February 15, 2012
Dear Members:
The Sacramento Bee ran an editorial today entitled “Lawmakers and Courts Need to End Their Rift.” We attach that editorial for your information. (JCW: Due to copyright restrictions, please follow the above link)
The Alliance of California Judges agrees that intemperate remarks made against legislators “diminishes the dignity” of the office of the Chief Justice. We also agree that it is not a prudent strategy to “pick a fight with the body that controls” our budget.
Please know that before AB 1208 was introduced, the Alliance met with the incoming Chief Justice to discuss in part the need for statutory reform to give the trial courts a role in setting priorities and controls for spending. While we were disappointed in the outcome of that meeting, we continued to hold out hope that a mutually agreeable solution to these growing problems would be addressed. Sadly, those hopes were dashed by continued spending and public defense of CCMS, bungled construction and maintenance projects, and the continued growth of the AOC. It is clear to all, including the Legislature and the media, that the spending priorities of our branch remain unchanged.
That is why the Alliance is committed to meeting in good faith with legislators, Judicial Council members and all those who have a stake in the administration of justice. We understand the disappointment expressed by Judicial Council members over the passage of AB 1208 by the State Assembly, but we hope that in time cooler heads will prevail and a common sense solution will be arrived at that ensures that trial courts will remain open and accessible to the public. That has been the singular priority of the Alliance and will continue to be the issue that guides us forward.
Finally, we attach a portion of an earlier member email that exposes the misconceptions concerning AB 1208. Any fair reading of the bill should put to rest the notion that uniform rules of practice and procedure will be affected by AB 1208. This patently false claim was manufactured to divert attention away from the text of the bill and its modest reforms. Article VI of the California Constitution, Section 6(d) provides as follows:
…(d) To improve the administration of justice the (judicial) council may survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and perform other functions prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute.
Obviously, the Council’s rule-making authority is constitutionally based. AB 1208 in no way purports to limit this constitutional power, nor indeed could it. Any arguments to the contrary simply cannot be made in good faith.
It is time to focus on the merits of the bill. We must devote all of our efforts to reaching a consensus for the good of the citizens we serve. The Alliance of California Judges remains committed to that goal.
Sincerely,
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
___________________________________________________
Misconception: AB 1208 invades separation of powers.
.
Actuality: AB 1208 has nothing to do with the separation of powers. The statutes AB 1208 seeks to amend were, of course, themselves enacted by the legislature. AB 1208 does not diminish judges– it empowers judges. The Legislature already calls out the operating funds for the trial courts every year within the Judiciary budget. The Legislature already intends that this money is set aside for trial court operations. AB 1208 ensures that this money is fully delivered to the trial courts. It prevents the Judicial Council from taking trial court operating money, and using it for other purposes.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt access, because it will allow courts to divert money from programs such as Self Help Centers, or interpreters.
.
Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect any programs that are specifically and separately appropriated in the annual budget.Self Help Centers are separately appropriated by grant funds, and programs such as interpreters are separately appropriated. This misconception also presumes that trial judges will ignore their constitutional duty to provide access.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will take away the Judicial Council’s ability to “run the branch.”
.
Actuality: The Judicial Council is not a governing body. AB 1208 does not take away the Judicial Council’s ability to supervise and manage the nearly $1.0 billion appropriated every year in the Judicial budget for the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Court Construction, Court Maintenance, Judicial Compensation, Assigned Judges, Court interpreters, Habeas Corpus, or Grants. AB 1208 does not change the Judicial Council’s authority to supervise budgeting, establish uniform accounting practices, and pursue audits.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent important statewide initiatives like CCMS.
.
Actuality: AB 1208 does not prevent any project, including CCMS. Projects may still be funded and go forward provided that (1) they are funded other than with trial court operating funds, such as by the Improvement Fund, or the Modernization Fund, (2) separately appropriated by the Legislature, or (3) done with the consent of the trial courts. In fact, Government Code 68085 already contains language mandating that the AOC first obtain the consent of the participating courts before using funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for statewide IT projects. However, the AOC and their General Counsel take the position that silence equals consent, and that no court actually utilizing the system has a right to object, even though Trust Fund money belongs to all courts, not just those actually utilizing some portion of CCMS. AB 1208 would make it clear that all courts in the state would have a voice in these decisions, and would end the non-democratic “rule by fiat” system now in place.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will hurt small or rural courts and advantage large urban courts.
.
Actuality: AB 1208 does not change the funding allocation percentages that have been in place for the last 14 years. Every court will receive the same percentage of the overall budget that it has always received.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will prevent the Judicial Council from providing additional funding on an emergency basis to courts that need it.
.
Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect the Improvement Fund or Modernization Fund, except as those funds are directed to the trial courts within the budget. The Improvement Fund remains available to assist courts in need. In fact, Government Code Section 77209(b) requires that at least ½ of 1% of the amount appropriated for trial court operations be set aside for the urgent needs of any court. AB 1208 would in no way amend or repeal this section.
.
Misconception: AB 1208 will undo trial court unification and return to 58 “fiefdoms.”
.
Actuality: AB 1208 does not affect unification. Unification has occurred as a matter of constitutional law in all 58 counties. The bill does not alter the Judicial Council’s authority to ensure uniform practices. The bill does not change the Judicial Council’s rule-making authority. The bill does not alter the uniform rules of practice and procedure.
.
Conclusion
.
AB 1208 empowers every trial court and every trial judge of this state to have a fair and independent voice in the administration of trial court operations and in setting the priorities for the use of the money that judges need to do their jobs. AB 1208 establishes a system that will be based upon consensus, not fiat.
.
Please contact us if you have any questions and we will respond.
.
Wendy Darling
February 15, 2012
Long live the ACJ.
Cole Day Rain
February 15, 2012
Whether the the outlying realms are levied directly or indirectly, the king’s court will have its tithes. 1208 will change nothing but the direction of the flow of monies. With the amount of county profiteering already going on in which public funds and parties litigant assets are being laundered through local “private” corporations, the flow of monie will just beef up at the county level and get skimmed anyway.
Lando
February 16, 2012
In an earlier post I also urged the CJ change direction and reach out to all to resolve the many issues confronting branch finance and governance. Thanks Sac Bee for essentially saying the same thing in a more powerful and articulate way than I could. So everyone , now is the time for real change. The CJ needs to take a step back and actually invite all parties that care about the above to sit down and discuss these issues in a fair and open manner.I Honesty not fear of punishment needs to prevail. In the end what would be the harm with this? The CJ would be seen as a leader and for once since 1998, dissenting and new views would not be subject to attack, derision and punishment. Imagine that , a democracy !
Wendy Darling
February 16, 2012
Imagine that, a democracy. Unfortunately, given the current, chosen, tone deaf, path of the California judicial branch leadership, about all we can do is imagine it.
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
February 16, 2012
I agree things need to radically change. The branch needs to come together and can only do so with the Chief’s willingness to include all interested parties. Is there any chance this will happen with this Chief Justice ? My guess is sadly she will never see the big picture and nothing will change unless AB 1208 mandates it . The 19 minute You Tube says it all and remember she sent it out from the Supreme Court. The mainstream press , Majority leader Calderon and a number of thoughtful bloggers here have correctly pointed out that the Chief’s comments violated ethical standards that I thought all judges were supposed to follow. It will be interesting to see how the insiders at 455 Golden Gate deal with this.
Cole Day Rain
February 16, 2012
The CJ has committed treason and should be removed from office forthwith.
sharonkramer
February 16, 2012
I would like to know more about an ethics violation complaint to the CJP regarding the video. How do I find this information?
Peppermint Pattie
February 16, 2012
Well, Versal, one of the first things the insiders at 455 Golden Gate Avenue have done to “deal with this” is for the AOC’s Office of General Counsel to hire yet another lawyer, who apparently has experience in white collar crime defense.
Cole Day Rain
February 16, 2012
There’s an FPPC complaint coming because of the video too. What is being revealed is that the AOC/JCC is running the judicial system of California has a “state-controlled corporation”. On its face, the entire California judicial system has little to do with administering impartial justice to the People of California. The 19 minute speech by Tani only scratches the surface in exposing the oligarchy or judocracy of this State. Why there isn’t massive public clamoring for investigation from “proper” authorities is beyond me. And when I say “proper” authorities I mean authorities who have no politicofinancial ties to the judocracy. That alone means a public agency or agencies outside of California.
unionman575
February 16, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf
sharonkramer
February 16, 2012
Yes. I have that. Thank you. Was there an actual complaint filed for ethics violations regarding the video, and if so, how does one find out more about it or get a copy?
unionman575
February 16, 2012
The CA judicial branch has been run as an oligarchy that’s why we are all here trying to change it.
Wendy Darling
February 16, 2012
Published today, Thursday, February 16, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
IT Project Said ‘Finished’ to Cost Hundreds of Millions for Years
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The current claim from court bureaucrats that a big IT project is “finished” runs counter to budget documents showing plans to spend $242,000 on the project every single day from now through mid-2014.
A memo entitled “Fact Check” was sent by the central court bureaucracy to reporters and legislators earlier this month, saying the IT system called the Court Case Management System is completed.
“CCMS is finished and works,” said the fact check.
California’s chief justice referred to the same memo two weeks ago in telling her audience of about 100 judges and clerk that they the facts in their hands showing “no direction being taken on CCMS in 2011, except to confirm that it works.”
But a set of budget figures, prepared last summer by the same central court bureaucracy, shows that the “finished” endeavor is expected to continue generating extraordinary expense for California’s public purse, and will do so for years to come.
Those budget numbers show the administrators expect to spend $91 million on the IT system in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The number rises slightly the following fiscal year to $92 million and tapers off a bit to $87 million in 2013-2014.
An accountant broke those numbers down to daily averages for each budget year and overall daily average comes to $242,500 per day, every day of the week, from now until June 2014.
“It doesn’t look like they intend to let go of the monster they’ve created,” said Karen Covel, a partner with Lauer Georgatos & Covel in San Diego. Covel provides accounting services to Courthouse News Service and was asked to prepare an analysis of budget figures for the IT project, called the Court Case Management System.
“It is astounding that they would keep pouring money into CCMS given the cutbacks,” Covel added. “And if prior history is any indication, their cost figures are probably vastly understated.”
Read the entire article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/16/43967.htm
As always from Maria Dinzeo, well worth the read.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
February 16, 2012
Enough money to pay over a thousand court employees.
JusticeCalifornia
February 16, 2012
I must say, in the face of ongoing personal assaults the ACJ has done a remarkable job of staying solid and on point over the last two-plus years.
Meanwhile, Cantil Sakauye, like Ron George before her, has been catapulted into an emotional and professional downward spiral.
Cantil Sakauye has been a severe disappointment to those –like me– who initially gave her the benefit of the doubt and frankly hoped she would bring fresh air and the promise of a bright future to the branch.
Her startling inexperience, her petulant and abrasive demeanor, her political naivete, and most especially her sycophantic support of and reliance upon a rotating stacked deck of Ron George’s overpaid, unpopular good old boys and girls who are utterly unable to hold sway over the hearts and minds of ethical, intelligent members of the three branches, have made her the judicial branch’s biggest liability at the moment.
Harsh words? Yes. But true? Also yes.
The fact that Cantil Sakauye cannot get past a) her own ego or b) Ron George’s failed, outdated insular policies and tainted projects and personnel make it embarrassingly clear that this former blackjack dealer/ junior appellate justice is not now and never was equipped to take over the job of Chief Justice.
Ron George, who once had an ever-so-amazingly bright future, desperately craved absolute, inappropriate power over theCA judicial branch (the “largest judiciary in the Western World”) and was willing to do what it took, including surrounding himself with tarnished sycophants and unscrupulous thugs, to get it. Sycophant Cantil Sakauye is thus far dutifully marching lockstep to George and Co’s tune. How silly of Cantil Sakauye. . . .and others.
I mean really. . . . .ummm…..whatever happened to big ron anyway. . .
Gotta love Bottacelli. . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy
It’s all just so very ugly, undignified, and embarrassing.
Cantil Sakauye. . . .and others. . .need to shape up or ship out. And that means letting go of unpopular, hopelessly tainted Ron George hangovers, and starting fresh. The branch needs new leadership and perspectives, and bridges must be built, not burned.
Wendy Darling
February 16, 2012
Appalling it is, Justice California. The complete absence of, or any adherence to, any sense of ethics alone just leaves a person speechless.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
February 16, 2012
Nope, and in fairness, Wendy Darling, AOC Watchers will remember that you warned me (and others) that optimism about Cantil Sakauye was misplaced, and that the “meet the new boss same as the old boss” dynamic was very much in place. You also were the first to forecast that Cantil Sakauye would do anything and everything necessary to get her good buddy Jody Patel exactly where Jody Patel is, “unexpectedly” (yeah, sure, right) today.
Cantil Sakauye and Patel both know Cantil Sakauye would be better off moving forward without Patel and her baggage. Are either of them able to admit their friendship is harming the branch? Let’s see.
unionman575
February 16, 2012
Till career death do they part.
versal-versal
February 17, 2012
Thanks Wendy for posting the link to Ms Dinzeo’s piece on CCMS. Her factual analysis is devastating to the JC/AOC , CJ and J Bruiners. The facts based on the AOC’s own records demonstrate CCMS is not “finished and working ” as the CJ claimed in her 19 minute You Tube rant or fully “deployed” as J Bruiners claimed in March 2011. I find it incredible and sad at the same time that anyone could honestly believe that CCMS is working at any level. I think the insiders that walk the dark hallways at 455 Golden Gate have misled everyone on CCMS and what a total disaster it has become. To think the California taxpayer will be paying 245,000 plus a day for the next three years for this outdated and poorly working system is really an outrage. So now the CJ and the insular JC need to take control and put an end to this incredible waste. Is anyone at the crystal palace listening?
Please do the right thing and admit CCMS isn’t working and will never work and save that 200 million plus to keep the trial courts viable and functioning .
anna
February 17, 2012
The Current CJ cannot let anything come to light. There are too many bodies that need to remain buried.
George, Huffman, Baxter, and McConnell [ not to mention any judge who is aware of the illegal doings of these cretins] would face serious jail time for what they have done.
JCW stated it correctly in his comments to the Sac Bee. Disbarring lawyers and engaging in retaliation of fellow judges, and anyone who has stood up to these thugs, if prosecuted would face felony charges that carries a minimum of ten years.
Does anyone honestly think HRH2 would do that?
You honestly think that promise was not extracted from her before she was named for this position?
That doesn’t even include the use of unlicensed contractors, and procuring jobs along with the improper use of taxpayers monies.
Until the Feds step in, the CSC will continually attempt to insulate themselves from any justice, by violating the law [ by refusing to apply it] and lying about the facts.
anna
February 17, 2012
To avoid any confusion from my last post, if George or any of his thugs were prosecuted for illegally disbarring lawyers, retaliating against judges, or anyone else who has stood up to these criminals, they would face serious jail time.
anna
February 17, 2012
Don’t kid yourself, promises have been made to the AG’s office, not to investigate any criminal matters these judges have engaged in, nor prosecute any matters. Justice Banke, just gave immunity to the AG’s office in a written opinion, against anyone who files charges against the AG’s office for failure to prosecute.
Does anyone think that happened by coincidence?
The AG knows exactly what is going on.
So now, California, instead of being a beacon of truth, has written law that the AG can, and will allow crimes to take place if they want to.
They have carte blanche to allow certain crimes to take place against the state if they want to, and there is no mechanism to demand that they do their job.
Been There
February 17, 2012
Anna, why is Kamala Harris ‘s office promising not to investigate?
anna
February 17, 2012
Because they represent the Judges when they are sued. Judges are allowed to be sued civilly over things they do in an “administrative capacity”. Not one court has followed that area of the law, Anything George did, while Head of the AOC or JC, which violated any law opened him up to civil action. However, when judges are sued the AG represents them. All one has to read is the orders of Michael Paul, and Phil Kay along with Richard Fine, the AG’s office which represented the Judges in at least one of those cases, to know that they will never file charges against any judge. While judges have immunity from civil suits, they do not have immunity if they are engaging in criminal activity from criminal prosecution.
They have conclusive and final judgments to know that at least 4 judges committed perjury to the US Senate Committee, and covered up for the malfeasance of two others.
In the AG’s papers they could not even deny the facts, they had to file a demurrer, because to deny the facts as plead, in several complaints would make them violate rule 5-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
It also would be a conflict of interest for them to prosecute, and at the same time represent them in civil court.
Convenient?
How can the AG’s office prosecute someone for things, that they would learn from a confession or through communications to them as their lawyer, when they represent them in a civil action?
Michael Paul documented his first complaint with enough material to warrant an indictment. Where were they then?
Phil Kay has a written publish opinion, [so does the AG] that prove conclusively that George suspended him on behalf of Ralphs, and Ron Burkle in violation of all laws in Cal..
Where were they then?
Richard Fine alleged judges were receiving money illegally, and in the interim the Legislature had to give retroactive immunity to them.
Where where they then?
Ron Geogre allowed the State Bar to allow his buddy Ton Giradi to commit fraud in the Ninth Circuit and sustain over a quarter of million dollars in sanctions, yet gave him an award from the State Bar for excellence in advocacy.
That is sanctioning criminal conduct.
The AG knows all of this.
You tell me.
Cole Day Rain
February 17, 2012
It is actually unlawful for the AG to represent any judicial or legislative entity. For a treatise on the law regarding why, check out the public records at http://www.californiacourtshavefallen.webs.com regarding the AOC.
anna
February 17, 2012
Not only does the AG’s office and our taxpayer dollars represent judges in civil matters, the AOC also hires extremely expensive outside law firms to also represent and write orders for the judges who are sitting on and ruling in lawsuits where judges are defendants.
Sara Overton and her law firm Cummings, McClorey are the recipients of mucho dinero for this legal work.
This violates so many cannon of ethics, and exparte communications rules that it’s tantmount to “fixing” cases.
Gee, and the AG’s office is co-counsel.
And one wonders why they won’t clean up the judiciary, or the corruption in this state. No this should prosecuted by the Justice Dept.
Cole Day Rain
February 17, 2012
The Justice (yeah, right) Department is BEHIND this fraud on the public. The AG is there to represent “state agencies” but the legislature and the judiciary are NOT state agencies. Cal Gov Code sec. 6252.
anna
February 21, 2012
Thanks for the cite
Cole Day Rain
February 21, 2012
You are welcome.
unionman575
February 21, 2012
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/21/4278121/court-funding-needs-an-overhaul.html
Another View: Court funding needs an overhaul
By Steve White and Loren E. McMaster
Special to The Bee
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 10A
Steve White, a Sacramento Superior Court judge and a member of the Alliance of California Judges, and Loren E. McMaster, a retired Sacramento Superior Court judge, are responding to the Feb. 15 editorial “Lawmakers and courts need to end their rift.” It stated, “The chief justice is right to oppose Assembly Bill 1208. The measure would unravel important reforms put in place 15 years ago that centralized the state court system.”
anna
February 21, 2012
the way they framed the “administration of trial court operations” is probably the how the JC should state what they do.
Trial court operations, is different than actual “trial court proceedings” which is what is actually adjudicated in court.
but the cretins at the JC already know this.