The following is a statement we issued to the media:
We are pleased that the California Assembly has passed AB 1208. This is an essential step in a process of judicial reform that began in the Fall of 2009.
We thank the Members of the Assembly for at all times according the Alliance of California Judges a full and fair hearing upon the merits of the legislation and for their final decision to pass the measure.
We also thank our many hundreds of members and others who have worked tirelessly to advance the principles of this legislation.
It is a very difficult time for the courts. We hope that this will now be a new opportunity for the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council to accept our longstanding request to meet and discuss a fair resolution of the issues.
Judge David Lampe, Kern County
Judge W. Kent Hamlin, Fresno County
Judge Tia Fisher, Los Angeles County
Judge Susan Lopez-Giss, Los Angeles County
Judge Dan Goldstein, Dan Diego County
Judge Maryanne Gilliard, Sacramento County
Judge Steve White, Sacramento County
Judge Kevin McCormick, Sacramento County
Judge Andy Banks, Orange County
Judge Mike Hayes, Orange County
Judge Jeff Burke, San Luis Obispo County
Judge John Somers, Kern County
Judge Mark Forcum, San Mateo County
Justice Thomas Hollenhorst
The Chief Justice issued the following statement immediately after the vote:
“People who know the facts know that this is no victory for Californians, for our state courts, or for equal access to justice. Our focus now turns to the Senate where we will continue to disseminate current and accurate information about the needs of the trial courts and the people of our state and the detrimental impact that this bill will have on meeting those needs. I thank all of those who have worked so hard on behalf of a fair justice system and who will, I know, continue to do so because of their commitment to the equal administration of justice across the state.”
The following is an excerpt from a letter we sent to Assembly Members on the morning of the vote:
We have met with the current Chief Justice. We met with her in November of 2010. We explained that we had been working for a year on this legislative solution, but asked her to work with us. She was well aware of our efforts as a member of the Judicial Council. [Judge David Lampe] met with her after the bill was introduced and asked her to put a delegation together to meet with us to determine if we could work out a compromise. We have heard nothing in response to these invitations. The offers stand.
_____________________________________________________
A note from JudicialCouncilWatcher
For the last thirteen months, the current chief justice has been engaged in window dressing. What has been exposed here and elsewhere shakes the conscience of the common man and undermines the public confidence in our judicial branch.
Undermining public confidence in judicial branch governance was not our doing, nor was it the fault of the Alliance of California Judges, the Los Angeles court system, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State & Municipal Employees, the states police officers or certain members of the media who backed this bill and worked tirelessly and independently to get this off the assembly floor. You can’t blame it on democrats. You can’t blame it on republicans as this bill was about as bipartisan as a bill can get in California.
Undermining public confidence in judicial branch governance can be attributed to the blind puppet in a fake tree and her leadership team of long time judicial council cronies. It is also attributed to the current failed leadership team of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Yesterdays vote was nothing less than a stunning rebuke of chutzpah, of false claims and other versions of the truth.
Today a new dawn is on the horizon but don’t believe for a second that our job is done yet. The AOC continues to rip money away from local trial courts to fiercely lobby against the legislation. The AOC is fiercely lobbying for their own survival, for the right to expand their operations further, for the right to take a greater piece of the pie and to dismantle our civil justice system via backdoor litigation reform all to preserve their empire, to justify their stratospheric salaries, to justify their unchecked growth.
There are a few others that worked tirelessly to ensure this legislation was passed and we would be remiss in not mentioning them. We can’t mention them all because we don’t know them all. But we’ve seen judges from courts large and small across the state and a clear majority of the ACJ as well as the CJA that backed this bill. We’ve watched the unions who initially had a lukewarm response to the legislation back it in a big way.
Judicial Council Watcher is also aware of the former AOC employees that not only exposed the problems, they set out to do something about it. A special thanks goes out to former AOC and court employees Paula Negley, Jack Uruqhart, Merilee Fielding, Michael Paul, Jon Wintermayer and several others who unwittingly sacrificed their careers to call attention to the waste, the fraud and the mismanagement that created the need for this bill.
While our work remains unfinished, one thing is perfectly clear:
We can do this.
On behalf of all of us here at JCW, we wish to thank each and every one of our thousands of readers and the hundreds of people who took a stand for freedom, democracy and justice. Contrary to the lip service of our chief justice, the people are the real winners here.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Elmy Kader
January 31, 2012
Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.
I’m humbled to be a member and a voice with this wonderful group of Americans JCW, and honored to be led by the honorable Alliance of California Judges in a battle to restore the true might of America. Our justice system the envy of the world.
althepal55
January 31, 2012
¡felicidades y gracias!, JCW!
I reiterate:
As we (and our constituency) approach the celebration of the great American,
César Estrada Chávez, I say,
“¡Sí Se Puede!
On to the Senate!
In solidarity,
Alan Ernesto Phillips
Chairman
NORTHERN HISPANIC LATINO COALITION
P.O. Box 990875
Redding, CA 96099
http://www.northernhispaniclatinocoalition.org
Wendy Darling
January 31, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, January 31, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Autonomy Bill Passes State Assembly, 41-23, Goes to Senate Next
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The state Assembly yesterday passed AB 1208, which would give greater autonomy to California trial courts.
Courthouse News Service reported from Sacramento that the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Industry passed by a vote of 41-23. The legislation now goes to the Senate.
The bill would give trial courts greater administrative and financial autonomy. It has divided judges across the state, with many in Los Angeles and other large counties voicing strong support but with equally staunch opposition coming from many in the smaller counties.
Forty-two of the state’s 58 superior court presiding judges recently wrote in opposition to the bill. A major backer has been the Alliance of California Judges, which has touted passage as a way of returning to the courts traditional administrative prerogatives that have been eroded since the state took over court funding in the 1990s.
The debate, Courthouse News Service reported, was driven in large part by complaints over the mammoth computer project known as the California Court Case Management System, or CCMS. The project was the subject of a scathing report last year by State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, who noted that its cost had grown from an initial $260 million estimate to $1.9 billion, with vendor contracts being amended 102 times.
Supporters of AB 1208 cited CCMS as an example of a central bureaucracy that had run amok and needed to be reigned in. Opponents agreed that the project had been mishandled, the news service said, but argued that AB 1208 was not the appropriate response and would have unintended consequences.
Assembly Judiciary Chair Mike Feuer, D-West Hollywood, opposed the bill, saying it could lead to cuts in interpreter programs and court self-help centers.
The directors of the Alliance of California Judges, including Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Tia Fisher and Susan Lopez-Giss, said in a statement:
“We are pleased that the California Assembly has passed AB 1208. This is an essential step in a process of judicial reform that began in the Fall of 2009….
It is a very difficult time for the courts. We hope that this will now be a new opportunity for the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council to accept our longstanding request to meet and discuss a fair resolution of the issues.”
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
January 31, 2012
The Chief said:
“People who know the facts, know that this is no victory for Californians, for our state courts, or for equal access to justice. Our focus now turns to the Senate where we will continue to disseminate current and accurate information about the needs of the trial courts and the people of our state and the detrimental impact that this bill will have on meeting those needs. I thank all of those who have worked so hard on behalf of a fair justice system and who will, I know, continue to do so because of their commitment to the equal administration of justice across the state.”
—Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakaueye
I say:
Waaaahhhhh. It’s my ball and I want to go home.
Wendy Darling
January 31, 2012
As previously noted, FYI to the Office of the Chief Justice: stomping your foot and pouting is not attractive behavior.
Long live the ACJ.
Underground
January 31, 2012
Sorry that I’ve come to this party late but hey better late than never. I’m surprised there weren’t more news reports ramming the AOC (like the San Diego tv story). We need to get the Courthouse News machine cranking. How come other tv stations aren’t picking up these stories?
antonatrail
January 31, 2012
Another news article, this time from San Diego. (You rock, I-Team!)
http://www.10news.com/news/30344140/detail.html
I’m still floating on a rosy cloud of relief …
Wendy Darling
January 31, 2012
Don’t float too far, Ant. We’ll soon need you back on the trail over at the State Senate, nipping at the heels of the CJ’s buddy, and political roadblocker, a.k.a., Darrell Steinberg.
And, yes, the 10 News I-Team does, indeed, rock!
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 31, 2012
“A failed institution that is failing the trial courts that it is entrusted to protect.”
Sounds like a vote of confidence to Tani……
Wendy Darling
January 31, 2012
Deloitte must be getting their legal advice from the AOC’s Office of General Counsel . . .
Published today, Tuesday, January 31, from Courthouse News Service, by Dave Tartre:
Deloitte Fights Use of Internal Reports in Software Litigation
By DAVE TARTRE
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – With a trial coming up, Deloitte Consulting is fighting against use of potentially damaging evaluations tied to the installation of software for Levi Strauss.
The famous maker of American jeans says that Deloitte’s work served as a road to ruin, and that Deloitte used Levi Strauss’ U.S. operations as a training ground to furnish its own inexperienced employees with trial-and-error experience in how to implement SAP software. It is suing for $100 million for the extensive business damage allegedly resulting from the software.
Separately, Deloitte sued Levi Strauss in an attempt to collect about $8 million in fees under the same deal.
In a separate software deal, Deloitte is currently working for the California courts on a massive and widely criticized computer software project, called the Court Case Management System. That project has subjected the Administrative Office of the Courts to intense criticism and was a driving force in the Assembly’s vote in favor AB 1208 on Monday.
That legislative bill would greatly limit the power of the administrators to embark on similar projects in the future.
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/31/43512.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 31, 2012
What a shame Wendy more problems for Deloitte.
=)
unionman575
January 31, 2012
http://www.10news.com/news/30344140/detail.html
State Assembly Approves Court Funding Bill
Local Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher Highly Critical Of Administrative Office Of Courts
POSTED: 4:24 pm PST January 31, 2012
UPDATED: 5:12 pm PST January 31, 2012
SAN DIEGO — Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, railed against California’s court bureaucracy Monday as the state Assembly approved a bill that would give control of the state court’s $3 billion budget to the Legislature.
Fletcher said the Administrative Office of the Courts, the court’s governing body, overspent on routine court maintenance, building courthouses and the court’s computer upgrade project. He said they can’t be trusted with public money.
The 10News I-Team has repeatedly detailed how AOC leadership spent hundreds of dollars to hang a clock, replace a light bulb or set a mousetrap in San Diego courthouses.
The I-Team also revealed AOC leaders spent thousands of dollars on liquor and dinners during business trips.
In San Diego County, some court clerks told the I-Team how the court’s computer upgrade project didn’t work, making their jobs harder and slower. The cost of that statewide computer upgrade went from $260 million in 2004 to an estimated $1.9 billion in 2010.
The state auditor cited numerous problems with the contracts and bidding process. Fletcher called the AOC, which oversees court business including maintenance, construction and the computer project, “a failed institution that is failing the trial courts that it is entrusted to protect.”
Fletcher said court administrators spent $5,000 to paint a closet, $21,000 to replace lights in a parking lot in Los Angeles and $210,000 to repave a parking lot the agency leases month-to-month.
unionman575
January 31, 2012
The measure now goes to the Senate, where it faces stiff opposition from Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).
We need to pump the humps EVANS & STEINBERG in the Senate (see above) now.
One Who Knows
January 31, 2012
UnionMan –
I noticed that AFSCME is not an official supporter of AB 1208 – any chance you guys will do that soon?
courtflea
January 31, 2012
JCW, welcome back I thought you were in hibernation!! Congratulations alliance! while I have expressed my reservations in the past about this legislation (concern about how it will give equal say for small courts and large courts and not give a short shrift to either one), at this point, anything is better than AOC/JC control. However, I hope the Alliance did not sell their soul to SEIU to make it happen. But that is politics and I guess whatever works! Here is hoping that we are close to the demise of the JC and the central politburo and on to the Senate!
One Who Knows
January 31, 2012
Flea –
The cynicism we all share about the JC/AOC shouldn’t be carried over to the ACJ or SEIU and the fact that these two organizations both support reform in the Judiciary. AB 1208 is a shared goal nothing more, nothing less. I would guess that the selling of souls has occurred among the opponents of 1208 and not the other way around.
Underground
February 1, 2012
I don’t think they sold their souls but I do strongly believe when the dust settles and this bill passes these judges need to step forward and remember the employees unions who made it happen. Remember, the legislature isn’t afraid of a few hundred judges during re-election time, it is afraid of the union hammer.
antonatrail
February 1, 2012
I sorely wish the judges would step forward now and support the Alliance. This is no time for neutrality, timidness or passivity.
Please, all judges, help the Alliance help YOUR judiciary branch!
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
January 31, 2012
Great work, All, in getting this passed in the Assembly. On to the Senate. We need to pull in allies from everywhere we can.
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/
versal-versal
February 1, 2012
In the Senate the forces for good need to articulate the real facts that have led us to this point. No one has ever elected the Chief Justice to run and dictate policy over an entire branch of government. The idea that access to justice depends on centralized control and uniform rules is simply wrong. Only with the insular and anti democratic rule that was commenced in 1998, have we seen court closures and budget problems so significant that employees have been laid off and service to the public radically reduced. Insular rule created CCMS and the huge waste of millions and potentially billions of branch funds on a computer system that will never work and will be out of date if ever deployed.Insular rule has led to huge wastes of taxpayer dollars on courthouse construction funds with much more to come.( Check out Santa Clara County for example). Insular rule led to the out of control growth of the AOC who still to this day can’t help themselves to observe a hiring freeze like the trial courts. Insular rule has led to a continued suppression of dissenting views both inside the judiciary and within the AOC. Did any of this change with a new Chief Justice? Absolutely not. For anything to ever really change the Chief Justice needs to take a whole new approach and honestly step back and consider why AB 1208 passed out of the Assembly yesterday.
antonatrail
February 1, 2012
So well said, versal-versal! Thanks. So telling that, yes, “no one has elected the Chief Justice to run and dictate policy over an entire branch of government.”
Mrs. Kramer
February 1, 2012
Does anyone else see Judge Scotland’s move as a conflict of interest? In the Bee article, the CJ stated that AB1208 is “meddling” and is dangerously promoting the legislature take control of the judicial branch.
Their campaign theme as they lobby the Senate while trying to keep complete control of the courts’ coffers is “Separation of Government Bodies. Meddling is a threat to the Constitution”.
Now look at this:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/29/43427.htm
“Retired Justice Arthur Scotland has resigned his position as head of a committee looking into reform of the central court bureaucracy because of the appearance of conflict in his recent decision to represent California’s two most powerful Democratic legislators.
…Scotland said. “The reason I decided to take the case is it’s really a unique case on a type of issue I care very much about, the separation of powers.”
….. Scotland said his resignation had nothing to do with the bill, AB 1208…that has drawn the ire of both the chief justice and the central bureaucrats.
…..Scotland agreed to represent Assembly Speaker John Perez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg in their case against Controller John Chiang, filed last week in Sacramento Superior Court.
…..The lawsuit involves fundamental issues around the separation of powers between the executive branch and the Legislature. The Democrats contend that Chiang wrongly withheld their pay in June 2011 after determining the state budget was not balanced. Seen as a form of financial punishment, the decision cost lawmakers over $4,000 each.
…..Sometimes appearance trumps reality.”
I think the reality is that it appears those in the Senate who support the Judicial Council just positioned an inside lobbyist to preach the CJ & JC message of “Separation of Government Bodies. Meddling is a threat to the Constitution” (and your wallet) to their fellow voting members.
“……Scotland said attorney-client privilege barred him from revealing who approached him, but he said it was someone in the Legislature.
…..”I really actually had no thought about practicing law after retirement, but after I was approached on this it was too good to pass up,” Scotland said.”
I would love to know WHO approached him and what the pitch was that was too good to pass up.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 1, 2012
That caught our attention too. The voters passed an initiative that indicated that legislators aren’t to be paid by the man responsible for funding California, California state controller John Chiang unless they produce a balanced budget.
That seems to impose a responsibility on the executive to provide checks and balances on the state legislature through their paychecks as the voters had intended to ensure a balanced budget is passed by the deadline or they don’t get paid.
It will be an interesting case to follow but let’s not forget that Speaker Perez backed AB1208 and Steinberg has demonstrated he can be swayed.
unionman575
February 1, 2012
“One Who Knows”, as you KNOW, you can call Willie Pelote at AFSCME in Sacramento anytime and make an inquiry.
=)
One Who Knows
February 1, 2012
That call is better coming from you! 🙂
sharonkramer
February 1, 2012
“let’s not forget that Speaker Perez backed AB1208 and Steinberg has demonstrated he can be swayed.”
Good point and good to know.
unionman575
February 1, 2012
I am doing my thing here unfettered by the international. Those who know me, know I do what is right, and AB1208 is the right thing to do.
=)