.
We’re not sure how many people or organizations will be involved in tomorrows sfbar rally on the steps of San Francisco City Hall but the drumbeats of a rally to support court funding and reject AOC waste tomorrow seems to be a message that is resonating with many. A few reports of organizing and sign making are coming in to us here at JCW – and even a .pdf sign titled YES on court basics, NO on AOC waste for you to download and make your own sign.
We think it is a foregone conclusion with respect to court funding in general.
We also recognize an opportunity to educate those that have been hearing just one side of the message. The other side of the message is about judicial branch priorities; to ensure that funds meant for the dispensation of justice are used for that purpose alone. We want to end the perfect storm of giving the AOC billions while they waste it, remain above the law and accountable to no one.
We want there to be enough court employees to manage court cases expeditiously and we want a true and accurate copy of the record.
These things are not too much to ask of your government, of your employer and of the people.
A $1,700+ per sq foot courthouse and a software program that costs more than a million dollars per judge are far too much to ask of your government and of the people.
.
Question to our readers: If we endorsed an individuals appointment as a judicial council member would that be tantamount to a kiss of death or an endorsement?
unionman575
April 17, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/17/45695.htm
, April 17, 2012Last Update: 7:14 AM PT
Cast of Court Players Call Upon California for Critical Funding
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – Budget cuts have left the California justice system “in shambles,” judges, lawyers and court employees claimed at the Capitol on Monday, hoping more state aid will keep courtrooms open.
“We have to have our courts,” attorney Theodore Olson testified before a joint Senate committee. “When we cut a dollar out of our justice system, we’re cutting a dollar out of our ability to deliver justice to our citizens. In this state and other states, our justice systems are in shambles. The sky is falling. This is not crying wolf.”
Yolo County Superior Court Presiding Judge David Rosenberg told the committee that “Kafka could not dream up this scenario.”
“It’s the worst-case scenario for the judicial system,” Rosenberg said.
The California court system, which accounts for just 2.4 percent of the overall state budget, has seen $653 million in cuts over the last four years. Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012-13 budget package includes $125 million in additional cuts to the judiciary if voters reject sales and income tax increases.
California State Bar President Jon Streeter warned that cuts this year could produce a “frightful” level of court closures.
“Most of these cuts, 90 percent, the vast majority of them occurred in the trial courts, hitting the operation budget where people interact with the courts everyday,” Streeter said.
Courts up and down the state have already laid off hundreds of workers, with Los Angeles Superior Court, the biggest court in the nation, slated to lay off 300 employees in June. Witnesses told horror stories of closed courtrooms and vast lines of frustrated people, often waiting hours for court services, only to be turned away because of reduced staff and court hours.
Streeter continued: “The cuts that we’re talking about are falling on the shoulders of the most vulnerable. We’re going after collateral services, things like our self-help services. In San Francisco, in our civil system, there are no court reporters unless you bring your own. Same situation with interpreters. People who tend to need interpreters are generally those who aren’t going to be able to afford to hire them. We’re slowly creating a system in which only those of means can afford civil justice.”
Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, said the judiciary should look at cutting waste, citing a recently terminated statewide computer project called the Court Case Management System.
The judiciary poured hundreds of millions of dollars, and even diverted money away from court operations, into the system even as judges decried it statewide as a boondoggle.
“We’ve had a situation here in California very recently where we had a half-a-billion-dollar computer program that the court system junked as being useless and in some cases unwanted, and so those are the kind of inefficiencies that catch my attention,” Harman said. “It seems there would be a great deal of room here to try to figure out how to make our court systems work more efficiently and deliver the court services required.”
During a public comment period following over two hours of witness testimony, Mark Natoli with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees urged legislators to prevent fiascos like CCMS by ensuring that all the money allocated to courts actually go to the courts.
“Money allocated by this body to the trial court trust fund should stay there,” Natoli said. “We don’t have the ability to do another statewide project that spends hundreds of millions of dollars from that fund while we are closing courtrooms and laying off courtroom personnel.”
Natoli, who represents court employees in Los Angeles, said the court will be closing 10 percent of its courtrooms over the next three months. “I don’t think devastating is too big a word,” he said.
Cut to the Bone
Attorney David Boies identified underfunded courts as the real problem in his testimony.
“The justice systems’ funding did not keep pace with increased demands on our justice system,” Boies said. “The cuts have really gone to the bone, they’ve gone to the skeleton of our justice system. What we have seen in states across the country is courthouses closed. Sometimes a day a week, sometimes a day a month, sometimes an afternoon, sometimes closed entirely. We have seen court personnel laid off. We have seen judges who do not have the resources to deal with complicated cases. We have seen instances in which courts will not be able to give a litigant a copy of the court’s opinion unless the litigant brings their own paper because the court system has run out of paper.”
Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, asked Olson and Boies for solutions.
“You’re saying a lot of things I’ve said for the last few years,” said Evans, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The problem when we talk about the judicial system – it’s the branch of government that’s the most esoteric. But when they need it, they need it. How do we make this real for people?”
Boies said most people aren’t aware of the funding crisis in the court system, as most only interact with the courts once or twice in their entire lives.
Most “haven’t walked in the hallways of the Superior Court in Los Angeles, one of the great courts of this country, and found you can barely wind your way through the people with judges out in the hallways trying to adjudicate domestic-violence cases in the hallways because there’s no place in the courtrooms,” he said.
“They don’t think about how badly they need the justice system until they need it, and by then it’s too late,” he added. “As people understand more and more who the victims of a dysfunctional justice system are, they will see that they’re just like everybody else.”
Olson called the court “invisible.” “They don’t drive to court like they drive on the roads,” he said.
Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, asked the attorneys what other states have done to alleviate their courts’ financial burdens.
“The fact is that there aren’t any really great rosy pictures to tell you about,” Olson answered.
“The problem is a revenue problem,” he added. “You can’t make those systems more efficient. You can’t serve 38 million Californians on reduced revenue.”
anna
April 17, 2012
All they have to do is pass AB1208, and the courts would get their money. Evans and Hancock know this. So what’s the need for the dog and pony show? Sounds like Harman knows what he’s talking about.
Wasting half a billion on nothing, what a disgrace. That alone should wake the legislature up. Evans, Hancock, and Steinberg should be in jail for allowing the JC/AOC to rob the courts.
anna
April 17, 2012
Bois and Olsen, what toadies for the AOC/JC. Those two assholes need to go back to the states where they came from.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
I’ll pay for the one-way plane tickets for both assholes.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
Question to our readers: If we endorsed an individuals appointment as a judicial council member would that be tantamount to a kiss of death or an endorsement?
I’ll go with kiss of death.
Wendy Darling
April 17, 2012
I’m with Unionman – kiss of death. It shouldn’t, but it would be.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
Thanks Wendy. It is what it is.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
The AOC serts sail on 4-18-12 – All Aboard!
unionman575
April 17, 2012
I think I spotted Patel in the lifeboat.
=)
unionman575
April 17, 2012
http://www.insidebayarea.com/crime-courts/ci_20416356/56-courtrooms-l-county-9-san-fernando-valley
56 courtrooms in L.A. County — 9 in San Fernando Valley — to close, more than 168 workers to be laid off
By C.J. Lin, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/17/2012 12:11:54 PM PDT
Updated: 04/17/2012 12:41:36 PM PDT
A state-ordered cut of $30 million to the L.A. Superior Courts budget will prompt the closure of 56 courtrooms countywide, and result in the “erosion of access to justice,” an official said Tuesday.
The cuts, the largest in memory, will mean the closure of 24 civil, 24 criminal, three family law, one probate and four juvenile delinquency courtrooms, according to Judge Lee Edmon, presiding judge of L.A. County Superior Court.
Since judges cannot be laid off, those affected by the closures will be reassigned or forced to share courtrooms and staff with other judges, Edmon said.
Court reporters will no longer be available for civil trials, as 68 will be laid off and another 50 will be switched to part-time status. Another 100 non-courtroom staff, such as clerks and managerial employees, will be laid off.
“Our system is going to slow substantially down,” Edmon said. “There are going to be increasing delays in literally every type of case.”
Case backlogs will grow, as will lines at filing windows, service centers and traffic ticket queues, which were already exacerbated by an earlier round of cuts in 2010, Edmon said.
“There are going to be delays in processing judgments and child support orders and custody decisions, while the lives of those families unfortunately hang in the balance,” Edmon said.
“We’re familiar with the saying, `Justice delayed is justice denied,”‘ she said. “And unfortunately, this unavoidable result is going to result in the erosion of access to justice.”
A juvenile program that has dealt with minors facing traffic offenses and other minor violations in an informal setting with their parents to keep them out of the courts system will also be cut, according to officials.
The closures will be effective June 30.
Wendy Darling
April 17, 2012
“A state-ordered cut of $30 million to the L.A. Superior Courts budget will prompt the closure of 56 courtrooms countywide, and result in the “erosion of access to justice,” an official said Tuesday.”
But we’ll still have CCMS, or what’s left after it’s “leveraged,” and the pile of debt and carnage it, the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and especially the AOC, have left in its’ wake.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
And all kinds of other “valuable” AOC programs too!
Why fund trial courts when you can siphon off the money for projects that have zero value to the branch and the citizens?
Bullshit reigns supreme at the Deathstar.
JusticeCalifornia
April 17, 2012
Yes, the AOC has almost $9 milliion to “leverage” CCMS.
And all those fancy, way overpriced new courthouses all queued up as party favors for the Judicial Council members. Yep, it’s real hard to cry poormouth when Michael Roddy and Erica Yew — active participants in this tragedy– are all set to get almost $1 BILLION for the new San Diego and Santa Clara courthouses. 2 courthouses! $1 BILLION!! If they gave up just those two courthouses it would solve the terrible budget crisis immediately facing the branch. And an off-the shelf CMS system with e-filing capabilities could be installed in courts throughout the state who want such a system!
Or what about if the really magnificent, spiked pension/retirement packages for those top-level AOC administrators who have gotten the branch into this terrible mess were donated back to the branch for trial court funding?
It is a question of priorities.
I got myself a very fine sign (a large version of the “yes on court basics, no on AOC waste” posted above) for tomorrow. $69 bucks at Fed Ex for a rather nice and quite visible rally message. You can e-mail a PDF of your message to Fed Ex, tell them what you want, and pick it up.
Wendy Darling
April 17, 2012
Not just a question of priorities, Justice California, but also a question of ethics. Both are essentially non-existent at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. But still plenty of Grey Goose, caviar, and lobster to be had.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 17, 2012
Ethics indeed, Wendy. But the chickens are coming home to roost. I do believe top leadership is getting called out– again.
“With risks of more reductions on the horizon, we are already rationing justice. The Judicial Council must find fiscal relief for the trial courts – from any and all sources. The public cannot tolerate any further major service reductions.”
–Los Angeles Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon
It appears our jc/aoc members are being called upon to put their money where their “poor mouth” complaints are. Top leadership got the branch into this financial mess via billions of dollars wasted notwithstanding years of warnings, complaints and criticism. Instead of cleaning up the mess, top leadership tried to shoot the messengers, lie about the mess, and bury the evidence. Top leadership can and should sacrifice to bail the branch out of the mess top leadership created and perpetuated. Party favors are on the chopping block. JC members should be offering up their new courthouses. AOC top leadership should be taking salary reductions and offering up their ridiculous pensions. There is no reason whatsoever the PUBLIC should suffer reduced services and pay increased fines and fees, in order to bail out those who have plundered branch coffers and frittered away branch resources .
unionman575
April 17, 2012
Here you go my AOC humpback friends…
Cultural Dictionary
Waste not, want not definition
If we don’t waste what we have, we’ll still have it in the future and will not lack (want) it.
wearyant
April 17, 2012
Mgmt types in my old courthouse used to say, “Spend, spend all the funds, so we can ask for more next fiscal year!” Then they’d say in the next breath, “We’re here for the people we serve.” Umm, I don’t think so. And in contract negotiations, “There’s no money.”
[hurl!]
unionman575
April 17, 2012
I have heard the no money mantra for worker salaries for years while management spends and spends on BULLSHIT like execuitve management payraises, consultants etc.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
The people they serve are themselves. Management ALWAYS take care if itself.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
Los Angeles Superior Court
Public Information Office
Website: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org
E-mail Address: PublicInfo@LASuperiorcourt.org
NEWS
RELEASE
April 17, 2012
Los Angeles Superior Court’s Presiding
Judge Announces Courtroom Closures
The Los Angeles Superior Court today announces plans for the most significant reduction of services in its history. By June 30, 2012, the Court will reduce its staff by nearly 350 workers, close 56 courtrooms, reduce its use of court reporters and eliminate the Informal Juvenile Traffic Courts.
According to Presiding Judge Lee Smalley Edmon, “Staffing reductions due to budget cuts over the past 10 years have forced our court to reduce staffing by 24%, while case filings continue to increase. This has created incredible pressures on our court to keep up with our work. We cannot endure these pressures for much longer.”
In the current year, additional staffing reductions are required to deal with the fact that the state’s budget crisis has resulted in a reduction to the California judicial branch of $652 million. The Court has managed its share of these cuts by spending down year-end fund balances, freezing wages, furloughing court staff, and eliminating staff positions, achieving $70 million in ongoing savings as of last fiscal year.
This year, the state cuts are forcing us to reduce our spending by an additional $30 million – on top of the $70 million in reductions we have already made,” notes Edmon. “There will be as many as 350 dedicated, skilled court workers who will no longer be serving the residents of Los Angeles County. When we lose those people, we will no longer be able to shield the core work of the court – the courtroom – from the budget crisis.”
The $30 million reduction plan, which will take effect by June 30, 2012, has four components:
First, the Court is closing 56 courtrooms, a move made necessary by the depth and breadth of the reductions.
Th courtrooms being impacted include 24 civil, 24 criminal, 3 family, 1 probate, and 4 juvenile delinquency courts. The caseloads of those courtrooms are being distributed among the remaining courtrooms. Judicial officers whose courtrooms are impacted will be reassigned to fill vacancies, to share staff or to handle settlement conferences to resolve cases without trials.
Courtroom closures
Second, on May 15, 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court will no longer provide court reporters for civil trials. In addition, after June 18, 2012, court reporters will be available for civil law-and-motion matters on a limited basis. (No changes are being made to the provision of court reporters in criminal, family, probate, delinquency or dependency matters.)
Third, the Court is again making significant reductions to its non-courtroom staff. Having made 329 layoffs and lost another 229 court staff through attrition over the past two years, the Court anticipates making more than 100 additional non-courtroom staff reductions by June 30, 2012. “Our judges and staff have shown incredible dedication and commitment in keeping the court running during these past two years. But these new reductions will not allow it to be business as usual. There will be longer lines at clerk’s windows across the county and slower responses to the public’s needs across the court,” said Edmon.
Fourth, the Court will eliminate its Informal Juvenile Traffic Court program (IJTC). IJTC is an innovative program in which minors who commit low-level offenses are held to account for their actions by the court and by their parents – but outside of the traditional delinquency system. “These courts have allowed us to address tens of thousands of offenses in a more appropriate forum than delinquency court,” said Assistant Presiding Judge David Wesley. “We are losing a crucial element of the juvenile justice system to lack of funding.”
“It saddens me to have to make these layoffs,” notes Presiding Judge Edmon. “These actions are affecting people who have made a commitment to public service, to justice. We have had incredible cooperation of all our staff and our labor representatives through the past few years of these trying economic times. We should be in a position to reward them, not to have to inflict further pain.”
“These extraordinary actions,” says Presiding Judge Edmon, “cut into the core work of the courts. With risks of more reductions on the horizon, we are already rationing justice. The Judicial Council must find fiscal relief for the trial courts – from any and all sources. The public cannot tolerate any further major service reductions.”
Notices to litigants and to attorneys regarding these changes are proceeding. Pursuant to statute and rule of court, relevant notices to attorneys and the public regarding the moving of case types, and changes to filing locations, can be found through the court’s website: go to http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org, click on “News and Media”, then click on “Notices to Attorneys.” For relevant judicial orders, click on “Court Rules” and look under the “Special Notices” tab.
No cases are being dismissed because of these actions.
unionman575
April 17, 2012
It’s all about taking care of number one – themselves up there at the JC/AOC Deathstar.
unionman575
April 18, 2012
Are you fucking kidding me Miller?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17575.htm
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Philip Carrizosa, 415-865-8044
Apr 17, 2012
Justice Douglas P. Miller responds to LAO Report
SAN FRANCISCO—Justice Douglas P. Miller, chair of the Executive and Planning Committee of the Judicial Council of California, issued a statement in response to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) report released April 13, 2012. The report, entitled “The 2012-13 Budget: Managing Ongoing Reductions to the Judicial Branch” is posted online .
“I’m pleased that the Legislative Analyst recognizes the adverse effects of the cumulative budget cutbacks to the judicial branch,” said Justice Miller. “However, as Chair of the Executive and Planning Committee, I disagree with its conclusion that the Legislature should solely dictate how ongoing cutbacks to the judicial branch should be allocated to the courts. I agree with the Governor on this issue. His budget properly recognizes the role that the third branch of government has in managing how budget shortfalls should be absorbed. The report also recommends that the Legislature delay or suspend court construction programs. The Judicial Council, however, remains committed to the court construction program and ensuring that courthouses are safe and accessible to the public, court employees, and other court users. Each year the Judicial Council has responsibly balanced the need to replace and renovate court facilities with keeping courts open by redirecting court construction funds to court operations. Just this year the Judicial Council redirected $213 million for that purpose. Additionally, our own judicial oversight committee has forwarded cost-reduction recommendations for court projects to the Judicial Council, and we will be considering them on April 24 at our next scheduled Judicial Council meeting. This is an example of an issue more appropriate for judicial branch governance.”
Judicial Council Watcher
April 18, 2012
Unchecked power and money are like crack cocaine.
unionman575
April 18, 2012
Nice – that video tells a story…
unionman575
April 18, 2012
Let’s get ready to rumble…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120424-agenda.pdf
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA MEETINGS
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, April 24, 2012 • 10:30 a.m.–3:00 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, APRIL 24, 2012 AGENDA—BUSINESS MEETING
unionman575
April 18, 2012
It’s time to turn the tide and get these court construction projects cancelled so we can have operating funds for trial courts…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120424-itemB.pdf
Title
Judicial Branch Report to the Legislature:
Annual Report of Fiscal Year 2010–2011 Court Facilities Trust Fund Expenditures
————————————————————————————————————–
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120424-agenda.pdf
DISCUSSION AGENDA (ITEMS D–H)
Item D 12:35–1:00 p.m.
Court Facilities: Recommendations on Reducing Costs of SB 1407 Projects (Action Required)
The Court Facilities Working Group (the Working Group) recommends the next steps to reduce costs for each SB 1407 project, including reassessing 13 projects with the goal of significantly lowering their costs. Minimum reductions to hard construction costs are recommended for all projects along with a set of principles for use by the courts, the AOC, and the design teams to meet cost reduction minimum goals.
Public Comment and Presentation (10 minutes) • Discussion (15 minutes)
Speakers: Hon. Brad Hill, Chair, Court Facilities Working Group
Hon. Jeffrey W. Johnson, Chair, Courthouse Cost Reduction Subcommittee of the Court Facilities Working Group
Wendy Darling
April 18, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, April 18, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Edmon, Wesley Outline Plans for Closure of 56 Courtrooms
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The presiding judge and assistant presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court yesterday gave the most detailed information to date regarding the court’s plan to close 56 courtrooms in order to meet its share of statewide judicial branch budget cuts.
Speaking to reporters at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse downtown, Presiding Judge Lee Edmon and Assistant Presiding Judge David Wesley reiterated what had already been made public—the court will, between now and June 30, be reducing its staff by nearly 350 workers, closing 56 courtrooms, reducing its use of court reporters and eliminating the Informal Juvenile Traffic Courts.
Court-employed reporters will no longer be available to report civil trials after May 15, Edmon said, although trials in progress as of that date will not be affected. Reporters in law-and-motion courts will be available only on a limited basis after June 18, she said.
Still a Struggle
While the court has already made permanent changes that cut its spending by $70 million annually, the restructuring of the court will save another $30 million, as the court struggles to meet its share of budget cuts that have been imposed on trial courts statewide.
“This is a very sad day for our court and county,” Edmon said. “We will lose dedicated court employees, some who have been here over 30 years.”
The situation could get worse, she said. Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal includes $125 million in “trigger cuts” to the courts, $30 million of which would have to be absorbed by the Los Angeles Superior Court unless an initiative increasing taxes is approved in November. And even if the trigger cuts do not take effect, the court’s reduced spending level will represent its “new baseline,” Edmon said.
Under the plan, some of the 56 courtrooms would be physically shuttered, while others may be used for activities not requiring staff assistance, such as settlement conferences, the presiding judge explained. Some judicial officers who now have fully staffed courtrooms will be moved to settlement duty.
The changes will affect virtually every type of case at every court facility in the county, with 24 criminal courts among the 56.
Edmon acknowledged that the courts will still have to meet statutory mandates that require that criminal cases be given priority over civil, and that cases go to trial within strict deadlines. “We will have to monitor the situation carefully,” she said.
At the Foltz Criminal Justice Center, for example, four misdemeanor and preliminary hearing courtrooms will close, along with a complex trial department in which Judge Lance Ito sits.
Ito, the court’s best-known judge since his handling of the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, will become a “utility player” for the court, Wesley said, borrowing the baseball term for someone who can fill in at a variety of positions. Edmon said the court would be borrowing on Ito’s many years of criminal law experience to handle a wide assortment of matters.
Central District Civil
Four other courtrooms hearing misdemeanors and infractions in the court’s Central District will be closed under the plan, one each in East Los Angeles, Metropolitan Court, Hollywood, and Central Arraignment Court.
At Mosk, two general civil and one limited civil courtrooms—Departments 19,39, and 44—will be closed, along with Dept. 1A, which hears a variety of civil matters.
Department 12, which grants writs of attachment, will also close. Matters now heard in that department will go to the individual calendar judges to whom the underlying cases have been assigned.
Judge Luis Lavin, who now sits in that department, will become the court’s third Writs and Receivers judge. But the three judges will share two staffs, Edmon explained.
Also slated for closure is Department 97, which hears various civil matters, including unlawful detainers and small claims. The court sent out a notice Monday that Judge Robert Schuit would be moving from that department to Sylmar Juvenile Court as of April 30.
Finally, three civil long cause courts, all presided over by former presiding judges, will be consolidated into two.
In other moves, as indicated on a chart distributed yesterday:
•The domestic violence court, Dept. 8, will close. A court spokesman said a new system, in which three commissioners would share responsibility for domestic violence restraining orders and injunctions against civil harassment, would be implemented.
One regular family law department will also close;
•One probate court will close;
•As previously reported by the MetNews, four juvenile delinquency courtrooms—one each in Eastlake, Inglewood, Sylmar, and Pomona—will close;
•One criminal and two civil courts at Pomona South will close, along with one civil court at Pomona North. The court previously announced that the Pomona North limited civil caseload is being moved to West Covina;
•One court that hears small claims, unlawful detainers, and civil harassment cases at the Antelope Valley courthouse will be closed;
•A civil court in Pasadena and a misdemeanor court in Alhambra, both in the Northeast District, will close;
•A limited civil court in Glendale and a family law court in Burbank will close. The family law caseload in Burbank will shift to Glendale;
•Three courts will close in the North Valley District—civil courts in Chatsworth and Santa Clarita and a criminal court in San Fernando. Judge David Stuart, whose Chatsworth courtroom is the one slated for closure, is slated to move to San Fernando May 1;
•Four courts hearing civil cases and infractions in Van Nuys will close;
•Three courts in Long Beach, including that of retiring Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani, will close;
•Three courts in the South Central District will close;
•Four courts in the Southeast District—one each in Bellflower, Downey, Norwalk, and Whittier will close. The Downey limited civil caseload will be moved to Bellflower, which is losing a misdemeanor court;
•Three Southwest District courts, two in Torrance and one in Inglewood, will close;
•Four West District courts—one each at the Santa Monica, Airport, Beverly Hills and Malibu courthouses—will close. The Airport courtroom is the one formerly presided over by Judge Jacquelyn Connor, who retired.
The court is encouraging attorneys whose cases may be affected to check the “Notice to Attorneys” section of its website.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
April 18, 2012
By Nick McCann for Courthouse News – 700 needless reports nixed:
” (CN) – An annual summary of Australia’s kangaroo harvest is one of more than 700 reports that California will stop producing, Gov. Jerry Brown said.
In addition to Fish and Game’s kangaroo report, the list announced Tuesday also includes a monthly report related to the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 from an alternative energy department and an annual report from the Transportation Department about waste tires.
“It wastes a lot of time and money to write, track and file these reports,” Brown said in a statement. “Government should be focused on providing information that is actually helpful to taxpayers, not on checking boxes to meet outdated bureaucratic requirements.”
In December, the governor ordered all state agencies and departments to audit all their reports and identify those that did not have significant value.
The governor determined that 718 of the reports were unnecessary, and 375 of them require legislative action.
The governor submitted a letter to the Department of Finance asking the state Legislature to end reporting requirements for those reports, and the department will then direct the Legislative Counsel to stop tracking them.”
So I’m sure our friends at the jc/aoc/cj office will also do their part and rid beleaguered California taxpayers of needless reports, projects, make-work jobs, and all manner of unwanted creativity for the judicial branch in these very difficult times.
Yeah, right.
Recall Tani!
Pass AB1208!
Long live ACJ!
Wendy Darling
April 18, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, April 18, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cynthia Foster:
Rally for Court Funding Draws Hundreds in San Francisco
Cynthia Foster
S.F. Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein and other local judges were on hand as the attorney general and others warned that cuts are impeding access to justice.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549475928&Rally_for_Court_Funding_Draws_Hundreds_in_San_Francisco&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 18, 2012
I have not read or seen any press reports but here is my report:
The rally today was friendly and well-attended. The bottom line of the event was really that courts need money to stay open, functioning, staffed and serving the public. No mention by the speakers of AOC waste, or the CJ, or the AB1208 issues but there were some nice signs and handouts from attendees mentioning the AOC. Props to the SEIU, which had a good turnout, good speakers, and a masked character who was very visible and funny. IMHO it was not an event that focused on supporting party-liners. In fact Cantil Sakauye’s absence at this pivotal judicial branch event WAS REMARKABLE EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAS BECOME A BRANCH LIABILITY.
At the same time, by NOT mentioning “top leadership’s” waste and mismanagement, which has and is harming the entire branch, a burden is being placed upon the Governor, legislators, the ACJ, the unions and concerned others to demand fiscal accountability and responsible, targeted allocation to ensure that branch funding goes to serve the public, not support a bloated AOC and “top leadership’s” pet mismanaged fiscal debacles.
Been There
April 19, 2012
Great post, Justice California. Not only is the CJ a liability to the judicial branch, she has made herself too polarizing a figure for a rally such as this. I am sure that some of the speakers would have been uncomfortable with her presence there, fearing she would have turned the event into a partisan event guaranteed to offend some, if not many, of them.
BTW: great appointment Ron George! Why, why why? Of all the um, compliant, appellate justices in the State of California, you picked the most unqualified, inept person, a person totally lacking in demonstrated management skills, political savvy, and intellectual depth. Of all the justices in the State of California, you picked the Dan Quayle of the California courts.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
You don’t think that was an accident, do you, Been There? Of all the compliant, appellate justices in the State of California, Ron George also picked the one most on board with protecting and preserving Ron George’s perceived “legacy” and the one most ethically compromised in the administrative aspect of the duties and obligations of the Office of the Chief Justice. And she has done a stellar job doing just that. Ron George’s parting gift to “the shrill and uninformed.”
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 19, 2012
I do not disagree with anything you say, Wendy, but while Tani may have been the most on board with protecting and preserving the “legacy”, she is proving too inexperienced and inept to accomplish that goal over the long term.
When Ron George retired he could see storm clouds on the horizon. The effects of the bad economy were certain to trickle down to the judicial branch budget, and as a result would require more finesse in diverting money from the trial courts to pet boondoggles. Second, Arnold was termed out and Meg Whitman was sinking in the polls, which meant and end to the CJ appointing only friends and loyal supporters to the appellate courts. A new governor would be making those appointments. Those pesky ACJ members — shrill and uninformed as he may have thought them to be — were getting their message out to members of the legislature. These legislators would need to be brought in line.
Ron George has made mistakes too. He had fired Michael Paul, which freed Michael to share important information in person, through the media, and on the Internet on sites such as this. I personally give a huge amount of credit to Michael for demystifying the shell came the AOC was playing with the various versions of CCMS.
Ron George needed a successor who was smooth, suave, politically smart, likable and utterly ruthless.
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2012
Perhaps hoping to perpetuate his vision and control, perhaps hoping to protect himself, Ron George chose someone who
—would not show him up
—would tow the party line
—was not too bright or ethical and would take direction from and protect Team George
—on the surface appeared to be an appealing, politically correct choice
Cantil Sakauye’s obvious limitations coupled with the budget issues have shocked all three branches out of their Team George stupor and into facing the ugly facts about what has been going on in the branch — and what is going to happen to the branch under the current cj’s leadership — or lack thereof.
I believe Cantil Sakauye will eventually be called upon– publicly or privately– by influential branch leaders, even those that may like her personally– to step down for the sake of the branch.
Ultimately, the authority of the judicial branch is built upon respect.
Without respect. . . .well, you end up where we are now.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
Well, Been There, Michael Paul isn’t the only one Ron George fired for blowing the whistle on the misconduct and mismanagement going on at the AOC. As far as AOC employees, Ron George’s favorite expression might has well have been “Off with their head.”
And congratulations to Ken “Sofa Man” Couch on interviewing tof the Assistant CEO postion at the Santa Clara Superior Court, and trying to “leverage” the carnage of the AOC’s HR Division over the the court employees in Santa Clara.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2012
Santa Clara and Ken Couch– gotta love it. That’s like Cantil Sakauye and Kim Turner. Contra Costa and Kiri Torre.
Water seeks its level. Thugs are thugs are thugs. A great big musical chairs of thugs.
Woe to those who adopt unethical Team George refugees with rap sheets. No one can say they did not know. So when (not if) harm comes to the public, the branch or employees, or anyone else who is harmed as a result of the bad actions of Team George refugees with rap sheets, those adopting them will be held fully, completely responsible.
Just ask Tani. Say hey Tani, how has your adoption of Kim Turner worked out for you?
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Been There: “Of all the justices in the State of California, you picked the Dan Quayle of the California courts”.
You are killing me! LOL
unionman575
April 18, 2012
The AOC teaching ethics? Get me a bucket…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17578.htm
unionman575
April 18, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/budgetbasics.pdf
The Trial Court Budgeting Process?
——————————————————–
I always thought it was more like this…
unionman575
April 18, 2012
Out of these 41 projects we need some “volunteers” to step forward and “donate’ for the cause of keeping trial courts open for all in California…Don’t be shy all you JC/AOC humps and PJ’s as well…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SB1407-cost-reduction-recommendations-cfwg-041312.pdf
Recommendations by the Court Facilities Working Group
Cost Reductions in Senate Bill 1407 Projects as of 04/13/2012
Subject to change and to be reviewed by the Judicial Council
unionman575
April 18, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
April 18, 2012
Let’s save some construction bucks now and allocate ALL those $ to the trial courts now…
Here’s one for the chopping block…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/San_Diego-11-09-23.pdf
Here’s another for the chopping block…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Santa_Clara-11-09-22.pdf
I’ve got more for you assholes at the JC/AOC.
=)
unionman575
April 18, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ADCBrochure.pdf
I say end the search now..i’t’s MIchael Paul for AOC Director.
=)
unionman575
April 18, 2012
As you may recall Steve Nash was the AOC Budget Director until recently when he became the Executive Officer of San Bernardino Court. It will be interesting to see if the powers that be reward their friend with a little “extra” funding for San Bernardino.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_20429229/san-bernardino-court-officials-weigh-budget-options
San Bernardino Court officials weigh budget options
Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/18/2012 08:11:29 PM PDT
San Bernardino County courts are facing budget cuts, though no decisions have been made yet.
As Superior Courts around the state look for ways to grapple with staggering budget cuts in the next fiscal year, San Bernardino County officials say courtroom closures are one option being looked at here.
“It’s definitely a potential,” said Stephen Nash, court executive officer in San Bernardino County. “It’s not off the table.”
The news comes as court officials in Los Angeles County announced Tuesday that they will reduce staff by nearly 350 workers and close 56 courtrooms by June 30, as a way to absorb budget reductions there.
Cuts in Los Angeles County are part of the $652 million in mandated budget reductions to the state’s judicial system over the last several years.
Nash said Wednesday that no decisions have been made in San Bernardino County about reduced services or closures. But Presiding Judge Ronald M. Christianson has convened a small group, which includes past presiding judges, to weigh cost-reduction options, Nash said.
“We’re being hit with the same level of cuts as L.A.,” Nash said. “There are going to be impacts and implications in the court, going into next year.”
Court officials and judges here are working to address the budget shortfall. The goal will be to minimize the impact on the public and to employees, he said.
For fiscal 2011-12, San Bernardino County courts reduced services at courthouses in Needles and Big Bear by two days per month. They also reduced hours in the Court Clerk’s Office in Needles and Big Bear.
The projected expenditures for the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in the current fiscal year, are $111.3 million compared to revenue of $101.8 million for a shortfall of 8.5 percent. Nash said this is possible in the current year, because the court has some carryover reserve funding.
Based upon the governor’s proposed budget and preliminary information from the state Administrative Office of the Courts, San Bernardino officials project revenue in the next fiscal year, 2012-2013, will decline to $93.1 million.
As of Wednesday, San Bernardino courts do not have a final budget plan for next year. But if court costs continued at the current level next year, the shortfall would increase to 14.2 percent.
Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed even more cuts to the courts, about $125 million, if voters do not approve his proposed tax increases on the November ballot. If the additional cuts were to happen, San Bernardino officials projected the shortfall would jump to 18.7 percent.
Nash said the court’s reserves would be quickly depleted below the required minimum operating reserve .
Superior Courts in San Bernardino County have 71 judges, 15 commissioners and 999 staff members, who serve a population of more than 2 million people, according to its web site.
Court officials report there were 528,530 filings here in fiscal 2010-2011. Courthouses are located in San Bernardino, Chino, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Redlands, Joshua Tree, Victorville, Barstow, Needles and Big Bear.
The court in San Bernardino County already faces some tough challenges that put a strain on finances. First, the court historically has been under-resourced, given the significant population growth in the Inland Empire.
Second, being the largest county in the United States, geographically speaking, creates unique logistical challenges for the courts.
Nash said court officials here won’t make a decision about potential cuts for several weeks. The next round of cuts is July 1.
In the meantime, court officials are working with other county law enforcement agencies in the county to weigh options as well as the state Administrative Office of the Courts and local representatives in the Assembly and Senate.
Court officials are also meeting with representatives from local employee unions.
“There’s a lot of pieces that come into play,” Nash said.
Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_20429229/san-bernardino-court-officials-weigh-budget-options#ixzz1sSvpsanK
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2012
Twitter pics from yesterday:
https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23CACourtRally
http://twitpic.com/9bce0p
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Justice those are nice pics! Rock on folks! Keep up the good work!
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2012
http://www.sfbar.org/court-funding/index.aspx
more info re yesterday
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Good info!
unionman575
April 19, 2012
My. my, my the CA Senate wants to know where over 500 mil went on CCMS…What a pleasant surprise!
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/19/45792.htm
, April 19, 2012Last Update: 5:15 PM PT
Senate Wants to Know “What Went Wrong” with $500M IT Project
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A California Senate budget sub-committee voted Thursday to require the judiciary to prepare a report outlining “what went wrong” with a court computer system that has cost the state over $500 million.
“I think we really need some analysis by the branch of what went so wrong, and I’m very interested in what we need to do to ensure that this does not happen again,” said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley.
The Court Case Management System was recently terminated by the Judicial Council, after nine years of development and $521 million. It was condemned by trial judges as a boondoggle and skewered by the State Auditor in a report that sharply criticized the administrators for mismanagement and out-of-control costs.
“Either there was real lack of sophistication in the bid process from the perspective of the courts so that the enormous leaps in change orders and costs were things that should have been predicted, or there were some enormous lapses on the part of Deloitte, the contractor, on making cost estimates that were so very wrong,” Hancock continued. “We need to understand this because we need to do a better job.”
The Senate committee put off voting on recommendations made by the Legislative Analyst last week that the legislature send all the money saved by ending the project directly to the trial courts. The committee also did not vote on the Analyst’s recommendation that it exercise more control over the judiciary’s finances.
Instead, committee chair Hancock said the state’s Department of Finance should look over the recommendations, as well as those from the Administrative Office of the Courts. “My recommendation is going to be that we hold this open until the AOC has had time to come up with a more detailed plan and Department of Finance has had time to review the issues raised by the LAO,” she said.
Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget for the judicial branch for fiscal year 2012-13 is roughly $3.1 billion. In the past four years, it has seen $653 million in cuts, and will likely
At Thursday’s hearing, interim AOC Deputy Director Curt Soderlund asked that the Legislature not strip the Judicial Council’s authority to allocate this year’s budget cuts, saying, “We’re asking that you allow the council to keep the discretion it currently enjoys.”
The Legislative Analyst also recommended that the judiciary delay courthouse building projects that aren’t currently under construction for one year, and cancel 12 “less immediate projects,” and use the money saved to help bail out the struggling courts.
Karen Norwood with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees agreed with that suggestion. “If you’re going to lay off 369 people as of June 29, who’s going to work in the courts they want to build?” she asked.
Norwood added that while the council voted to terminate CCMS, $8.6 million is still being spent to salvage the technology on which it was built. “That includes outrageous salaries for consultants who will be brought in to try to explain the system to AOC personnel.
That comes out to a yearly rate of $200,000 each,” she said. “This is wasteful spending. We need to provide justice for our public and we also need to keep the courts open. We ask the Legislature to redirect the money to the trial courts, not the AOC. They had the money, and now this is where we are.”
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Here’s my response to you Curt: screw you! We need the AOC reigned in now.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/19/45792.htm
At Thursday’s hearing, interim AOC Deputy Director Curt Soderlund asked that the Legislature not strip the Judicial Council’s authority to allocate this year’s budget cuts, saying, “We’re asking that you allow the council to keep the discretion it currently enjoys.”
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
Roughly translated: “We’re asking the State Legislature to blind eye and be a willing party to our blantant violation of the State Constitution and allow us to keep the power that we have usurped unlawfully.”
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Exactly Wendy.
Just another version of trust us to do the right thing. I DON’T THINK SO.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
Correction: “We’re asking the State Legislature to turn a blind eye and be a willing party to our blatant violation of the State Constitution and allow us to keep the power that we have usurped unlawfully.”
anna
April 20, 2012
Here’s my message to Lori Hancock, SCREW you! Giving time for the AOC to come up with another excuse, as to why we are here, is allowing them time to stall this out. [which is exactly what they want, and need right now] She’s good buddies with Steinberg, Evans and Joe Dunn.
She can’t support the AOC after all the evidence, so she’s doing the next best thing. Giving them time to cover their tracks, and hopes this debacle goes away. She will use this to allow Gov. Brown’s proposal to go through rather than follow the advice or the LAO. SCREW her!!!
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Hmm..how long will it take to write this term paper? 6 months? 1 yrear? 2 years? Never? I’ll go with NEVER. So, let’s help the JC/AOC assholes out by KEEPING THE PRESSURE ON!
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A California Senate budget sub-committee voted Thursday to require the judiciary to prepare a report outlining “what went wrong” with a court computer system that has cost the state over $500 million.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
First, it will be “delayed” for one reason or another. Then it will be “delayed” again. And again. And again. When the report has finally been revised, redacted, “wordsmithed,” and sanitized, so that it nothing but pages of Orwellian techno-speak that takes no responsibility and tells the State Legislature “CCMS is finished and it works” and if the State Legislature would just give the AOC another billion and half dollars, we could deploy it. So, it’s really all just the State Legislature’s fault.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
Published today, Thursday, April 19, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Cantil-Sakauye to Get an Earful at Sit-Down with Judges
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Approximately 15 jurists, many of them presiding judges, will meet behind closed doors with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Monday for what invitees say should be a wide-ranging talk about the budget, branch governance and other issues roiling the judiciary.
The gathering, set for three hours, was initiated by a group of presiding judges. It will be held in the First District Court of Appeal offices in San Francisco. Justice J. Anthony Kline has agreed to moderate the discussion, according to a judge familiar with the plans.
Yolo County Superior Court Presiding Judge David Rosenberg, who chairs the Judicial Council’s presiding judges’ advisory committee, described the gathering as simply a number of judges “sitting around a table and just chatting.”
There is “no agenda,” Rosenberg said. “Nothing is set. It’s just an informal meeting.”
Those on the invitation list include leaders of both the California Judges Association and the Alliance of California Judges.
“We intend to advocate for reform which includes democratization of the Judicial Council, and trial court representation by elected peers,” ACJ director Maryanne Gilliard said in an email. Members of the judges’ lobby also plan to talk about the council’s opposition to AB 1208, which the alliance backs, and possible changes to the Commission on Judicial Performance, Gilliard said. The Supreme Court appoints three jurists to the 11-member commission, and the ACJ wants to change how that selection process occurs, Gilliard said.
California Judges Association President David Rubin confirmed that he was invited to the gathering, but he would not elaborate on his plans for the get-together.
The talks follow an unsuccessful request by some presiding judges to change the way the chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee is selected. Currently, the PJ’s executive committee forwards three names of potential chairs to the chief justice. She ultimately selects one.
At a meeting of the PJ’s executive committee earlier this year, a majority of members supported the idea of sending Cantil-Sakauye just one recommended name. In an email sent Tuesday to committee members, Rosenberg said the chief justice wants to continue receiving three names so she can “pick the chair with the right credentials for the times.
“She feels that giving her three nominees would allow the PJs to submit names which can achieve balance geographically, court size, and otherwise, and would avoid potential divisiveness,” Rosenberg wrote.
Rosenberg said Thursday that, aside from the recent discussion, the PJ’s committee bylaws currently state that its members will give the chief justice three names.
“We’re just going to follow the bylaws,” Rosenberg said.
A message left with a spokesman for the chief justice was not returned Thursday afternoon.
Gilliard said the committee’s proposal should have been “noncontroversial. Sadly, the governance structure of the judicial branch remains undemocratic and insular.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549607598&CantilSakauye_to_Get_an_Earful_at_SitDown_with_Judges
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 19, 2012
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting! I am sure they will light her up with their comments. Faster than a dry Christmas tree going up in flames.
=)
JusticeCalifornia
April 19, 2012
I love your enthusiasm, unionman. 🙂
The legislature should know better than to have the AOC investigate itself and issue another report on itself.
It is (long past) time for the BSA to do a complete accounting of the AOC.
Perhaps top leadership is being given the last little bit of rope with which to hang itself.
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Thanks!
wearyant
April 19, 2012
A complete accounting of the AOC? How far back? If the BSA could go back to the late 90s, it would be great! Of course that would take about as long as it’s gonna take to get a report the senate subcommittee #5 asked for from the AOC … and everyone’s hair would turn white just evaluating such a report — from old age and shock at the AOC hubris! In the meantime, give the AOC creeps as much rope as they want. They’ll do themselves in. Their armored cars and private police force can’t save them from themselves! Of course they fear someone’s out to get ’em. Guilty consciences perhaps. So far it appears they have no consciences. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I were them.
Recall Tani!
Pass AB1208!
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Centralization has been a wipeout since day one. No oversight & no accountabilty. The AOC has become a true monster.
anna
April 20, 2012
Are you kidding? Lori Hancock just gave them the reprieve they wanted. She’s in with Evans, Steinberg, and Dunn. There is just so much damning evidence of corruption, that she cannot outright support them, so she gave them the next best thing. TIME! For what? 1]To further stall, 2] To cover their tracks, 3] To cook the books, or replace some of the money, and 4] Hope time will take the heat off this. This is nothing but allowing the AOC to do some damage control, and give her committee an excuse not to implement the recommendations of the LAO. So, she can say “for now, and until we hear from the AOC we will accept the Gov.’s proposal.
She can technically claim they are not following the request of Curt Sonder*%&$, but it gives her the excuse not to address the LAO’s analysis. Clever!
SCREW her! Evans, Steinberg and Dunn have their names written all over this.
Wendy Darling
April 20, 2012
Agreed, Anna. Delay, delay. delay, obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate, and then skate away with no responsibility or accountability for anything. That’s the AOC way, with a little help from their “friends.” You know, like our most recently departed Governor was a “friend” to Fabian Nunez.
An thorough, outside, independent, non-AOC controlled, investigation, preferably by a law enforcement agency, such as the U.S. Department of Justice, and OMG, what they would find.
Steinberg, Evans, and Dunn should all be completely ashamed of themselves, but of course, they could care less. Like the AOC, the only interests they serve are the interests that serve themselves, and to h*ll with their public duty.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2012
Published late today, Thursday, April 19, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmakers Request Autopsy on Court’s Failed Computer Project
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — A state Senate subcommittee on Thursday asked judicial branch leaders to compile a report “on what went so wrong” with development of the now-defunct Court Case Management System.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549608099&Lawmakers_Request_Autopsy_on_Courts_Failed_Computer_Project
Note to State Legislature: Autopsy report summary on CCMS: It was DOA (dead on arrival) from day one. All it was ever about was graft and the personal monetary benefit of a few. What went wrong? Giving blank checks to those in power at 455 Golden Gate Avenue with absoulutely no oversight or accountability for what they did with the money. Which is what AB 1208 is all about. (Duh.)
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 19, 2012
Here’s what many of the PJ’s have in mind for Tani…
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3379033/mr_bean_points_the_middle_finger_funny/
unionman575
April 19, 2012
View Pravda’s newest video here…I would say get me a bucket, but it’s too late, I made a mess upon viewing this 3 minute 14 second masterpiece…
Poof there went more trial court dollars on BULLSHIT…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/17831.htm
Video: Event at the State Capitol Continues Call for Budget Restoration
Apr 19, 2012
Justice advocates join Chief Justice in Sacramento
unionman575
April 19, 2012
http://sd02.senate.ca.gov/news/2012-04-16-budget-cuts-reveal-diminished-access-justice-california
unionman575
April 19, 2012
We need to find a trial court job for a soon to be homeless Marquis De Sade, Ernesto (I used to work for RTD) Fuentes.
If a trial court job can’t be found, then I’m thinking the bullet train project could use his special “services”.
=)
Been There
April 20, 2012
No court deserves such a bully.
unionman575
April 19, 2012
In HR, that guy is about as vicious as you can get (even by gov’t standards).
wearyant
April 19, 2012
It’s so bizarre. Members of the California legislature, spokesmen and women for attorney associations, self-help groups, other interested parties, they are all saying what posters on JCW have known for years now — but what about the pink elephant in the room? The AOC have skimmed millions from the judiciary budget for too long under the guise of streamlining the courts to save money. Okay, the people get it now. So gut the AOC! Just shut them down now and let’s see if anyone feels any pain comparable to the trial court shutdowns are suffering. They won’t! The world will keep turning without the AOC! Shut them down now!
You’ll see. No second shoe will drop.
And after everyone catches their breath, my gawd, we will begin to see savings that can go to the trial court operations.
Wendy Darling
April 20, 2012
So true, Ant. Which is why they are so opposed to AB 1208 at 455 Golden Gate Avenue- self-preservation of their self-annointed importance and fear of being exposed as irrelevant, which the AOC is, irrelevant. They contribute nothing of real value to the courts and have done nothing but waste a ton of public money on themselves and things of no lasting importance, and dragging the California judicial branch down into the sewer while doing so.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 20, 2012
“They contribute nothing of real value to the courts and have done nothing but waste a ton of public money on themselves and things of no lasting importance..”
Agreed Wendy.
unionman575
April 20, 2012
Perhaps the AOC can do an “efficency study” on itself. Yeah that’s the ticket!
On second thought, why don’t we just go with Ant and shut it down.
=)
Guest
April 20, 2012
Santa Clara is interviewing Couch as a favor to the cj. Yamasaki is the new (much more highly paid cersion) Kim Turner now that Turners time on the Council is ending. Yamasaki is bailing the cj out by handing out parachutes to AOC rats jumping off the ship. Of course Santa Clara needs an asst since Yamasaki telecommutes from home or is at the AOC kissing up. The Santa Clara court employees have had to sacrifice to pay for Yamasaki to be the highest paid court employee in the state, pay for his housing and telecommuting and now an assistant to actually be at the court to do work. There is no money for keeping the court doors open but there is always money for the friends of the AOC. Maybe the rally was for getting more money for the cj to give to her friends like Yamasaki?
unionman575
April 20, 2012
We are used to grabbing our ankles in trial courts. I know it is especially bad in Santa Clara since that seems to be a real recycling center for “special” folks.
Wendy Darling
April 20, 2012
“Santa Clara is interviewing Couch as a favor to the cj.”
This just further evidences how ruthless and ethically compromised the Chief Justice is. Before the AOC, Couch was at Sonoma County, where he was one of the central figures in a lawsuit in less than a year on the job. Then he came to the AOC, where shortly thererafter numerous internal complaints were being filed against him, and he was again one of the central figures in a lawsuit in less than a year on the job. The figuritive pile of bodies of AOC employees outside the door of Couch and Fuentes reaches head high. IMPO, Couch is as viscious, ruthless and morally and ethically bankrupt as can possibly be.
It’s one of their favorite things to do at the AOC – pawn their completely compromised lackies off on the trial courts, once they can no longer keep them at 455 Golden Gate Avenue because they have become too much of a liability to themselves. Instead of ever being held accountable for anything, they just get shipped off to a trial court as the payback for a “favor”, and then use them to help the AOC get inside information and try and “control” the court the AOC way.
The Santa Clara Superior Court judges and employees are now forewarned of what they will signing on for should Couch go to Santa Clara, all because of a “favor” to the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
April 20, 2012
Santa Clara has always had an unusual relationship personnel-wise with the AOC. I recall Steve Love being recruited as Bill vickrey’s Deputy many years ago; Steve was around for perhaps a year and then ran back to Santa Clara. Years later Kiri Torre had a falling out with Vickrey and the next we heard she was being hired as CEO by Santa Clara. Now another difficult/ litigation prone employee, like Torre, is being interviewed as a favor to the CJ. Why? Why would any court want problematic execs recycled from the AOC? You would think after the court’s experience with Miss Kitty, Santa Clara County would be gun shy.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2012
I had personal experience with Kiri Torre when she was in Santa Clara. Much like Kim Turner has done with Marin, unfortunate documents had an eerie way of disappearing from files, things got served late or never got served by the court, filings were refused, and judicial assignments were strategically made and shifted. It was a political case, and it was a bloody nightmare. Beyond comprehension.
If you have a problematic incestuous court– one rife with inside familial and intertwined personal/business connections — like Marin and Santa Clara have had — you want ethically compromised top employees to bury/destroy evidence, cleanse the files and run interference.
It is as simple as that.
What is needed is an in-depth investigation of what is going down. The musical chairs you-scratch-my-back-I-will-give-you-party favors (courthouses, jobs, pensions, etc.) arrangement going on between top leadership and party liners stinks to high heaven.
The lid IS going to blow off the corruption.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2012
And you kind of have to laugh. Do these people think no one is noticing what is going on???
These people need to be booted out the back door on their fannies.
JusticeCalifornia
April 20, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120424-agenda.pdf
Wendy Darling
April 21, 2012
General Woodhull, Lando, Versal-Versal — where are you?
wearyant
April 21, 2012
Is spring break over yet? 😉
Guest
April 22, 2012
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/22/4432469/dan-walters-california-court-system.html
Dan Walters: California court system is latest victim of Legislature’s disastrous fiscal decisions
By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Apr. 22, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A
The California Legislature has a bad habit of making sweeping decisions in the moment without giving much thought to their long-term consequences.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2012
Dan Walters has drunk the kool-aid and jumped on the “The problems in the California Judicial Branch are all the fault of the State Legislature” bandwagon. Published today, Sunday, April 22, from The Sacramento Bee, by Dan Walters:
Dan Walters: California Court System Is Latest Victim of Legislature’s Disastrous Fiscal Decisions
By Dan Walters
The California Legislature has a bad habit of making sweeping decisions in the moment without giving much thought to their long-term consequences.
The syndrome’s most striking example was an immense overhaul in 1996 of the state’s electric power system, misnamed “deregulation,” based on blithe, untested assertions that it would lower power bills.
Within a few years, it proved to have exactly the opposite effect, driving utilities to insolvency and raising power bills for years, if not decades.
Just a year after it issued the energy decree, the Legislature decided that the state should take over financing of the California courts, the largest judicial system in the nation. At the time, state revenues were strong, and it was touted as a way of easing a major financial burden on counties.
But like so many of the Legislature’s fiscal decisions, it has turned into a disaster.
The courts became, in effect, just another state agency. As the budget began leaking red ink, politicians saw the courts as something to whack because they lacked the legal protections and political clout of categories such as K-12 education.
Over the past four years, state support for courts has been cut by $653 million, according to a new report from the Legislature’s budget analyst. That’s been offset somewhat with fiscal gimmicks, such as tapping into courthouse construction funds. Gov. Jerry Brown proposes another $350 million cut in his 2012-13 budget.
Local courts have dipped into their reserves, shut down courtrooms, furloughed and laid off employees and stretched out trials.
The system, meanwhile, was divided by a squabble between the central bureaucracy and rebel judges who formed the Alliance of California Judges. The latter, backed by court unions, accused the former of wasting money on bureaucracy and an unworkable computer system while starving local courts.
Recently, the state Judicial Council jettisoned the computer system. And Chief Justice Tani Camil-Sakauye and other court leaders have launched a political campaign to restore court funds.
“We will never be able to diet ourselves into $653 million less,” Camil-Sakauye told a lawyer gathering in Sacramento last week after hitting the Capitol to protest budget cuts. Sympathetic legislators staged an hours-long hearing to air grievances about the shrinking court system.
The problem, of course, is that the state is stone broke.
An additional dollar for the courts is a dollar less for someone else, and all major spending advocates are hammering on the Capitol. Meanwhile, court unions want friendly legislators to micromanage how cuts are allocated, thereby intruding on judges’ traditional independence.
It’s what happens when legislators make major decisions without seriously weighing their long-term impacts.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/22/4432469/dan-walters-california-court-system.html
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 22, 2012
Wendy, you right on. The comments relating to the article are even more ludicrous. Doesn’t speak well for this state.
anna
April 22, 2012
Doesn’t suprise me in the least, and perhaps this is why we got the Empress Tani.
Could this be the reason Dunn and company stormed TLR and wanted to see or supress this information? See Below.
BREAKING NEWS: Arnold Schwarzenegger was blackmailed (allegedly) by California
Democratic Party operative Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese who allegedly obtained from JAMS copies of close to 150 sexual harassment settlements involving Schwarzenegger
by Leslie Brodie
The Leslie Brodie Report (TLR) is carefully following a major developing story out of California relating to the former governor of California , Arnold Schwarzenegger.
According to knowledgeable sources, Schwarzenegger was allegedly blackmailed by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese who allegedly obtained copies of 150 sexual harassment settlements involving Schwarzenegger from JAMS — a private alternative dispute resolution provider.
The sources maintain the information was used to pressure Schwarzenegger into nominating Tani Cantill-Sakauye as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, as well as signing into law the State Bar Act which Schwarzenegger had vetoed on a prior occasion.
TLR is gathering and analyzing data concerning the above, and will post update as they become available.
unionman575
April 22, 2012
Doesn’t surprise me either Wendy.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2012
Doesn’t surprise me either, not in the least. Including the Leslie Brodie Report info on our recently departed Governor. Schwarzenegger, Ron George, and the current Chief Justice – all cut from the same cloth.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ. And good luck tomorrow. Though I doubt the Chief Justice and her enforcers will have their listening ears on.
Been There
April 22, 2012
I am shocked, shocked to learn that Schwarzenegger was allegedly blackmailed by Girardi & Keese into nominating Tani as CJ. I could make a totally snarky comment but you, gentle readers, can read between the lines.
Interesting how nicely and coincidentally the wants, needs, and desires of G&K dovetail with Ron George’s.
unionman575
April 22, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/22/45832.htm
Sunday, April 22, 2012Last Update: 11:33 AM PT
Chief Set to Meet With Trial Judges
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – California’s chief justice is expected to meet with trial court presiding judges Monday to discuss a range of issues that include a move by the presiding judges to elect their own committee chair to represent their views within the judicial hierarchy. The committee head is currently chosen by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
Presiding judges from around California declined to discuss the specific issue of electing their own chair but pressed the overall point that the meeting is intended to be conciliatory, a first step toward overcoming deep divisions that have emerged in recent years between the central administration of the courts and California’s trial judges.
“This is first step in having a more open and civil discussion in an informal setting,” said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento Superior Court, one of the judges who called for the meeting. Earl said the presiding judges extended an invitation to a few representatives from the California Judges Association and the reform group, the Alliance of California Judges.
The tone of debate appears to have changed following a vote by the judges on the Judicial Council last month to put an end to an enormously expensive and unpopular technology program. The IT project was left over from the time when the former chief justice, Ron George, was building up the central power of the chief justice’s office and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
That structure has now come under severe pressure from budget cuts of $650 million to the overall judicial budget of $3.7 billion, leading to conflict between the cash-strapped trial courts and the AOC, a bureaucracy that
continues in the view of many trial judges to be “fat” and “robust” while it fails “to provide any meaningful service.”
One of the front burner court issues in California is a legislative initiative backed by the trial judges in the Alliance. The legislation is intended to send a greater percentage of the court budget to the trial courts and reduce the ability of the administrators to siphon off funds for pet projects.
The Judicial Council, which is lead by the chief justice and sets overall policy, has voted to lobby against the bill. While AB 1208 is expected to be up for discussion on Monday, Judge Earl said the bill will not be the focus of the meeting. “It will be about topics the presiding judges want to talk about.”
In an interview on Friday, Judge Robert Dukes of Los Angeles Superior Court re enforced the theme that the meeting should be a conciliatory discussion rather than a combative exchange.
“I would hope everybody puts their filters down so they can have an understanding and a dialogue as to the extreme distress that the trial courts are in, and an acknowledgement of the many voices who have criticized the workings of the AOC and the organization of the Judicial Council,” said Dukes, who is an Alliance member but will not be attending Monday’s meeting.
“I would hope that both of those topics could be discussed in a meaningful manner that does not come down to being confrontational and where everybody puts their filters back up,” he added. “The underpinnings of that have to be how do we save our failing trial courts. I’d like her to acknowledge that the problems the courts are facing have been created by her own staff.”
Taking direct aim at the administrative office, he said, “The AOC remains fat, robust, and I defy anyone to tell me what meaningful service they provide to the public. Until the chief and the Judicial Council start to acknowledge those problems, they’re going to get no resolution to the signature failure of our trial courts.”
Spurred by court closures, dwindling resources and mass layoffs of court employees, many of the state’s trial judges are pushing for greater democracy within the judicial leadership and for a reduction of the bureaucracy’s power and influence.
“The horses are out of the corral,” said Judge Daniel Goldstein of San Diego Superior Court. “People want to participate. Judges, court reporters, and clerks want to participate in the makeup of the branch and they want democratic reforms, and if those reforms don’t come from within the branch, it will come from outside the branch.”
“We believe,” said Judge Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento, “that it is unhealthy in a democracy to place all power in the hands of a single group of appointed members without any checks or balance.”
“There are always tipping points,” added Dukes, “and that is what is happening to courts around the state. You can’t deny the majority of courts are suffering and it has caused them to look into what has caused the difficulties they have. Many have come to the conclusion that it’s a broken government system, part of which is the bureaucracy through the AOC which is non-responsive and beholden to nobody.”
Among the specific proposals expected to be discussed Monday, the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee moved to choose its own chair, rather than the follow the old procedure of sending three names to the chief justice for her to choose from. The committee is part of the Judicial Council’s process and its chair sits as a non voting member on the council.
For example, Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County, who now heads the presiding judges committee, moved earlier this month to “not spend a penny more” on the IT project that appears to be headed for the junk yard. But he could not vote for his own motion, which was defeated in favor of a motion to spend another $8.6 million to wind down the project and see if it had any salvage value.
Cantil-Sakauye has rejected the committee’s proposal to elect their own chair, according to an email newsletter from Rosenberg. “The Chief feels that submitting three names gives her the option to pick the chair with the right credentials for the times,” said his newsletter
But the presiding judges interviewed last week believed the issue remains under discussion.
The move from the presiding judges goes hand in hand with a campaign to bring greater democracy to the Judicial Council itself, whose members are picked by the chief justice. Many of the state’s 2,000 trial judges, spread through 58 counties up and own the state, believe their voices have been ignored by the council, as well as the administrative bureaucracy that functions alongside.
“After a decade of having to speak through the chosen voice of the chief justice,” said Dukes in reference to the presiding judges, “they are feeling they aren’t having meaningful input, and they’d like to have that as much as judges want to have meaningful input on the Judicial Council.”
Delilah
April 22, 2012
What Wendy said. And FWIW:
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_20454591/rosenberg-courts-face-death-by-thousand-cuts
Delilah
April 22, 2012
>>Interesting how nicely and coincidentally the wants, needs, and desires of G&K dovetail with Ron George’s.<<
For those of us not "in the know," please spill.
Been There
April 22, 2012
In the context of the following quote from The Leslie Brodie Project:
“According to knowledgeable sources, Schwarzenegger was allegedly blackmailed by Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese who allegedly obtained copies of 150 sexual harassment settlements involving Schwarzenegger from JAMS — a private alternative dispute resolution provider.
The sources maintain the information was used to pressure Schwarzenegger into nominating Tani Cantill-Sakauye as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, as well as signing into law the State Bar Act which Schwarzenegger had vetoed on a prior occasion.”
Tani was Ron George’s hand- picked choice and it does seem oddly coincidental, if the report is true, that out of all the potential candidates for CJ, Ron George and Howard Miller were not only of one mind, but Howard Miller allegedly was willing to, and in fact did use damaging personal information to pressure the Governor to nominate Ron George’s choice.
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
You gotta admit, Been There, that if true, it certainly explains a number of things. One of them being how we all ended up with the most unqualified, most intellectually dishonest, most compromised, most inept, choice for a Chief Justice in the history of the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 23, 2012
Will do later.
anna
April 23, 2012
Spill the beans that is.
wearyant
April 22, 2012
A good article in the Daily Democrat. Thanks for posting. Rosenberg made several comments that will resonate with compassionate California taxpayers. This in particular caught my eye:
“… and we’re still waiting for our 11th judge (a position that was authorized in 2007 but has never been funded by the state).”
It had to be the AOC’s JC that chose not to fund this position for a judge that had been proven necessary back in 2007. They have control of the funds. So what was going on then? The Grey Goose was flowing, the lobster and prime beef gobbled down and funds were directed into the AOC’s pet project, CCMS. Perhaps there were junkets to fine hotels for the AOC to discuss the catastrophic situation of the California budget.
This is just ONE example of where public funds went — before the spotlight began to be cast upon the AOC’s antics. There are no doubt many — MANY instances that should be pointed out where a reasonable need was established and agreed upon (we need another judge in Yolo) and the funds obviously weren’t available as they were misdirected elsewhere by the AOC’s JC — the “where” should be dredged up and made public.
This is just one isolated instance proving why AB 1208 must pass. I’m sure there are many, many more. If I had any say, a Federal grand jury would be assembled and the AOC/JC/CJ office would be audited by the BSA. Courts are being closed and the public’s pain be damned, I guess, is the attitude. So close the AOC. The sun will rise tomorrow.
Long live the ACJ. Recall Ms. Tani. Shut down the AOC now!
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2012
Not filling an approved judicial position is one of the many ways the Judicial Council and the AOC have used, and continue to use, to punish a court that isn’t goosestepping in line and/or “speaking with one voice.” In the case of Yolo, it was displeasure with at least two of the former Presiding Judges, who wouldn’t toe the party line and refused to compromise their public duty, and the personal dislike of Vickrey and Overholt of Yolo’s CEO, one of the most upstanding, honest and ethical CEO’s in the entire branch. Which, as we all know, is the kiss of death when it comes to the AOC and the Judicial Council.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long lvie the AXCJ.
Wendy Darling
April 22, 2012
Correction: Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 23, 2012
If (and that is a big if) Scharzenegger was blackmailed into selecting Tani, and if our gambling barmaid had even the slightest knowledge about it (“don’t worry, it’s taken care of, we have so much dirt on Arnold he has no choice”)– well then, I do believe our gambling barmaid would have to step down. That possibility aside. . .
Regardless of how the meeting between Tani, the presiding judges, the CJA and the ACJ goes today, there is blood in the water, and for once it is not the blood of court reform advocates. The point of no return has already been reached– the status quo will not survive. Too much money has been wasted, too many people have been hurt, and those in power are not suited to lead the largest judiciary in the Western world. Branch members of this state simply are not going to take marching orders from a gambling barmaid with an ego that is many sizes greater than her intellect or experience. Tani Cantil Sakauye needs to take off her pretend crown, and step down off her imaginary pedestal, and get schooled real quick. If she continues as she has, she is either going to be completely neutralized, she will have to resign her position, or she will be removed. The problem for her is she has already shown her true colors, over and over again. She has loudly and rudely disparaged anyone and everyone who does not agree with her (including judges and members of the legislature). A month ago she promised the legislature that they had shown her the right direction, and then she and Herman shut Judge Rosenberg up and changed the language of CCMS proposal 3 at the last jc meeting in order to keep CCMS alive. Tricky Tani.
No one should forget that today. Tricky Tani and her thugs are fighting for their lives. We have a professional gambler for a cj, and her m.o. (according to her) will be that she is going to go into that room looking for “tells” so she can adjust her behavior and presentation accordingly. Whatever happened to logic, reason, fiscal responsibility, professional integrity and good common sense?
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
“Whatever happened to logic, reason, fiscal responsibility, professional integrity and good common sense?”
Flushed down the sewer pipe by those at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, along with ethics, honesty, and an adherence to public duty.
And in the words of the late, great, American satirist, Will Rogers, have you ever noticed that the most common thing about common sense is just how uncommon it is?
Long live the ACJ.
anna
April 23, 2012
Guy’s I’ve tried to spill the beans, and all one has to do is read Phil Kay’s lawsuit against the CSC and the State Bar. He has all the documentation to have these ass&%^4 thrown in jail.
However, not one trial judge will pull the trigger.
I will explain later on
wearyant
April 23, 2012
While we’re waiting for Lando and Versal-Versal to put in an appearance and for General Woodhull to come out from behind his bunker, here’s a tidbit from our friend, Dan Walters:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/04/california-judicial-summit-conference-aims-at-healing-political-rift.html
At least he refers to ACJ as a breakaway group rather than rebels or dissidents, both of which do carry negative inferences. ACJ could be called a rebellious gang, I suppose. I prefer courageous, thinking judges.
I look forward to hearing anything (truthful) about today’s happenings in SF.
Long live the ACJ.
Recall teensy Tani!
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
Published today, Monday, April 23, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Judicial Talks Said to Be Productive
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — More than 15 jurists, including the chief justice, emerged from a closed-door meeting in San Francisco on Monday with mutual praise for what was described as an open conversation, but without any announced agreements or promises of change.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549995017&Judicial_Talks_Said_to_Be_Productive&slreturn=1
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
Also published today, Monday, April 23, from The Recorder, by Cynthia Foster:
AOC and Building Maintainence Contractor Square Off in Trial
Cynthia Foster
A jury in San Francisco heard opening statements Monday in a trial that pits the state Administrative Office of the Courts against one of its former contractors — a building maintenance company that it says lacked the proper licenses.
Full article requires subscription access: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549997069&AOC_and_Building_Maintainence_Contractor_Square_Off_in_Trial
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
Published late today, Monday, April 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Chief, Trial Judges Agree Admin Office Must Not Be ‘Control Agency’
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At a meeting with California’s chief justice Monday, all present agreed that the administrative bureaucracy over the courts needs to function as a helper to court operations and not as “a control agency,” said judges after the meeting. On other hot button issues, the judges briefly discussed a move by presiding judges to elect their own committee chair but the issue was not resolved.
“I thought it was a productive meeting,” said Cantil-Sakauye.
In a written statement to Courthouse News Monday afternoon, she added, “I appreciate that a group of presiding judges invited me, other Judicial Council members, and other judges to come to a meeting to listen to their concerns. I also appreciate that Judge David Rubin, president of the California Judges Association, and members of the Alliance of California Judges were able to join us.”
“One of my primary goals during the first 16 months of my tenure was to meet as many persons and groups inside and outside the judicial branch and to hear their views,” said the chief justice. “This meeting is part of that effort.”
Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento Superior Court, one of the judges who called for the meeting, said, “I thought everybody has an opportunity to share their thoughts, some of which were not I think easy messages to deliver,” said . “The Chief Justice was incredibly gracious and gave us her full attention. It was the first step toward reconciliation among the branch, which I think we need.”
The fifteen judges who attended represented courts up and down the state, from Los Angeles Superior, the largest court in the nation, to Fresno and Kern county courts in the Central San Joaquin Valley, to courts in the Bay Area and Northern California.
The meeting was called by presiding judges, who invited Judge David Rubin, President of the California Judges Association, and Judges David Lampe and Judge Steve White of the Alliance of California Judges. The discussion was moderated by Justice Anthony Kline.
One topic of which there was unanimity was that the central bureaucracy of the courts should support the courts, rather than dictate policy to them. The San Francisco-based Administrative Office of the Courts, a vast bureaucracy employing hundreds, works directly under the judiciary’s governing body, the Judicial Council, which is headed by the Chief Justice.
In recent years, many trial judges have attacked the growing power of that bureaucracy, claiming it spends money with abandon while providing little service to the trial courts and the public. It has also been widely criticized for spending a half-billion on a court IT project that was recently killed by the council.
“We probably touched on 20 different subjects and it was pretty open free-formed, and the general topics dealt with the budget, governance, about the relationship of the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Judicial Council and to trial courts,” said Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County Superior Court.
He said the judges spent little time talking about a recent vote held by presiding judges to choose their own chair for their advisory committee, a decision initially rejected by the chief. “We were in the meeting for about two hours and 20 minutes. We spent maybe two minutes on that subject,” Rosenberg said.
“There was unanimity on the role of the AOC,” he continued, “I raised the issue that the AOC should be viewed as a service agency, not a control agency. I think that is evolving under the new leadership of the Judicial Council. The council has certainly asserted its role vis-a-vis the AOC. Under a prior administration, the AOC had performed more of a control agency function, but my sense is that under the new chief justice the view is that is should be a service agency and support the courts.
“I sensed no disagreement with that viewpoint in the meeting.” Rosenberg added, that the meeting, “frankly exceeded my expectations.”
Judge Lampe with the Alliance said, “There was a universal sentiment for change.”
He added that the chief justice seemed to be in agreement that the AOC needed reform.
The Alliance also issued a statement saying, “The meeting of judges today was open and courteous. A significant number of presiding judges, and Judges Lampe and White, from the Alliance, spoke of the need for democracy, representation, and substantive participation of elected judges in Judicial Council structure.”
“It was made clear that the AOC mission is as a service agency (not a control agency),” said the statement. “On this point, we were pleased that the Chief Justice agreed. Finally, a balance between central policies and local control, and trial court budgeting were also discussed, the Alliance taking the position that trial judges must have a voice on behalf of the trial courts.”
No mention was made of controversial financial reform legislation backed by the Alliance, according to judges at the meeting. The Alliance statement noted that it would continue advocating passage of AB 1208, a bill intended to ensure that more money appropriated by the Legislature goes directly to the courts.
Rosenberg said he was not sure what the next step would be, but that “the ball is in the presiding judges court” to make the next move. “We didn’t go into this meeting with the intention that any commitments or solutions being made. There were eight presiding judges among the 15. The eight of us are going to chat soon and decide what will be the appropriate next steps.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45876.htm
Note to the ACJ: The most appropriate “next step” is for the Chief Justice to release the un-redacted, un-revised, non-sanitized original draft of Justice Scotland’s SEC report. Otherwise, it’s just another attempt to “sell an approach” to cover-up the truth.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
April 23, 2012
I am delighted today’s meeting reportedly went well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let’s see how Tani sets her judicial council table, and what is on the judicial council menu, and to whom she extends an invitation to genuinely participate.
It is nice that she was gracious, but if she is all talk and no action, it will surely backfire.
Oh, what great timing! Tomorrow we have a judicial council meeting! Cantil Sakauye has a prime opportunity to walk her talk.
versal-versal
April 23, 2012
Where is the SEC report? Why is it being delayed? Has the AOC been given an “advance ” copy and are they running around making cosmetic changes to claim ” all is well” in the immortal words of Kevin Bacon in Animal House ? Sounds like a familiar JC/AOC tactic. Remember after the State Auditors report on CCMS, J Bruiners was quick to point out the JC/AOC had addressed all the Auditors concerns. The JC /AOC needs to release J Scotland’s honest and true assessment of this mess. Once released , all concerned about the branch should have the opportunity to weigh in and make appropriate comments. Until then nothing will change until the JC is democratized and/ or the CJ is recalled.
lando
April 23, 2012
Sounds like the meeting of Judges was a good start so we should be optimistic about that. While initial press accounts are vague , did the group discuss 1208 and the need to democratize the Judicial Council? Was there any discussion about the need to stop hiring consultants, Apple One temp workers and Judicial Scholars in Residence at the crystal Palace? Was the issue of CJP overreaching addressed? My guess is no, so hopefully this process will continue on a regular basis so real reform comes to the branch. As Versal and many others say, democratize the Judicial Council and recall the Chief Justice . Both are the only long term answers to the problems we face .
JusticeCalifornia
April 23, 2012
The first clue that real blood is in the water:
JusticeCalifornia
April 23, 2012
Tani does not speak at the lawyer’s rally in SF.
The second clue: Dan Walters calls what we have all been referring to as a “meeting” between Tani and court reform advocates a “judicial summit conference”.
Wendy Darling
April 23, 2012
Third clue: Dan Walters did not refer to the ACJ as “rebel” judges. (Which by the way, they’re not. Unlike many in the branch, they have not forgotten their public duty, which hardly qualifies as being a rebel.)
Versal-versal and Lando: Good to hear from you. You were missed. Still missing in action: General Woodhull.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 23, 2012
Let’s do it:
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
April 23, 2012
I’m waiting to see what’s on the table at the meeting tomorrow.
I think it will be another shit sandwich for all trial courts.
Carlos Martinez
May 3, 2012
Hi,
The Administrative Office of the Courts is a bureaucracy that was assembled to administer the California courts. But what the AOC has done is to siphon the budgetary moneys from the courts into its own pet projects even during extremely difficult budget times in California, including a nearly $1.5 billion computer system that never worked and has now been discontinued. The AOC began with a very limited staff and now employs nearly 400 people making over $100,000 each. Even with its motto “Access to Justice,” its existence and constant siphoning of court budgetary dollars has continually diminished access to justice for Californians by causing mass layoffs of court staff and also closing the courts in some counties for up to three weekdays a month. It’s an administrative office that administrates administrators and has no practical use in the court system. Closing the AOC would be a huge step towards helping settle the budgetary crisis in California and aiding the ailing courts by shifting money back into the courts and away from the AOC bureaucracy.
That’s why I created a petition to Administrative Office of the Courts, The California State House, The California State Senate, and Governor Jerry Brown, which says:
“Help end government bloat and bureaucracy. Close the Administrative Office of the Courts.”
Will you sign my petition? Click here to add your name:
http://signon.org/sign/disband-the-aoc-in-californi?source=c.fwd&r_by=4417014
Thanks!
wearyant
May 3, 2012
Carlos, you are doing a good thing for the beleaguered citizens of California. You Rock! Keep up the good work.