Posted on March 19, 2012
……and with the introduction of her family we now know who wears the pants.
Speech adjourned at 21 minutes.
It the interests of equal time we’d like to give the opposition a platform.
 | sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | MaxRebo5 on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| sharon kramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Delilah on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Sharon Kramer on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | MICHAEL A PAUL on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Wendy Darling on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Cheryl Van Vliet on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | Tony on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Maxrebo5 on Give more money to the Judicia… |
 | SiteAdmin on Give more money to the Judicia… |
| Delilah on Give more money to the Judicia… |
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
Published late today, Monday, March 19, from The Sacramento Bee, by David Siders:
California Chief Justice Appeals to Lawmakers For Court Funding
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye called on state lawmakers this afternoon to improve funding for the state court system, warning courtroom closures and other impacts imperil justice.
After four years of budget reductions, she said, the judiciary wow has “‘Closed’ signs on courtrooms and clerks offices in 24 counties around the state…Sadly, courts are considering more layoffs.”
Cantil-Sakauye has in recent months campaigned publicly against a proposal to weaken the state Judicial Council, which she controls, shifting more authority for local spending decisions to trial courts. The bill was passed by the Assembly but is stalled in the Senate.
In her address, Cantil-Sakauye characterized her first year in office as “bringing a fresh approach to the governance of the judicial branch.”
She said she has opened meetings to the public and is meeting with local judges, while also reviewing the judiciary’s bureaucracy.
“If I can point to an overall characterization of my first year it is bringing a fresh approach to the governance of the judicial branch,” she said. “That has meant different leadership, more transparency and greater accountability, and significantly more collaboration within the branch, with justice system partners, and with you.”
Cantil-Sakauye had planned to give a State of the Judiciary speech last year – her first – but canceled because of ongoing budget negotiations at the Capitol.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/03/california-chief-justice-appeals-to-lawmakers-for-court-funding.html
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
Get your bucket handy…as they build Taj Majals and waste millkions on CCMS…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17277.htm
Video: The California Courts Budgeting Process
Mar 16, 2012
How the Courts are Funded
Budgeting within California’s third branch of government
The budget process in California’s third branch of government is collaborative and complex, typically a year long procedure. Analysis and discussions begin with the Trial Court Budget Working Group, a team of 15 superior court judges and 15 court executive officers.
Appellate courts also participate, through the Appellate Court Budget Subcommittee.
The Trial Court Budget Working Group represents the rich diversity of California’s trial courts – large and small, metropolitan and rural. After plenty of input from trial courts throughout the state, the Working Group directs staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to draw up budget proposals as instructed.
From there the completed and fully vetted proposals go before the Judicial Council in a public business meeting, usually in August. Public comment is invited. It is here that budget decisions are made and priorities ratified, where Council members safeguard the consistent, impartial, independent, and accessible administration of justice throughout the entire branch.
In September the Judicial Branch presents its budget proposal to the Governor and legislators. Then they go to work on it, negotiating changes. Once they approve and enact the state budget, funding is appropriated to the Judicial Branch.
Then Judicial Council members make decisions on court allocations and provide final approval. The AOC’s role is to distribute the funding to the trial courts, as directed by the Judicial Council.
In fiscal year ‘11/’12 the overall state budget was $129.5 billion. Only 2.4% of that goes to the Judicial Branch.
In terms of the state’s general fund, the Judicial Branch accounts for only 1.6%, a tiny sliver.
The total judicial branch budget is $3.17 billion. Only 4.2% of that funds the Judicial Council and the AOC. 81% of that goes to the trial courts.
In the last 4 years, the judicial branch has endured $653 million in cuts. This year legislators and the governor chopped the court’s operational funds by an unprecedented $350 million; ongoing cuts; and raided another $750 million from the court construction fund.
The Chief Justice of California and the Judicial Council have declared budget restoration their top administrative priority for the year, “I have little doubt that this body, the Judicial Council and the judicial branch is the finest judiciary in the nation and can rise to the challenge and we can and will put in place the foundation for a new era in California.”
unionman575
March 19, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17280.htm
Video: Groundbreaking for New Banning Courthouse
Mar 16, 2012
Banning Community Awaits New Courthouse Project
A New Justice Center Breaks Ground in Riverside County
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 19, 2012
Tani Cantil-Sakauye is: 1) Delusional, living in an insular world knowing only what she is told by her handlers; or, 2) Really, really stupid.
I watched her State of the Judiciary speech. I read the transcript of her speech. I watched her speech again. It took about 20 minutes to pick my jaw up off the desk. As my grandkids would say: OMG, WTF, ICBI. Here are the highlights of her speech.
The mantra: Challenges, Changes and Triumphs. HRH-2 claims she immediately initiated changes upon taking office and more changes are on the way. TRANSLATION: I’ve only been here a year, give me a break, stop picking on me, I can only do so much, you never picked on Ron like this, is it because I’m a woman?
Look at everything I’ve done since being installed as Chief Justice:
1) “New Leadership” has been appointed to key positions. TRANSLATION: I re-arranged the deck chairs. The Titanic is still listing about 48 degrees to Starboard, but new people are watching it capsize.
2) Judicial Council members are “reaching out” to local courts. TRANSLATION: Snitches are being dispatched to the 58 Counties in an effort to amass information that will allow the CJP to take care of any dissent.
3) A National Search is underway for a new Administrative Director. TRANSLATION: After waiting about 10 months, I hired Ralph Anderson & Associates to round up their stable of ponies to trot out before the Judicial Council. I fully expect that the time, effort and expense of that exercise will demonstrate that Jody Patel is our best candidate. What a surprise, she was here all along.
4) I appointed the SEC early in my administration and we expect the recommendations from that Committee soon. TRANSLATION: I could not believe that my so-called friend, Art Scotland, stabbed me in the back. I fired him, put two guys with no experience in his place, told them to 86 Art’s report and re-write something that finds everything within the AOC has already been fixed….by me.
4) EARLY IN MY TERM, I APPOINTED A COMMITTEE OF JUDGES AND OTHERS TO TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS. WE EXPECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS SOON.
6) Committees Were Appointed to Look at Construction and CCMS: TRANSLATION: Everything is wonderful. We’ll scale back on construction for a year or two until you forget how bad I manage things. CCMS works, we own it and there is no problem. I’m going to try and buffalo this through, but it will take great deception to do it. People from the Third Reich are applying to fill the new PR positions.
I BELIEVE THAT WE ALL WILL BE WELL SERVED BY THESE CHANGES.
Lord in Heaven, give me strength!
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
The Chief’s Justice’s “State of the Judiciary” can be summed up as follows: I grew up disadvantaged. so I deserve special dispensation. We need more money. Lots of it. Other than that, everything in the judicial branch is fine, I’ve fixed everything. Nothing to look at here. You can all move along now. Make sure you grab a glass of Kool-Aid on you’re way out the door.
wearyant
March 19, 2012
Thanks for weighing in, General Nat. As usual, you have your finger on the pulses and set everything out cogently.
Yes, Lord in Heaven, grant us all strength!
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
Published late today, Monday, March 16, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl MIller:
Chief Justice Address Focuses on Budget Cuts, Need for Central Control of Judiciary
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Monday reiterated her support for a strong, centralized judicial branch, telling lawmakers in her first State of the Judiciary speech that the diverse needs of Californians are best managed by the Judicial Council.
“Local courts and judges are effective advocates for local needs” Cantil-Sakauye said in her inaugural address to a joint session of the Legislature. “But the Judicial Council serves statewide needs,” just as the Legislature handles broader issues while cities and counties take care of local problems, she said.
Cantil-Sakauye made no direct mention of Assembly Bill 1208, the controversial Trial Court Rights Act, which Assembly members approved on the very floor she was speaking from seven weeks ago. But the remarks seemed to be targeting the legislation that would shift significant spending control from the Judicial Council to local trial courts.
“To make it work in our great diverse state we have a hybrid system, a hybrid system of local court control with statewide rules, policies and programs,” she said. “And we take this together to find a balance for our diverse needs. In order to find that balance, we need a strong, independent, inclusive, impartial judiciary, and we need a statewide platform ….”
The 17-minute speech gave no hint of the tension that has arisen in recent months between judicial leaders and lawmakers, particularly those in the state Assembly. Just last week, a budget subcommittee voted to freeze additional funding for the costly and controversial Court Case Management System until legislators can review the judiciary’s troubled computer network.
Nor did the chief justice mention a pointed speech she gave to judges and court executives in early February in which she accused Assembly members of making “false and meritless claims” during the AB 1208 floor debate. as delayed throughout last year due to scheduling conflicts and the Legislature’s focus on the state budget.
Cantil-Sakauye also made only a passing reference to CCMS, saying that branch leaders know “we have a system that works but we [also] have a changed fiscal reality, a changed landscape with reduced resources.” The council is scheduled to consider the system’s future at a March 27 hearing.
Instead, the chief justice focused on familiar themes: her personal history as a Sacramento-area native, the impacts to courts of hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts and her promise to shake-up branch governance.
“That means new and different leadership, greater transparency, greater accountability, collaboration and communication,” she told lawmakers. Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, D-Montebello, the author of AB 1208, praised the overall tone of the chief justice’s speech but said “it would have been nice if she had acknowledged” the hundreds of court workers expected to lose their jobs due to budget cutbacks this year.
Although Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, recently declared AB 1208 dead in his house, Calderon said he’s still pursuing talks on the bill’s contents with the chief justice.
“I’m hopeful we can work something out,” Calderon said after the speech. “We don’t have to have a bill.”
Steinberg said, however, that while the Legislature has “an appropriate role” to play in judicial issues through the annual budget, the chief needs “the room to be able to solve these problems.
“Ultimately it is a co-equal branch of government, and it has the responsibility to address differences within the branch,” he said.
Cantil-Sakauye was sworn in as chief justice on Jan. 3, 2011, but her first State of the Judiciary speech was delayed throughout last year due to scheduling conflicts and the Legislature’s focus on the state budget.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202546238272&Chief_Justice_Address_Focuses_on_Budget_Cuts_Need_for_Central_Control_of_Judiciary&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
anna
March 19, 2012
If her head is as vacuous as her speech we’re all doomed. What a bobble head! Steinberg should be embarrassed, to support this vacuous dumb ass.
She gave him nothing to support her.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
Not exactly nothing, Anna. Steinberg remains mesmorized by the dangling carrot of an appointment to the appellate bench after he is termed out of the State Legislature in 2014. And he so, so, so wants that carrot.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
Yep he wants an appellate appointment bad.
anna
March 19, 2012
There is a small thing known as the JNE commission. I know that committee along with the Governor can veto an appointment.
Since when can the CJ just appoint anyone, without some approval?
I know that some candidates have been torpedoed, by letters, and pressure that they will become public [ the letters that is] if certain candidates are put forth.
Is Steinberg aware of this?
Isn’t his job of oversight, and his competence in that capacity relevant to whether he is qualified to sit as an appellate justice?
How can the public weigh in on this, and get this information to the JNE commission?
Comments anyone?
Can we start playing hardball?
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
Published this evening, Monday, March 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Chief Emphasizes Funding Need in State of Judiciary Address in CA
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – At her inaugural state of the judiciary address, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stressed the urgent need for the Legislature to restore funding to the state’s struggling courts while avoiding the thorny topic of disagreement among the state’s trial judges over how money should be spent.
“The Judicial Branch must be adequately and consistently funded,” she said Monday in the late afternoon.
The Assembly floor and gallery were packed with legislators, judges and attorneys. In her address, Cantil-Sakauye emphasized the budget crisis that has plagued the state’s trial courts for the last four years, resulting in total cuts over that period of $653 million.
“As courts are needed more, our resources are going down,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
Many Californians have turned to the court system in times of crisis, she added, bringing superior court filings to over 10 million last year. “The cruel irony is that the economic forces that have led to budget reductions to the courts are the same ones that drive more of our residents to court.”
“We have ‘closed’ signs on courtrooms and clerks offices in 24 counties around the state,” she continued. “Several courts have been forced to implement staff layoffs; many more are planning layoffs. It’s devastating on the hard working men and women of our courts. It’s also dangerous.”
The chief justice briefly touched on a costly IT project called the Court Case Management System that has divided California’s trial judges, with many referring to the project as a “fiasco” and a “boondoggle” that has diverted money away from trial courts trying to keep their doors open.
“I want to take a moment to acknowledge the role that the Legislature had in helping inform decisions about CCMS,” she said. “We know that CCMS works, but we face grim fiscal realities.” She said the Judicial Council which she heads will “be weighing its options in another week.”
After her speech, the chief declined to comment on an Assembly committee’s vote last week to halt spending on the project. “It’s something that will come up at the Judicial Council’s public meeting next week,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye also avoided all talk of AB 1208, a bill intended to change the funding structure for the courts by ensuring that 100 percent of the money allocated to the trial courts by the Legislature actually goes to the trial courts. Cantil-Sakauye has strongly opposed to AB 1208, which is now pending in the state Senate.
She foretold the budget focus of her state of the judiciary speech at a gathering of California presiding judges in February. “I think the Senate understands that the branch needs to focus on budget,” she said at the time. “I think that most of the leadership in the Legislature knows we need to focus on budget. And so AB 1208 will sit for a while so we can focus on budget.”
In Monday’s state of the judiciary speech, the chief justice emphasized the need to balance local court needs with those of the central administration, and sent a message to the Legislature that the judiciary is a co-equal branch that will conduct its affairs on its own terms.
“We need a strong, inclusive, independent impartial state judicial branch and a statewide platform to consider the needs of all Californians and to balance the many competing interests found in our branch,” she said. “Local courts and judges are eloquent and effective advocates for their local needs — as they should be. But the Judicial Council serves statewide concerns, just as the Legislature addresses issues of broad impact while cities and counties address those closer to home.”
The Chief Justice also told those assembled that she had taken a “fresh approach to governance.”
She has made Judicial Council meetings public and has given trial judges a platform to air their grievances. “If I can point to an overall characterization of my first year, it is bringing a fresh approach to governance of the judicial branch,” said the chief justice. “That means a new and different leadership, greater transparency and greater accountability, collaboration, and communication.”
“One of my first official acts was to survey all sitting judges through their presiding judges,” noted Cantil-Sakauye. “I asked for their perspectives on branch governance, and I invited their criticisms and recommendations.”
She said she received 200 pages of comments. “I listened, I read every word, I made action lists, we made changes and we continually make changes.”
Cantil-Sakauye highlighted a new program that will send a Judicial Council representative to each court to act as a liaison between the local courts and judicial leadership. She also said a full review of the Administrative Office of the Courts, an often-maligned central court bureaucracy, is forthcoming.
“I appointed judges and others to take a comprehensive look at the AOC, do we need to cut and where,” she said.
Towards the conclusion of her address, Cantil-Sakauye spoke of her mother’s vision that some day her daughter would pursue a legal career.
But the daughter never dreamed she would fulfill that vision by arriving on the Assembly floor, addressing the Legislature as California’s 28th chief justice.
“Long ago, my mother gave me the seed of her vision and I have brought it to fruition by being here today, in this, my first state of the judiciary,” she said. “I can tell you that the judiciary is undergoing a transformation, but that is an understatement.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/19/44823.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
In Monday’s state of the judiciary speech, the chief justice emphasized the need to balance local court needs with those of the central administration, and sent a message to the Legislature that the judiciary is a co-equal branch that will conduct its affairs on its own terms.
(That’s code for we will do whatever we want up here at the JC and you all can get f****d).
Let’s show the Chief a good time and recall her!
lando
March 19, 2012
I hate to rain on the CJ’s parade, but there is no change in the governance of our branch. The CJ claims there is more transparency, greater accountability and significantly more collaboration within the branch and with the legislature. That sounds great but has anything really changed for the better in the last year? Since the CJ took over hundreds of millions continue to be wasted on CCMS. While she contends CCMS is finished and working can anyone show us in what courts this statewide case management system is actually working in. The result of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on CCMS are continued layoffs of a wide variety of valued court employees, significant budget cutbacks to trial courts all across the state and reduction of a wide variety of services to the public. So much for transparency and accountability. The CJ claims there is significantly more collaboration with the trial courts and the legislature. That doesn’t appear to be the case as the CJ attacked the State Assembly and refused to meet with the Speaker and Assembly leader Calderon author of AB 1208. Collaboration with the trial courts? Right around 80% of the judges in California raised significant concerns about CCMS yet under this CJ’s watch we continue to spend over 250,000 a day on that mess and quagmire. As for the structure of the AOC absolutely nothing has changed as the insular E and P committee promoted insider Jody Patel to run the AOC within a mater of hours after Ron O exited. The bottom line ? This CJ missed a great opportunity tonight to announce the end of CCMS and commit to use those wasted millions to saving court employee jobs and keeping courtrooms open. Don’t be fooled anyone .Nothing has or will be changed until the JC is democratized and this CJ recalled.
unionman575
March 19, 2012
I agree Lando!
unionman575
March 19, 2012
Steinberg isn’t the fish we need to fry Anna. Yes he is despicable, but he is down the food chain from Tani quite a bit.
We need to recall the Chief Justice NOW Keep your eye on the prize. Change will have to be top down, starting with Tani going FIRST.
anna
March 20, 2012
I agree, unionman, I’m just trying to see if there is a way, of either a stick, or carrot, for him to consider AB 1208.
The quid pro quo, “agreement” has to exposed for what it is. For him, to hold up this bill, violates his duty of oversight.
I understand the objective of getting the Empress to go. However, Calderon and the Assembly used their oversight, and everyone went through the proper channels, yet Steinberg derails everything? That’s not democracy.
Steinberg propped up Team George, isn’t there a price to pay for backing the wrong horse?
I thought that was what transparency was for.
I’m just trying to brainstorm. Sometimes an attack on several fronts is required, rather than just a frontal attack.
anna
March 20, 2012
Or maybe the legislature needs to be reminded that certain actions have consequences.
I was also just trying to educate people here with long memories, that in the future, appointments are not always forgone conclusions, and letters of “concern” might need to be brought to the JNE commission, along with the Governor, if, and when, Steinberg gets his nomination.
versal-versal
March 19, 2012
This state of the judiciary speech shows how out of touch HRH 2 is with reality. While all the buzz words got used, ” fresh approach” , “transparency” ” accountability” ” collaboration ” and “justice partners” , nothing was said about the 300 people about to lose their jobs or the 50 courtrooms about to close in the biggest court system in the world. Another sad day for a once proud judiciary.
Wendy Darling
March 19, 2012
The buzz words of “transformation” and “triumph” also got worked into today’s version of The Empress’ New Clothes.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
March 19, 2012
Wendy you are so right. “Transformation to Triumph” I have heard that revisionist history before. Those Pravda like phrases would have made the former leaders of the Soviet Union proud. What a transformation indeed. CCMS is still draining millions of taxpayer dollars, the bloated AOC keeps hiring while the trial courts languish and lay off hard working employees, and the same insiders that walk the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate and suppress dissent and democracy like J Huffman and J Mc Connell remain entrenched . You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
JusticeCalifornia
March 20, 2012
I do appreciate all the credit Cantil-Sakauye gave the legislature for the decisions it made 15 years ago. It makes it hard to argue that legislative intervention is an infringement upon the branch –or that the sensible promises made to induce the branch to go along with the legislative intervention 15 years ago should now be broken.
Her apparent belief that the branch was effectively reborn 15 years ago (who knew?) is a great supporting argument for change of undemocratic branch governance/spending structures previously put into place that no longer work.
More anon.
anna
March 20, 2012
So, intervention is a good thing only if it gives the judiciary more power, not less. Hmmm…..Either intervention of the legislature is either appropriate, or not, [at least that is how the law reads] not whether, you only like the outcome.
Situational ethics anyone???
wearyant
March 20, 2012
I feel like a broken record, and please correct me if I’m wrong as this is so important to all Californians, but didn’t the legislature promise a Trial Court Bill of Rights 15 years ago as this “rebirth” of the judicial branch took place? And the Trial Court Bill of Rights was contemplated in the now-confirmed, very real concern about a central body running amok, stealing power, control and public funds for itself. It was known at that time that there should be a real check/balance on that proposition. Now, of course, as AB 1208 is put forward to right the troubled judiciary ship, Teensy Tani claims this is interfering with her sovereignty. I’m not sure what happened back then. Did everyone fall asleep? Were trial courts lulled into a false sense of security, sweet-talked by Ron’s Team or what? I’ve seen how hard judges work with piles of cases and other busy work thought up by the AOC. Perhaps that helped the time pass, year after year, just burying everyone with the daily grind of cases and missives from the every-burgeoning AOC. The trial courts and their staff do not have the luxury that the AOC thugs have of sitting around and thinking up ways to protect themselves from the powers-that-be. The trial courts and their staff are on the front lines of this “war” with the poor economy and the ills it brings to the unwashed masses who show up looking for justice.
By the way, when did the judicial council become the policy-makers of the judicial branch? Has it just been said by the AOC thugs so many times over the years, we all now accept it?
Californians now need the AB 1208 more than ever. That fact is brought home by the sickening words heard by Teensy. CCMS works? Incredible! AB 1208 is more than a bargaining chip or a way to get fat heads to listen. It really should be implemented. There must be a way around Steinberg. And shame on him.
anna
March 20, 2012
The “too clever by half” idiots, at the JC conflate two terms, Administrative policy, and actual public policy [or judicial policy] which can only be set by the legislature.
They use the word policy, in a lay fashion, all the while implying a legal definition [public policy], so the legislature and the public will infer that the JC has the ability to actually create [pubic policy] and therefore create judicial policy.
The JC is not an entity, nor is the AOC, that is allowed to do anything that is adjudicative. [Judicial]
Ron was a master at conflating terms, outright lying about legal definitions, and bald face [lying] declaring new definitions of what legal terms of art, and legal doctrines actually mean, in violation of Evd, Code 451 [e]. [I think this cite is right] It’s what courts have to[ mandatory] judicially accept.
Just read Georges opinions!!!
That is why N. Woodhull, Lampe, and other judges who write here, can attack and say what they do about HRH the First, along with the Empress, regarding claiming powers that they were never given.
AB1208 needs to be enacted, and that only the first step.
anna
March 20, 2012
last sentence should read “that’s only the first step”.
Wendy Darling
March 20, 2012
Well, Ant, Steinberg has no shame.
“I think she has had an excellent first year, and the speech, I think, reflected a leader of the branch who is confident, who is listening, who is going above and beyond to try to address the court’s challenges in this difficult era,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/20/4350929/california-chief-justice-avoids.html#storylink=cpy
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 20, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, March 20, from The Sacramento Bee, by Dan Walters:
Dan Walters: Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Makes Case For Peace
The annual State of the Judiciary addresses that the chief justice delivers to the Legislature are usually pro forma exercises that draw little more than passing attention.
Not this year.
Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who became chief justice 14 months ago and harshly criticized the state Assembly a few weeks ago for passing legislation she said interfered with the judiciary’s independence, delivered her first such speech in the Assembly’s chambers Monday, and it was, in effect, a plea for reconciliation.
She didn’t mention the legislation she had denounced, nor its sponsor, a band of rebels in robes called the Alliance of California Judges, but rather assured lawmakers, albeit indirectly, that everything would be fine in the judicial branch if they just gave it more money and let it be.
Cantil-Sakauye said she had instituted “a fresh approach to governance” that would result in “an incredible transformation.”
The closest she came to acknowledging the political problems of the court system, which she manages through the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, was to plug two expensive programs the rebels say waste money better spent on keeping courtrooms open.
One is a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction program and the other is a computerized statewide “case management system” that’s already cost more than a half-billion dollars. The latter has drawn sharp criticism from the state auditor’s office and the Legislature’s budget analyst. She called both “desperately needed.”
When the Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1208, which would shift more financial power from the central court management apparatus in San Francisco to local judges, Cantil-Sakauye denounced it as an infringement on the separation of powers.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a law school classmate of Cantil-Sakauye, has declared the legislation dead-on-arrival in his house. But last week, an Assembly budget subcommittee froze financing for expanding the case management system, which could make it a bargaining chip over AB 1208, so Steinberg’s stance is not necessarily the last word.
Underlying the political issues swirling around Cantil-Sakauye are the state’s assumption of financial responsibility for the courts in the 1990s, and the sharp cuts in state financing that have been decreed in recent years to cope with chronic budget deficits.
Cantil-Sakauye referred to them as “our particular fiscal challenges.” She said that court funds have been cut by 24 percent since 2008, requiring closure of some courtrooms and denial of access that endangers some litigants, such as those involved in domestic violence cases.
“The judiciary branch needs full funding,” she told legislators. The rebels agree on that point.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/20/4350928/dan-walters-chief-justice-tani.html
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 20, 2012
From The Record, a new45.4 million dollar courthouse:
Beginning of end of long road
Final piece of Calaveras County’s $104 million criminal-justice hub
By Dana M. Nichols
Record Staff Writer
SAN ANDREAS – State and county officials gathered in a muddy field Friday in San Andreas to break ground on a $45.4 million courthouse, the final piece of a $104 million Calaveras County criminal-justice complex.
Superior Court Judge John E. Martin, who is the presiding judge and the only judge for Calaveras County, said he remembers discussing the need for a new courthouse when he was appointed to the bench 17 years ago.
“I gave up. I thought it was never going to be real,” Martin said in a brief address to almost 100 dignitaries and guests.
Martin said many people helped make a new courthouse possible, but he gave special credit to former Presiding Judge Douglas V. Mewhinney, who retired at the end of February.
Mewhinney said the current courthouse was built in 1964, when the county had less than a third of its present population. He said the facility is so cramped that he feared at times for the safety of his staff and members of the public who found themselves shoulder-to-shoulder with jail inmates being escorted to legal proceedings.
Already under construction nearby is a $59 million jail and Sheriff’s Department administration building. Those buildings are being funded in part by state funding and in part by a local property tax that voters approved in 2007.
The courthouse, in contrast, is funded entirely through fees and fines assessed by the courts.
Mewhinney noted that the two facilities needed to be built at the same time and in the same location. Otherwise, taxpayers would have been stuck paying the cost to transport inmates between a jail and courthouse in different locations.
Mewhinney noted that in the past few years, Calaveras County officials stepped up to make sure there was land purchased to provide room for both facilities and to make sure utility lines were installed to serve both.
“All of that is a testament to the county’s willingness to be a good partner with the courts,” Mewhinney said.
Both buildings are scheduled to be completed and ready for use next year.
The new courthouse will have four courtrooms, a total of 44,600 square feet of floor space and a sophisticated security system integrated with that of the neighboring jail.
“We will actually have three separate circulations: for the public, for staff and for the prisoners,” Mewhinney said.
Mewhinney, although retired, said he expects to periodically serve as a visiting judge in the new courthouse.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120317/A_NEWS/203170326/-1/NEWSMAP
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 21, 2012
They just keep on building a whole slew of courthouses at an outrageous high cost. Who will staff these Taj Majal’s?
The trial courts have done mass layoffs and will do more waves of layoffs in the coming months.
WTF is the AOC doing?
JusticeCalifornia
March 21, 2012
JCW, thank you for posting the video.
Cantil-Sakauye’s oral presentation was smoother than past presentations (just compare this to her 20-minute rant), but the correct question even the press has asked is “where’s the beef?”
One would expect that the “State of the Judiciary” given by the top judge in the state would fully address — rather than fully ignore– certain key issues. Like say that there has been a full blown revolution/mutiny going on within the branch. Or that public trust and confidence in the courts is at an all time low, and courts are reportedly being ranked with prisons in terms of funding priorities as far as the public is concerned (I read that somewhere, someone correct me if I am wrong). Or how about that in addition to the fact that CCMS is way overbudget, wildly expensive and not funded, the biggest courts in the state have told her in no uncertain terms they won’t have anything to do with it? Or, that one of the biggest complaints about her “fresh approach” is that she has retained and keeps picking key personnel from a tainted pool of insider Team George members. (I remember at one AB 1208 hearing, Mike Feuer commented that the proof would be in the pudding, as to whom she would select to fill upcoming vacancies on the Judicial Council). Or, for heaven’s sake, how about that court personnel are being laid off in droves throughout the state– and in addition to the hardship and inconvenience this is causing to all concerned, the CJP has determined that this is interfering with the administration of justice?
So Cantil-Sakauye chose to ignore all the many elephants that filled that big room, and play her female/minority/immigrant card for all it was worth as she stated that the courts desperately need CCMS and new courthouses. She knows damn well, just like the rest of us know, that unrepresented poor people of color (men and women) fare the worst in courts, and need the most assistance– but rather than ensuring basic services she is still dutifully repeating Team George’s mantra about new courthouses and CCMS. And once again she rolled out the domestic violence card, talking about a woman who spent the night her car to escape her abuser. How about the fact that family court recommending mediators in Marin destroyed their working files at Judicial Councilmember Kim Turner’s direction, and no longer have the background information developed and kept in the files over the years (police reports, medical reports, photographs of injuries, witness statements, notes from discussions with teachers, doctors, children, parents, family members, CPS, etc. etc. etc.) as they make custody recommendations, and as they routinely place children with abusers–over the objections of parents who no longer can use the information in the working files to challenge the recommendations? The Judicial Council voted in October 2010 to have one of its committees make a recommendation on “best practices” regarding how to treat family court mediation files, but that committee apparently has not even discussed the issue yet. Meanwhile, we are not talking about the danger of one woman sleeping in her car, we are talking about thousands of children being placed at risk because files containing key child custody evidence are being destroyed– and the Judicial Council knows it– and yet hasn’t made time address it.
The bottom line is, Cantil Sakauye has not been walking her talk. Luckily for her and for us, she has multiple opportunities in the next few months to clean up her act, just as she polished up her presentation in the weeks between her rant and the state of the judiciary address.
If she doesn’t clean up her act, IMHO there is no way the intelligent members of the branch– or the public– or the bar– or the legislature that has to answer to the public– are going to put up with 11 more years of inane “leadership” by a gambling barmaid turned wannabe ivory-tower Empress whose favorite supporting argument about herself– AS SHE THROWS THE PUBLIC UNDER THE BUS– is that she is a female minority whose parents worked in the fields.
Yes, actions speak louder than words. Let’s see what Cantil-Sakauye does in the next couple of months.
Guest
March 21, 2012
We are in a sad era of “leadership” but no where worse than in the California Judicial Branch. Why doesn’t the CJ do as a leader should and take on the “critics”? Instead she insults and then hides. She complains that they surprise her and won’t meet with them but then when invited she refuses. That is called hypocrisy. Then she uses personnel relationships to hide and kill the issue instead of defending her position. Why not stand behind your position and invite the discussion on the Senate floor? If you feel you are in the right and can support it then take it on! That is what a leader used to do. Tell Darrel he can still have his appointment but tell him to not hide the issue. Let the public discuss it. Darrel was elected by and is paid by the public. But Darrel represents only Darrel. The cj should be bigger than that and practice being open instead of just saying she has made change to be more open. Lead by example not shallow words in speeches.
And she needs to stop surrounding herself with weakness. Her CEO appointments are one of her biggest problems. She appoints Kim Turner to everything and has zero respect or credibility. She too hides and makes decisions like building a big glass box in the courtroom to “protect the parties”. The cj appoints Yamasaki to council then to chair the Trial Court Efficiencies Committee but this is the guy who works part time for Santa Clara, has the judges pay for his housing and works from home in San Diego (rumor has it) most days. He is the highest paid court employee in the state but is now recruiting for an Assistant Exec to cover for him because he is always out of the office. He cuts the employees but still has enough to hire an assistant? This is the cj’s pick to head the committee that will show the rest of the courts how to be more efficient? These are just 2 egregious examples of the cj surrounding herself with weakness. Bad appointments shows bad leadership.
The cj had a great speech but that was yesterday. She needs to show us everyday, by her actions and by her people that she can lead this branch. Talk to Calderon. Take 1208 to the Senate. Say your piece. Show us you’re willing to fight for the branch, in public, for the public because that is who you work for. Lead!
JusticeCalifornia
March 21, 2012
Here here.
One might ask why Judicial Councilmember Marin CEO Kim Turner, and Marin Judge Verna Adams (who has claimed lots of credit for Marin’s mental health court), both of whom were involved in the Marin child custody evidence document destruction, are being appointed to top leadership positions by Cantil Sakauye to advise her and the courts how to do things. . . .while they most assuredly are NOT busy making sure Marin follows the rules.
http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_20166513/state-appeals-court-finds-marin-needs-protect-rights
unionman575
March 21, 2012
What a bullshit shindig this will be!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-agenda.pdf
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MEETING
Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.6(a))
Ronald M. George State Office Complex
William C. Vickrey Judicial Council Conference Center
Malcolm M. Lucas Board Room
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 • 9:00 a.m.–5:50 p.m.
Meeting materials will be hyperlinked to agenda titles as soon as possible after receipt by the
Judicial Council Secretariat. Please check the agenda at http://www.courts.ca.gov/jcmeetings.htm
for recent postings of hyperlinked reports.
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 AGENDA
JusticeCalifornia
March 21, 2012
While ever so many usual suspects are presenting at the jc meeting, at least (for once) Kim Turner does not appear to be one of them.
Guest, interesting story about the Santa Clara CEO.
unionman575
March 21, 2012
Correction 3-27-12 meeting.
Guest
March 22, 2012
Ask SEIU about him. Highest paid court employee in the state, has his housing in a ritzy part of Santa Clara paid by the court when he actually stays there. He telecommutes from San Diego because he and his family never moved. He is also a buddy of Roddy so that should say something. All the pay and perks for himself but still cuts the real working court employees. And he is appointed by the cj to run the committee that will tell the other courts how to be more efficient? Santa Clara is running so well with him. Love working there!
unionman575
March 21, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2011-CCMS-Phoenix-Update-report-to-Legislature.pdf
CCMS STATUS REPORT 2-29-12 – 320 PAGES – THIS IS THE FULL UNEDITED VERSION – It is a huge load of bullshit!
unionman575
March 21, 2012
Written Comments Received for
March 27, 2012, Judicial Council Business Meeting
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-comments.pdf
unionman575
March 21, 2012
OK folks here are all of the attachments for the 2-27-12 Special Branch Tech JC Meeting (CCMS). Get me a bucket…
California Court Case Management System: Deployment Cost Analysis by Grant Thornton LLP (No Action Required)
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemD.pdf
California Court Case Management System: Deployment Options
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemE.pdf
California Court Case Management System:
Maintenance and Operations Costs for
Courts with V2 and V3 Interim Case
Management Systems
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemF.pdf
California Court Case Management System: Election of Delay Cost Reimbursement on Development Contract
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-itemG.pdf
Written Comments Received for
March 27, 2012, Judicial Council Business Meeting
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120327-comments.pdf