went unfilled just so he could say he eliminated them.<<
HA! Yes, excellent point. Tonto is so "clever" and eager to prove that he "deserves" to be appointed the new Deputy Director, that he is someone with the "talent" to dole out BS and obfuscation, and so worthy (desperate) of stepping into Vickrey's shoes. One may think it's cuz he was trained at the foot of the master, but some know it also comes to him naturally because of his own character traits of … well, we'll just leave it at that.
unionman575
August 24, 2011
And the AOC building orgy goes on… as we all get slaughtered at trial courts statewide. This bullshit has to stop now.
JusticeCalifornia
August 24, 2011
Re the Bar Journal:
Part of this is scare tactics. The MINIMUM amount of time a CA family law divorce case takes is six months.
The AVERAGE amount of time a family law divorce case in SF with children, support and assets lasts, from start to finish, is much longer, I would guess at least two to four times as long. Ask any seasoned family law attorney in SF.
Or ask the AOC, which (IMHO) fuels litigation, and supposedly keeps track of the statistics. (hahaha! if you can get the statistics from the AOC.)
Delilah
August 24, 2011
Of course I meant that Tonto is eager to be appointed “Director,” not “Deputy Director.” And I meant
“checking on whether their contractors were actually licensed or not.”
lando
August 24, 2011
I have raised these points before and will raise them again.Why does the AOC employ over 100 people including lawyers to provide judicial education to the our judges? Why do AOC lawyers and other staff sit around and monitor judicial education programs? At the recent new judges orientation I am told the head of the AOC judicial education unit stated she was relieved that her division was not being cut back. Those comments if made, reflect the AOC’s insular attitude given the pink slips sadly issued across the street. This also represents all that is wrong with 455 Golden Gate.CJA and CJER did just fine with significantly less staff when they ran judicial education.In addition can someone please tell me why over 60 employees work in the Office of General Counsel? Finally I recall dealing with the AOC before “regional managers” paid over 200,000 each were installed and see nothing better or improved due to their existence. I agree with Versal we need a full and complete audit of the AOC, line by line to find out why we are wasting so many taxpayer dollars while trial courts as vital as SF and LA are in dire trouble.
antonatrail
August 25, 2011
Which trial courts will be the ones to survive; the ones who toe the AOC line or the ones who possess the temerity to question the AOC? Of course we know the answer. The truth always outs.
Ant Too
August 25, 2011
Right you are, Antonatrail. I think in the coming weeks, as the “emergency fund” becomes a hot topic, we will see that in the past, AOC-friendly courts were rewarded, while others were not. The AOC has NEVER been content to simply be a support organization. From day one, they have meddled in the internal affairs of trial courts. They have gone so far as to assist in engineering changes to local rules to enable their favorite PJs to run for second terms, though this is virtually unheard of. See, for example, Riverside, where Judge Waters, long an AOC darling (still) was assisted in her bid for a second term. The Riverside Judges, however, saw through the ploy and she was defeated by, I believe, one vote, though I may be wrong on the number.
The same approach was used in Orange County, where an AOC backer was PJ for two straight terms. (The situation in Orange has changed drastically over the past two years with the introduction of ACJ into the picture).
It appears that judges are gradually waking to the fact that the AOC cannot be counted on to deliver. See, for example, San Francisco.
mrskramer
August 25, 2011
AntToo, don’t forget to add PJ McConneel in your all star list. She has been doing a little pre-sale work that judges should be appointed and not elected.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/foru052410.htm
unionman575
August 25, 2011
DATE: August 25, 2011
TO: All Judicial Officers and Staff
FROM: Hon. Lee Smalley Edmon
Presiding Judge
John A. Clarke
Executive Officer/Clerk
RE: BUDGET UPDATE
In March of 2010, Mr. Clarke wrote to staff that “the current budget situation is more severe than anyone has seen in the past. Unfortunately, we see no relief on the horizon.” While much has happened on the budget since then, that assessment remains accurate. The tough decisions we made last year have given us breathing room to respond to the newest round of budget cuts. They have also afforded us some time to begin to adjust how we will do business in the future with a dramatically reduced budget. Given available resources, we do not expect to conduct any layoffs or furloughs in the current fiscal year. However, we project that the Court will have to make more than 600 layoffs in October of 2012 and another 400-plus layoffs in April of 2014.
Most of the California trial courts’ funding now comes from State government revenues, which have been significantly reduced by the lingering recession. Following two straight years of reductions, this year the legislature permanently reduced the annual judicial branch budget an additional $350 million. With these new cuts, the $2 billion annual base budget for the California trial courts has been permanently reduced by nearly $600 million annually – 30% of trial court funding lost to the State’s budget crisis. While other courts are suffering immediate and catastrophic layoffs, we are able to weather the storm for a brief period. This is thanks to efforts at both the state and local levels.
At the state level, in part in response to the efforts of then-Presiding Judge McCoy, the legislature reprioritized judicial branch spending, diverting money from technology and courthouse projects to trial court operations. This allowed us to cancel plans for 500 layoffs last October. This year the legislature and Judicial Council have both taken similar actions, offsetting roughly half of the accumulated cuts with one-time solutions. We are working to achieve more solutions for the upcoming fiscal year.
Unfortunately, however, statewide solutions are nearly all temporary. The only significant ongoing solutions have been achieved at the local level, by all of you. We took early action last year, losing 329 people to layoff, and another 229 through attrition. As painful and traumatic as it was to conduct those layoffs – and to continue to do our work with fewer colleagues – those savings are ongoing and permanent. We achieved more than $45 million in savings – the only significant permanent solutions available.
Our three-year spending plan
As the one-time statewide solutions expire and as unfunded cost increases accumulate, our annual deficit will grow. This year our deficit is expected to be $85 million. Anticipating new cuts in state funding in the coming year, we project that our deficit will grow to $161 million in fiscal year 2012-13, and to $204 million in fiscal year 2013-14.
To balance our budget over these three years we will rely on three things: First, thanks to our efforts at saving, we ended last year with a fund balance of $93 million. This creates transition funding that will be used up over the next three years to delay layoffs. Second, we will continue to work at the state level to ensure that trial court operations are the top priority for judicial branch spending. Third, whatever deficits remain must be solved by additional local savings, much of which will take the form of additional layoffs.
The major features of our three-year spending plan are:
a. No furloughs
b. Selective attrition at Management discretion
c. Identify sustainable non-labor savings
d. Identify operational changes necessary to achieve targeted budgetary savings for a Phase II – $80.0 million reduction plan and a Phase III – $49.5 million reduction plan
e. Use Fund Balance to offset unresolved budgetary shortfalls in FY 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14
We are working at the state level to continue to ensure that trial court operations are the top funding priority for the judicial branch. But even with those efforts, we foresee that the depth and duration of the cuts already experienced will outlast the solutions. This is a bleak outlook, reflecting the dire circumstances of the State budget and its likely slow recovery. The past two years have done nothing to change our prediction that cuts to the courts would be deep and lasting.
What’s next?
Our transition funding will delay the inevitable contraction of the Los Angeles Superior Court, allowing us to begin now to adjust how we will do business in the future. What does that mean? You all have already shown remarkable creativity and dedication in a myriad of innovations throughout the Court that have allowed us to continue to function with reduced resources.
In the months that come, we will experience a different kind of adjustment: pulling back our services to reflect the fact that we will be smaller court. We know that that approach will have its own challenges, since there is nothing we do that is not important, and since everyone who works at the Los Angeles Superior Court is here because they want to help people and to deliver justice. But the legislature, tasked with the burden of distributing a greatly reduced pool of resources, has chosen to fund a smaller court system. We will continue to work toward reducing the cuts. We are also aggressively pursuing efforts to relieve the court of some of its statutory mandates.
But in the end, it will fall upon us to make the difficult choices of which services we must compromise in order to deliver on our core obligations. This is not what any of us signed on to do. But it is the task before us for this next year.
Over the past decade, perhaps the most turbulent time the Los Angeles Superior Court has seen, we have been severely tested. However, through our collective sacrifice, we have passed every test and continue to deliver access to justice for millions of people each year. The current budget crisis may be our greatest challenge ever. One way or another, together we will continue to make justice available to those who need it.
unionman575
August 25, 2011
On a side note, the Los Angeles Superior Court is now currently on a big time management promotion binge as they get ready to layoff 1000 or more workers THAT DELIVER JUSTICE.
We are getting hit with our own internal bloat and waste plus the AOC’s bloat and waste. Sometimes I wish I had remained a well paid man in the business world instead of becoming a unionized public servant with all the powers that be taking a dump on you and me.
MrsKramer
August 26, 2011
Do you think they were laughing when they took the name of some buildings that used to be called a “Civic Center”, stuck Ron George’s name on it, and renamed it a “State Office”?
Office of the State does seem more appropriate for what this man has done to California’s judicial system. The “Ronald George Civic Center” would have been a huge oxymoron.
http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/12/schwarzenegger-sfs-civic-center-complex-to-be-renamed-ronald-m-george-state-office-complex.php
courtflea
August 30, 2011
How can Ron O sleep? he is laughing all the way to the bank.