Alliance of California Judges
From: Rosenberg Dave
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: January 5, 2012
Colleagues,
How time flies. This will be my first “newsletter” to PJ’s in the New Year. And a challenging a year it will be. The focus of this newsletter will be limited to two subjects.
The 2012 Budget. All of us in State Government await the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. The first salvo in the development of the 2012-13 budget will occur on January 10 when the Governor will release his initial proposal. Your Executive Committee of the TCPJAC is scheduled to meet within days (on January 13), to begin the process of digesting and discussing the Governor’s proposal and how it may affect the Branch. Of course, this is just the beginning – the development of the State Budget is a lengthy and often convoluted process. Hopefully, a Budget will be adopted before July 1, 2012 – but there is no guarantee that will occur before the start of the fiscal year. How the Judicial Branch will be affected – time will tell. But, as I have said before, in these difficult times it is imperative that this Judicial Branch work together and speak in as unified a way as possible. It is perfectly appropriate for there to be discussions, debates and disagreements within this Branch – but let’s keep it that way: within this Branch. Let’s sort matters out in the Branch, and then communicate to the Executive and Legislative Branches together.
AB 1208. This bill makes significant changes in the governance of the Judicial Branch. The bill was very controversial and did not make it through the legislative process when introduced last year, and it is now a two-year bill. As a two-year bill, AB 1208 must be brought to the floor of the Assembly by the end of this month or it dies. So the next two-three weeks are critical in consideration of the bill. Frankly, I do not know what the final version of the bill might look like. The author has indicated that he is working on amendments, but we do not know what they are at this point in time. We do not know when it will be brought to the floor. In any event, the bill is opposed by the Judicial Council. I have attached, for your information, a background fact sheet on the bill, prepared by AOC staff. And here is a link to the current version of the bill for your information and background:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1208_bill_20110518_amended_asm_v97.pdf
The bill contains a number of convoluted, confusing and game-changing passages, such as the following:
“Government Code section 77202(b)(3). [T]he Judicial Council, or its designee, shall not withhold or expend any portion of the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature for any statewide information technology or administrative infrastructure program, including the California Case Management System, that was not identified in the annual Budget Act, unless the Judicial Council, or its designee, first obtains the written approval of 66 2/3 percent of a proportional representation of all local trial courts. For purposes of this paragraph, proportional representation shall be calculated according to the number of judges in the superior court of each county as a percentage of the total number of judges authorized by Section 4 of Article VI of the California Constitution in all county superior courts statewide.”
Wow! As you can see, a small number of the largest courts (even as few as 2 or 3) could have a veto power over these expenditures, simply by not giving “written approval”. And the passage raises a myriad number of questions. For example, who provides the written approval of the trial court – is it the PJ, the Executive Committee, a vote of all the Judges, or what?
For me, personally, however, the biggest single problem with AB 1208 is the timing. We have a new Chief Justice, in office only one year, who is beginning the process of actively addressing Judicial Branch issues of concern to all of us (even in these difficult financial times). And, as a result, changes in the governance of this Branch are being made. I strongly believe we need to give our new CJ a fair opportunity to address these issues within the Branch. I have grave concerns about the Legislature intervening in Judicial Branch governance.
Your action is requested: I have attached a proposed letter opposing AB 1208 which I intend to send to the members of the Assembly next week. I have signed the letter. I cordially invite YOU, as a PJ, to add your name to the letter. Time, however, is of the essence. If you would like to add your name to the letter, please let us know on or before the close of business on Tuesday, January 10. I have asked Donna Hershkowitz to compile this information for me, so you agree to add your name to the letter please send your concurrence toDonna.Herskowitz@jud.ca.gov.
Another thing you might consider doing (if you feel up to it) is to make a personal call to your member of the Assembly and let him/her know how you feel about this bill.
Cordially,
Dave Rosenberg
Chair, TCPJAC
_____________________
A link to Mr. Rosenberg’s site: http://www.daverosenberg.net/
_____________________
JCW’s first impression of Mr. Rosenberg’s letter?
.
.
.
.
JCW discussion points:
The Chief Justice had the opportunity to hit the ground running and make her mark on the judicial branch and the AOC. “It’s only been a few months” is what we heard last year. “It’s only been a year” is what we’re hearing now and next year it will be “She’s only been in office for two years.”
There is a perfectly logical reason why we refer to the Chief Justice as mini-mimi and that is because there’s been little meaningful change since the reign of King George ended. We continue to call upon the chief justice to demonstrate that she’s her own person, that she recognizes a problem when everybody but her appears to see it and that she’s willing to do something about it. And – that they are numerous.
The ploy to set up a strategic evaluation committee and scheduling them to issue a controversial report that will be blessing the AOC shortly before a general election is disingenuous.
Do you support AB1208?
The legislature reads JCW so why don’t you tell them about it.
anna
January 9, 2012
what a crock!!!
antonatrail
January 9, 2012
I agree. My first thought was “what a bullshit letter”!
AB 1208 is not convoluted or confusing in the least. Game-changing? The judicial branch should not be engaged in game-playing anyway. May the games played by the AOC’s JC be over!
anna
January 9, 2012
ACJ nails it on the head. The trial courts shouldn’t have any pressure of the AOC or the JC!!!! That is why the Cal Cont. set them up as a separate court. The SC just doesn’t like the limited role of “reviewing courts” over trial courts. Shame on them!!!!!!
They don’t want to have the transparency that comes with written opinions. They want to control the trial courts through secrecy, and implied pressure of the AOC and JC.
The legislature needs to act as a check on these dimwits.
Been There
January 9, 2012
These kind of emails from someone in the position of Judge Rosenberg are not exactly spontaneous. The clue is the sentence “I have attached, for your information, a background fact sheet on the bill, prepared by AOC staff.”. — which he just happened to have on hand! You are seeing the opening move in a carefully AOC-choreographed campaign to use the PJ’s to bolster their opposition to AB 1208.
This attempt by Judge Rosenberg and his AOC friends to keep “discussions and debates within this Branch” is disingenuous if only because the the current undemocratically appointed members of the JC represent and are beholden to a failed leadership and speak only for that leadership.
Bravo to the ACJ for their prompt, cogent, and appropriate response.
Concerned Judge
January 9, 2012
Is Judge Rosenberg overstepping his duties on the Judicial Council?
Judge Rosenberg is an ex-officio member of the Council because of his position as Chair of the Presiding Judges Advisory Committee. As such, one would think Judge Rosenberg was to advise the members of the Council and the staff of the AOC of the concerns of each of the 58 PJs in the state. Instead, he does the bidding of the AOC and advises the PJs what they should think and do.
He is a judge of a small court and could hope to know the concerns of all the PJs around the state over this issue. Importantly, it is simply not his job to use this position to craft any response to the legislature on their behalf. He is appointed by the Chief Justice. The Presiding Judges do not elect him, and now each knows he does not listen to them but rather feels it appropriate he should lecture them.
Shameful when someone feels because of their appointment they are anointed with such insight.
Wendy Darling
January 9, 2012
Shameful, indeed. But not surprising. Most of the conduct coming from the annointed “leadership” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is shameful these days, as well as absent of any sense of ethics.
And no one in any position of responsibility or authority will do anything about it.
No one.
Been There
January 9, 2012
You are correct, Concerned Judge, on each point you have made.
But as a former AOC drone, I am generally not too judgmental of JC and advisory committee members. I have seen too much behind the scenes of how judges are overwhelmed (Good morning, Justice X, here are three binders with supplemental materials for this morning’s meeting), mislead by AOC staff and paid consultant reports which portray the AOC position as the only favorable/logical outcome (staff reports on the current status of CCMS deployment are a useful example), and an seductive culture that rewards “team players.”
Judge Rosenberg may have thought he was being a team player. Hopefully, he will read your post here and reconsider how he views his role as Chair of the Presiding Judges Advisory Committee.
Michael Paul
January 9, 2012
I can second all you’ve written. Reports and studies serve only as real expensive independent reaffirmation of the direction that the AOC wishes to take.
If you want a truly independent study of anything AOC, pay for it yourself.
Elmy Kader
January 9, 2012
SAY WHAT…..
Been There
January 9, 2012
Well, Michael, we both know that any report (paid for or not) that does NOT reaffirm the direction the AOC wishes to take is tossed into the shredders and never sees the light of day.
I second Michael’s point; if anyone wants an independent and honest study of anything at the AOC, you are going to have to pay for it yourself.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 9, 2012
Careful Dave, one too many of these missives gets you an invitation to digital purgatory.
unionman575
January 9, 2012
I support 1208.
It’s time for real change before our courts totally crap out throughout this state.
Wendy Darling
January 9, 2012
Amen.