It took the unions awhile to execute but when they executed, they did not disappoint. If anyone else’s unions are taking a stand, send us the links.
Judicial Council Watcher encourages you to welcome the American Federation of State & Municipal Employees locals 36, 276, 575, 910 & 3302, Service Employees International Union 721 and Senders Communications Group into the fray to save L.A.’s (and the rest of the states) court system!
Please, if you are a court employee anywhere in the state, please drop a note of thanks to these courageous folks for stepping up and joining us in a good old-fashioned game of hardball. We will be adding these links to our own sidebar links over the weekend. Play hard this weekend and be safe! We want to see you all back here next week.
SAVE LA COURTS COORDINATOR
Cherri Senders
Senders Communications Group, Inc.
21201 Victory Blvd. #235,
Canoga Park, CA 91303
Email: cherri@sendersgroup.com
Phone: 818.884.8966 x104
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE & COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), DISTRICT COUNCIL 36
Milo Brown, Business Representative, Court Employees
514 Shatto Place,
Los Angeles, CA 90020
Email: askmilo@yahoo.com
Phone: 213.487.9887Erica Zeitland, Communications Director
514 Shatto Place,
Los Angeles, CA 90020
Email: erica@afscme36.org
Phone: 213.252.1324
AFSCME District Council 36
Representing Superior Court Employees in LA County
www.AFSCME36.org
AFSCME Local 276
Representing Family Law Mediators
AFSCME Local 575
Representing Superior Court Clerks
http://www.afscmelocal575.org/
AFSCME Local 910
Representing Law Clerks and Research Attorneys
AFSCME Local 3302
Representing Superior Court Clerical Staff
Service Employees International Union local 721
http://www.seiu721.org/campaigns/occupational/courts/
Wendy Darling
October 21, 2011
Published today, Friday, October 21, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Branch Critics Want Court Funding Rewrite
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — It was 1997. The long custody battle for California’s trial courts was over. After years of negotiations and failed attempts, the Legislature had finally shifted primary funding responsibility for the courts from the counties to the state.
Then-Chief Justice Ronald George hailed the passage of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act — named for two longtime judiciary allies in the Legislature — as one of the most significant judicial reforms of the 20th century. At the time, the bill’s co-author, Whittier Democratic Sen. Martha Escutia, insisted the legislation would end the politics and penny-pinching that enveloped courts under county control.
Read the entire article at: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202519879063&Branch_Critics_Want_Court_Funding_Rewrite&slreturn=1
(Article is not subscription access only!)
Long live the ACJ
Judicial Council Watcher
October 21, 2011
About this article: Someone monumentally goofed giving the AOC control of some 500 buildings and allowing a body that meets six times a year to allocate funding to everyone else.
We weren’t involved back then but our guess is that when courts were under county control, there weren’t any layoffs.
While we agree that these buildings should be moved to state control, we also agree the Judicial Branch should not be in the design, construction or facilities maintenance business. Even the unions and the ACJ agree on that. Mr. Rosen either needs to be educated about the results since he seems to be their latest spokesperson – or – he is ignoring reality.
Michael Paul
October 21, 2011
It’s like spaghetti. Toss a handful up and see what sticks. He will have value to them up until he ends up in digital purgatory, just like the other temporary spokespersons.
courtflea
October 21, 2011
JCW my friend: yes there were layoffs when courts were funded by the county. Especially in the superior courts as they were not the revenue generators like the muni courts (from parking, traffic and other types of fines and fees). State funding has been a double edged sword for courts. Smaller courts in poor counties that are typically lacking in a tax base/revenue have benefited. But I must say, that no court has benefited from the AOC/JC forcing budgetary policies on courts that reduce their local control with their budgets. Can we say giving court security budgets to county sheriffs as a prime example???
Judicial Council Watcher
October 22, 2011
Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
courtflea
October 22, 2011
love ya JCW
Wendy Darling
October 24, 2011
Published today, Monday, October 24, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by C heryl Miller:
Judicial Council Panel Calls for Scrapping 2 Rural Courthouse Projects
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The Judicial Council should scrap plans to build two rural, one-courtroom courthouses and look at downsizing some of the 39 other construction projects planned around the state, a key council committee recommended Monday.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202520046636&Judicial_Council_Panel_Calls_for_Scrapping_2_Rural_Courthouse_Projects&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 24, 2011
I wish we could read the article. Can anyone please post??
Judicial Council Watcher
October 25, 2011
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cfwg-rec-sb1407.pdf
I don’t have access to the article to write a synopsis but a recommendation appears to push through with all other projects in whatever stage they are in now. Some recommendations include looking at down sizing projects.
In a nutshell: The recommendation is to cancel the 50 or so million dollars worth of courthouses serving Markleeville and Downieville. It appears our collective voices had a little influence on these recommendations of 25 million dollar courthouses serving a population of about 2000 people.It’s too late for mammoth lakes / mono unfortunately that also serves only about 2000 people. Nonetheless, it appears that prudent recommendations are being made to take another look at these projects scopes and their pricing.For the most part these two courthouses were being built in areas surrounded on all sides by national forests with tiny population centers. (ie ticket processing courts that rarely hold trials.) A better look at downsizing the other rural courthouses and re-scoping those projects will also be a prudent move.
antonatrail
October 25, 2011
This news reporter continues to be confused, i.e., referring to the AOC’s judicial council — or maybe there is no confusion. Anyway, FYI, for chuckles and chagrin:
http://www.theunion.com/ARTICLE/20111024/BREAKINGNEWS/111029901/1001/RSS