Good morning California,
The live link to the meeting can be found here.
Welcome to JCW’s partial coverage of the August 26th, 2011 Judicial Council Muppet Show where conflicted loyal appointees of King George and Queen Mini-Mimi once again outnumber free thinkers and feign governance yet again.
In reviewing the agenda items, one of the items that caught our attention was a document called Court Facilities: Modifications Budget & Prioritized List 2011. This document prioritizes all facilities modifications. At the end of this document is a very revealing list of over-estimating that should be downloaded and analyzed by every concerned court.
Take a look at attachment C, which represents court modifications that are prioritized level 2 through level 6 based on urgency very closely as they pertain to your court. Then go assign a technically savvy person in your court to get three bids on this same work as estimated and proposed by OCCM’s previously unlicensed contractors. We’re confident that you will be able to save millions on these quoted costs and further underscore the waste in the facilities maintenance and modifications program. If you recall, this program is exempt from public contract code so they only have to get one estimate. Usually these estimates are commissioned as paid studies from their service providers. The estimates you can likely develop will be free if you have the technical capability to develop an accurate scope of work. If a study exists, you can ask OCCM for it and use that as a scope of work to go get estimates.
_______________________________________________________
Two very moving statements by two clerks.
Mr. Stewart was the first clerk.
The second clerk, Mr. Laberini is very emotional. Anyone listening must also be moved. We were.
Judge Kevin McCormick – a director of the ACJ – reconsider your decision. Offset the cuts to the courts. He is speaking to the issue of not yet having the list of those who earn at the AOC. He’s a strong public speaker, which is beneficial to the ACJ and to underscore his point. We feel confident that he will not see this list for a few months based on another question asked of E&P. That question sought to identify the consultants and contractors being paid by the AOC and the chair of E&P indicated that he queried the AOC and was expecting answers in October, notably the next council meeting.
The third was an attorney. We didn’t get the name but another reader believes it was Christopher Dolan, praising the JC and the AOC.
Of interest, there was an open mic about 5 minutes before the meeting that one of our savvy readers caught.
About 5 minutes before kickoff, the automated voice was saying “The meeting will start shortly, etc”
An open mic broke in and it was Tani. She said, as near as I could type it was:
“Chris Dolan –has–does he know about the offer to Feinstein?” then the automated voice resumed for a few minutes before the meeting started.
The Chief Justice then reports on her activity and Kann’s and Vickrey’s retirement.
Unbelievably, she is presenting Vickrey with a leadership award named after him and naming a conference center after him.
She is now listing all of his awards. One wonders if anyone will ever list his indictments…
________________________________________________________
The long winded, monotone Vickrey thank you. You have a copy of his written report.
Ron Overholt discusses a mitigation plan of limited assistance for San Joaquin and San Francisco, discussing his conversations with Yuen and Feinstein to possibly avoid layoffs this year.
_________________________________________________________
skipping various committee reports- we get to CCMS.
Judge Herman & Justice Bruniers speak about the testers and thanking them and speaking to deloitte.
Justice Bruniers declares “with one small exception, we are there”
He discusses the external deliverables as 121 data exchanges and represents that the 800 or so coding errors that existed in December that there are now zero-zero-thirteen defects. With exception to JBSIS reports as a major defect, which will be separated from the rest of the project and fixed, everything else works. He discusses that this product has been certified and tested by all CCMS courts. He discusses that the system has been stress tested as well “under real world conditions”.
How can we know it successfully completed testing when others are whispering to us it remains defective?
Mark Moore: thirteen level 3 defects. Level 3: a defect that that has a work-around. There are zero level one defects, zero level two defects, thirteen level three defects.
CCMS was known as one year pause..no longer known as that. Going to the legislators in Sept to ask for budget for it. What? You don’t have the numbers together yet? Something about $74M before adjustments. Have been giving presentations of it throughout the state. We would not be were we are today without the efforts of Mark Moore and his staff.
Judge Pines knows how to net it out, “The issues for me are if we can afford it and what our priorities are.”
There has been a few good arguments regarding a 300.00 fee for complex case management fee, including Judge Kramer.
Then the lizard speaks…. She starts off correcting everyone in a manner that only she believes. Her argument about not imposing the fee appears to be weak from our point of view. Her argument is pedantic and resistant to any suggestion of uniform implementation of any additional complex litigation fee.
There seems to be a question if it is a fee that requires a 2/3rds vote of the legislature, which wouldn’t be happening anytime soon. There seems to be some question of legal authority. We think the lizard’s approach was both pedantic and alienating, whereas other concerned parties were more diplomatic about touching on the legislative concerns.
This legislative session closes on September 9th?
Judge Pines suggests that the Judicial Council has a workable arrangement to keep San Francisco operational for the next year that is awaiting to be addressed by the San Francisco court.
Judicial Council members keep on touching on the “we’re all in this together, it’s not us against the trial courts” yet there remains a gulf of available overall funds that are not being used to mitigate the challenges.
________________________________________________________________________
The next subject, agenda item six concerns adopting public contract code as california judicial branch contract law manual.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/082611item6.pdf
Page six of this document is a problem. The AOC intends to adopt local contract law manuals in addition to branchwide ones. Of concern would be that the AOC considers facilities maintenence and modifications as a local manual maintained locally. This is yet more of the fox guarding the hen house. We would argue that local entities are also given some discretion for similar activity and thus should be adopted branchwide so that the AOC isn’t working with one questionable rule book while everyone else has a viable rule book.
Mary Roberts wants to rush adoption of a Judicial Branch manual into place by October to avoid state contracting being imposed upon them. Simple is not better.
We suggest that no reason exists to rush these manuals into adoption without being complete, subject to public comment and subject to public review.
We would also point out that unlike public contract code, there is no violation or penalties for violating any section of this manual.
…
Due to previous commitments we ended our coverage at the lunch break but feel free to add to the discussion.
______________________________________________________________________________________
.
MrsKramer
August 26, 2011
Oh brother! CCMS was known as one year pause..no longer known as that. Going to the legislators in Sept to ask for budget for it. What? You don’t have the numbers together yet? Something about $74M before adjustments. Have been giving presentations of it throughout the state. We would not be were we are today without the efforts of Mark Moore and his staff.
Judge Pines knows how to net it out, “The issues for me are if we can afford it and what our priorities are.”
Michael Paul
August 26, 2011
Certainly, there should be a reference to penalties under public contract code otherwise it is not similar to public contract code. It’s a policy and procedures manual, not a law as the legislature intended.
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2011
Published today, Friday, August 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Debate at Top of California Courts Opens Up
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/26/39320.htm
And in case anyone was wondering about the several references Vickrey made to “last night” during today’s Judicial Council meeting . . . the Judicial Council and the AOC threw Vickrey a big party at one of San Francisco’s expensive hotels last night.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 26, 2011
gotta love this article. minimimi and her stupid sidekick kim turner– it’s all the ACJ’s fault.
giggle. laugh, guffaw.
minimimi, get some new advisors. Please.
sharonkramer
August 26, 2011
Talk about a narcissistic princesst! Hundreds of people are worried about losing their jobs. Its evidenced they were destroying records while families have be devastated, Its nothing short of criminal of what Michael and John blew the whistle on (and me too!). And that self absorbed, $#@%@###, has the audacity to refer to these severe ethics breaches and the judges sounding the alarm of squandered money hampering justice as “other noise” that CAUSED the courts to receive less money.
From the article:
“Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said she had urged the legislature to spare the judicial branch, by explaining what harsh budget cuts would mean for the courts, but her pleas were drowned out by what she called “other noise” being made in Sacramento by judges dissatisfied with the judicial branch. ‘There was too much other noise going on about the judicial branch that wasn’t about the budget,’ she said.”
Damn right its not about the budget. Its about corruption and ineptitude in the judicial branch at its highest levels.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 26, 2011
Indeed. We might add that the noise is far from over.
One Who Knows
August 28, 2011
Wendy –
Please share more about the Vickery shindig, if more is known. Where? Who paid? Who and how many attended? Would be good to know. Thank you!
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2011
Also published today, Friday, August 26, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Sherri Okamoto:
Local Superior Court Leaders Say They Will Lay Off Over 1,000
By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 26, 2011
And this is not so funny. I was at the JC meeting when it told the LA courts they had reserves they could use so they didn’t have to lay off employees. They did lay off employees. SF apparently didn’t. . . .
interesting.
Wendy Darling
August 26, 2011
Published late today, Friday, August 26, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
Viewpoint: Trial Courts Are Not the Cause of the Financial Crisis
Robert A. Dukes and Timothy L. Fall
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202512446114&Viewpoint_Trial_Courts_Are_Not_the_Cause_of_the_Financial_Crisis
Capital Accounts: Canadian Firm Gets Long Beach Court Project
Cheryl MillerContact
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202512602974&Capital_Accounts_Canadian_Firm_Gets_Long_Beach_Court_Project
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 26, 2011
SomeONE is playing with the comment ratings system again.
JusticeCalifornia
August 26, 2011
I think JCW’s emphasis on the ONE in someONE.
Hey someONE, step up to the plate, man/woman up and post a substantive comment like the rest of us do.
Delilah
August 26, 2011
Wow, funny how the thumbs-downers never write anything of substance to dispute, clarify, or defend against inaccuracies in a post or a link. Wonder why that could be if it’s all so grossly unfair or inaccurate. ??? Guess being able to hide behind a little thumbs-down symbol comes as natural as hiding behind black robes of the self-serving, insulated and rubber-stamping JC. And who does that? Me thinks they doth protest too much. Guess they don’t like the feeling of the budget rope being tightened around the necks of anyone other than local trial court employees Welcome to our world! After all, isn’t it the JC/AOC who said “we’re all one branch”? Share the pain! And bring me my violin.
JusticeCalifornia
August 26, 2011
I think JCW emphasized the ONE in someONE? Silly sycophant, trix are for kids. Man or Woman up — put yourself on the line substantively.
Attractive Dissenter
August 26, 2011
What the new Chief is doing is truly tragic. It is embarrassing to work for the judicial branch in California
lando
August 26, 2011
The CJ and her insular supporters want to go back to the former CJ’s mantra that the judicial branch only speaks with one voice. Sorry this remains a democracy at least the last time I checked. This CJ like the last one was never elected by a single voter to speak for an entire branch of government. The honeymoon is long over and it is time for our new CJ to accept responsibility and recognize that the insular and anti-democratic policies of former CJ George and J Huffman are a total failure and have led us into this budgetary mess. Tone deaf , the insiders apparently celebrated Mr Vickrey’s retirement in a luxury San Francisco setting last night , ironically in the same city that many dedicated court employees face the impending reality of losing their jobs and the sad consequences that follow from that. Enough is really enough. The JC needs to be democratized and the legislature needs to specify in their budget allocation that 98% of the court budget goes to the trial court and 2% to the AOC . That will restore balance to the trial courts so they can serve the public in an effective manner and end the waste ,bloat and arrogance that currently resides at 455 Golden Gate .
Will Scarlet
August 27, 2011
Lando’s got it right, but those days are over–no more one voice. This branch ain’t a solo act, but a choir. The Chief is casting about for scapegoats, and is rumored to be very angry, even seeking to play the personal “victim card” in all of its tried-and-true–and predictable–permutations. One wonders how she explains the fact that Ron George came in for his own share of criticism from many of the same folks, unless my memory fails me.
The gang up at AOC headquarters seem very desperate now. They will probably sweeten the pot in an attempt to silence Judge Feinstein. Any predictions on how high the offer will go?
Speaking of that, what became of the Bert Pines from the last meeting? Was he taken by Body Snatchers or something in past month? What’s up with him dissing Judge Feinstein yesterday?
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 27, 2011
One really bad thing that is quietly slipping past everyone is the significant “procedural updates” to CJP procedures. Judy McConnell, Fred Horn and their legions have re-drafted significant parts of the Judicial Canons of Ethics. Judges will lose even more of their First Amendment Rights which result in formerly protected speech serving as the basis of disciplinary charges. If charged with ethics violations, judges will lose many more of their existing Due Process Rights. Where is the CJA on all this????????????????????????
Judy McConnell’s band will literally becomes a Star Chamber, in which Minnie-Me & Company can target judges and even discipline them for “legal error” which was supposedly exempt under the old code. Isn’t it interesting how one of HRH George’s last acts was to force Katherine Feinstein off the CJP! By rights, Katherine should have been the Chair of the CJP this year.
The time to comment on these proposed changes passes next week and most colleagues I’ve mentioned this to were completely unaware that the rule changes were contemplated.
When you are bombarded with countless emails from the AOC on a daily basis, it is very difficult for a Presiding Judge or APJ to make their troops aware of all the ongoing proposals envisioned by the AOC. A friend returning from vacation said he/she found over 80 significant emails awaiting them from their friends at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. That certainly has increased from my time. Some emails are sent to PJ/CEO for distribution, others are allegedly sent to all judges, however this seems to be selective at time.
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 27, 2011
So many good posts! Lando’s is really on the money. The Legislature must specifically direct where the money allocated to the Judicial Branch is to be spent.
The points made by Bob Dukes and Tim Fall are excellent. I would add one other example, local trial court allocate reserves (if they have any left) to cover future expenditures and increases in employees contracted benefits, both anticipated and unanticipated (e.g. medical and retirement.) While these “reserves” may appear on paper, they are restricted funds which the trial courts cannot prudently use for other purposes.
Minnie-Me & company’s increasing vitriol blaming the ACJ for the Judiciary’s budget woes are quite disturbing. HRH George decided to push for the “We must speak with one voice, and that voice is mine,” around 2004. This was the same time that HRH George was able to take over the CJA with the help of Jim Mize and Terry Friedman. Having spoken with several legislators, I can assure you that the ACJ was not the cause of the budget cuts being experienced by the Judicial Branch. HRH Cantil-Sakauye’s naivete never ceases to amaze me. She is such a lightweight, intellectually and politically, that she is going to be in for a rough time serving in her capacity as Chief Justice.
p.s.
JCW,
As to strange posts and problems with the rating system, maybe someone with the initials KK has been reading JCW with interest (and anger), maybe even having posted on 8-21 as KG.
sharonkramer
August 27, 2011
JCW, this may seem off topic to you, but I don’t think it is is. As always, you can delete if you feel that is appropriate.
By now, everyone on this board must know there are some severe breaches of ethics in the San Diego Fourth District Division One Appellate Court, where Huffman (and McConnell) operate from the bench. They could not get away with what they are doing when serving in capacities of CA judicial branch governance, IF they were shut down for the various frauds they have aided and abetted from the bench. (while the Comm on Judicial Performance, chaired by McConnell, repeatedly turns a blind eye).
Our DA is running for mayor. Among other fine attributes, she has a reputation for bullying and boycotting judges who do not fit in her agenda. She has covered for Huffman’s compromised ethics as he has covered for her’s.
Just SOME of the example of which I am aware:
1.Salcido – family court w/Huffman denying a writ involving his son and the DA’s office;
2.Kay – employee harassment w/Huffman covering that a judge used perjury when filing a complaint w/ the Bar. No investigation by the DA
3.Mine – involving workers comp insurer fraud w/Huffman covering that McConnell rewarded perjury in a strategic litigation, etc No investigation by the DA.
4.Now it appears, Pines – fraud in foreclosures as fall out from the derivative trading. Mr. Pines states, “Dumanis ‘…knowingly and purposely aided and abetted the banks in stealing people’s homes.’ Pines told the judge, ‘The reason that she is doing it is that she is getting contributions from the banks.”
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/aug/24/stringers-bonnie-dumanis-subpoenaed-michae/
There is a Fraud Assessment Commission (FAC) that specifically funds DAs to stop W/C insurer fraud. DA’s receive millions every year for this. They have a meeting coming up in Sept where they discuss the allocation of these funds.
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-overview/0200-notices/upload/2011September14.pdf
FAC knows of what Dumanis is doing as aided by Huffman with insurer fraud (and visa versa)while we continue to fund it with our tax dollars.
So, while the taxpayer is getting taken for a ride by 455 Golden Gate Avenue in SF when setting branch policies and allocating funds to the ethically challenged — the satellite office at 750 B Street in SD is contributing heavily to the corruption by their actions from the bench.
This is being aided and abetted by the local DA, who also has many skeletons in her own closet.
If SD’s DA was not so compromised herself, she could and should be taking out several bad actors at the Judicial Council, et. al who fall under her local jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that: If SD’s DA was not so compromised herself, she could and should be taking out several bad actors at the Judicial Council, et. al. who fall under her local jurisdiction.
keeping the FAITH
August 27, 2011
I have a question that I hope someone here can answer for me. When it became clear to the legislature that the AOC was not funding the courts properly, especially after the courts were forced to close a day a month in 2009, why wasn’t it made clear in 2010 and thereafter that a certain portion of the funding be allocated for the trial courts? Maybe if this had been done, even earlier than 2009, the courts wouldn’t be in this shape.
One would hope that from this day forward, meaning next year, they will do this. Cut the portion allocated to the AOC, and the waste will cease. They would have no choice but to get rid of the 850 people not needed, and return to the size they were 10 years ago. Thanks.
sharonkramer
August 27, 2011
“why wasn’t it made clear in 2010..?” As I understand it (and can evidence why I understand it this way) the answer would be “two branches of government – Schwarzenegger and George”.
keeping the FAITH
August 27, 2011
Well in light of how many courts are now coming out and saying that they are in trouble and will be forced to cut services, close courtrooms, lay off commissioners, and layoff hundreds of employees, and the fact that many judges and in some cases, CEO’s are going to Sacramento and speaking to legislators and senators, things will be different, and wording will be added to specify how much of the pie(money) will be and shall be allocated to the courts? That would be beautiful. Cut the AOC to the bare bones! Adios to the likes of Ronnie O. Ugh!
If not, and things continue as they are, the courts are doomed. Also, your reference to Arnie does make sense. He was in office for eight years, and, well, your point is made. There must be a lot of people who wish they could turn back the hands of time.
What has been allowed to happen to our courts is a crying shame. Why it has been allowed to happen is a shame. If the legislature allows it to continue to happen is a shame. Keeping the FAITH that the correct and right thing is done. Gotta keep the FAITH.
sharonkramer
August 27, 2011
JCW, maybe it would be good to discuss the changes in those Canons of Judicial Ethics on this board? I have seen some small changes that have caught my eye. But I don’t really know what I am looking for, without really understanding how they impact the judges;.
Judge Woodhull, do you know for a fact that Judge Feinstein was forced off of the CJP? Its a relevant question.
“Judy McConnell’s band will literally becomes a Star Chamber”. Trust me on this. She already IS leading the band. There can be none more political and willing to do the bidding of the king, than the Appellate court over which she presides. The CJP KNOWS what she has done that has harmed the lives of thousands while forsaking her judicial oath while practicing politics.
From what I know, you are right on the money with the Star Chamber analogy, Judge Woodhull.
“The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.”
“The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.
The Commission’s mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. While the majority of California’s judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process”…
Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the monarchy and courts.
lando
August 28, 2011
Thanks General Woodhull for the heads up on J McConnell . Did I understand all this correctly? it sounded like at the JC meeting the JC had made an offer to Judge Feinstein to allegedly “help” the SF court with their severe financial difficulties. From media reports Judge Feinstein found the offer to be of minimal help and rejected it. I am sure Judge Feinstein made the right call. She has been outstanding in standing up for the rights of all California trial courts. My question is when did the JC ever discuss this offer they made in a public setting?
While they should be helping the SF court , how can the JC be making decisions regarding the use of public funds in private? The expenditure of judicial branch public funds should be the subject of public debate and comment not something that the JC and the CJ arrange in private behind closed doors meeting. If true , this once again speaks of the arrogance and insular nature of the the current branch governance structure.
sharonkramer
August 28, 2011
Schwarzenegger is an idiot. He came to power in Ca on the platform of workers’ comp reform as a means to encourage businesses to stay/come back to CA. What he then did was bring is an ethically challenged medical association, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), to write the guidelines occupational physicians must follow if they want to be compensated by insurers. They wrote guidelines that wrongfully denied insurer liability for many types of occupational illnesses/injury – it spilled over into all medical treatment protocols in CA. It was (still is) nothing but a corrupt cost shifting scheme for insurers. When they don’t pay for injury, the taxpayer does.
Don’t you all find it interesting that so many of the cases discussed on this board had pertinent things occur between Oct and Dec of 2010? That would lead one to conclude that they were doing systematic clean up work before George and Schwarzenegger relinquished their thrones.
I can evidence the inner circle of the courts have been team playing to keep Schwazenegger’s folly in W/C policy. Its RICO and the CJP has aided it by protecting the compromised leaders of our judicial system.
The CJP: “Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the monarchy and courts.”
Its not just concern of judges being subject to Star Chamber treatment for the sake of preservation of the Army Of Corruption (AOC) political machine. You should see some of the stuff they are writing that impacts CA physicians who dare to challenge. CA physicians are going to experience more insurance industry control and have more justified fear of retaliation should they dare to expose. AB655 & SB923.
Just like Ca judges, Ca physicians are sounding the alarm to no avail:
http://www.allianceforpatientsafety.org/opposition-hb-655-hayashi.php
http://www.csims.net/pdf/SB%20923%20Asm%20Ins%20Opposed.pdf
Its not hard to track this stuff. Just follow the money. New this past week of some of what ACOEM is preaching to physicians as evidence based medicine (EBM):
1. When doctors take a patient away from work for any reason, they are substantially increasing the risk of a poor health outcome (including death).
2. Avoid work restrictions that are based on the patient’s pain, preferences, or fears.
3. Avoid prolonged or extensive passive treatments, such as physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation.
I sure home someone with supeior knowledge takes a close look at those Canons of Ethics before it is too late. If those Canons give the CJP more ability to retaliate against judges who speak out and/or justification to ignore violations of the compromised, there will be no one in the judicial system to protect whistle blowing physicians – because the judges will be operating under the same fear.
sharonkramer
August 28, 2011
Bottom Line: Calfornia’s judicial system is compromised at its highest levels and is systematically dismantling the Constitution one piece at a time. I, for one, am not going to just stand by and watch that happen. And I know many of you feel the same way.
One Who Knows
August 28, 2011
If anyone knows anything more about this party for Little Bill, please do tell…