The fundamental problem is that there is this misguided belief that the judicial council and the AOC are honest, ethical and beyond reproach. There is this misguided belief that people who meet only about six times a year can manage a multi-billion dollar budget or oversee an office like the AOC that is spending most of that multi-bilion dollar budget.
One only needs to look at the pages here and the history of previous votes to see that the judicial council and the AOC are partners engaged in unprecedented self-dealing and that keeping trial court doors open isn’t even on their radar nor does it hold any importance. The Judicial Council as presently formed consists of a large majority of yes men and women and insiders who have something to gain or lose by pulling the party line and speaking with one voice. God forbid that we have any democratic dissension as representative government gets messy and sends out confusing messages. Instead, the Judicial Branch is governed by appointees that are all appointed based on their ability to go along and get along.
Think about what just happened with the AOC vs. Jacobs trial. Now we’re discussing the possibility of someone investigating and looking into if we should be getting money back from Deloitte? Will that be the council looking into this? The AOC? The obvious problem with having the AOC investigate itself and go after their own vendors is the possibility that they are colluding with those vendors. After all, there are no laws concerning construction contracting practices and CCMS could not continue with the level of scrutiny being imposed upon it by the state legislature.
What we really need is a top-to-bottom AOC and vendor audits of the construction & maintenance programs and CCMS by an independent authority with no ties to the Judicial Council or the AOC.
Knowing all that has happened in the past couple of years under the reign of King George and now under the reign of Empress Mini-mimi and the unprecedented self-dealing of the council and the AOC, why would anyone wish to give these criminals more budgeting authority over the trial courts? It is with these proposals coming from Sacramento that we believe that some people in Sacramento haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on for the past couple of years regarding this self-dealing with no efforts made, for example, to address historical under-funding. While Rome has been burning, Nero has been fiddling.
__________________________________________________________________________
Justice California just brought something up regarding the NACM annual conference. Let’s think about this for a second. The U.S. General Services Administration Pacific Rim Region 9 just got reamed for throwing a lavish party conference in Las Vegas with lots of attendees. Similarly, the National Association of Court Management believes the most effective and informative ways to convey their message are week long junkets to hot resort destinations paid for completely by you and me the taxpayer. Last year it was in all court business Las Vegas and this year, it will be located in that model of efficient court administration and management, Orlando Florida.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
May 22, 2012
In this I am reminded of the Chinese students protesting for Democracy in Tiananmen Square back in 1989… Wether by violating law or misappropriation, in Shasta County alone our Family Law Industry seems to function with the same Lock-step arrogance and rationalization of indulgences as exhibited by the AOC, JC, CJ, et al, in your collective complaints.
tumblr_lz1d1tweWH1qa7auxo1_1280.jpg
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Trickle-down dysfunction. Today is Day 438 since my daughter was illegally abducted by the deposed 18-YEAR Assigned “judge” Jack Halpin, the enabling Family Court “services,” AOCs, PJs, JCs, HRH1&2… No abuse/neglect… still, no contact allowed: Improper retaliation by court for properly/civilly complaining and speaking out about “irregularities” for others is MOST-OFF the radar for we lay, indicator species. They take our children away for doing so… I know!
From just one (allegedly) victimized, non-court-industry citizen: I am so damn proud of you all in YOUR struggle for re-institutionalizing fairness and ethics to our courts and cross-systems!
Here’s to a clean sweep of the AOC and the Judicial Council… and… to an immediate recall of Tani the Terrible, et al!
(Perhaps fairness and the TRUE “best interests” of our children will trickle back down to we most vulnerable protective parents and heartsick children someday.)
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
Handing the keys to the vault carte blanche over to liars, thugs, and thieves doesn’t make any sense to any of us, JCW. Hopefully the trial court judges will finally wake up, and unite, to do something about what is going on at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and stop it from happening.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 22, 2012
What they couldn’t get from the front door, they get from the back door. This is exactly what I was concerned about! Governor Brown is no friend of the trial courts, but I believe he is much more aligned with the local trial courts than he is the monolith residing within the Crystal Palace.
The rule of unintended consequences so often holds true. This looks like it will be a perfect example of that principle in action.
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
As usual, right you are, General Woodhull. Any thoughts or ideas on what, if anything, can be done to prevent the trial courts from becoming completely marginalized? Or, in the vernacular of the Titantic, is it time to abondon ship?
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 22, 2012
Wendy,
Although I have never been known as one who has run away from a fight, I must admit I am very, very, tired. Years of fighting the take-over efforts of HRH-1 in close-quarters and fending off the fiasco that was CCMS has taken its toll. Those efforts now seem to be in the distant past.
Anyone who was around when Governor Brown first served as Governor should not be surprised by his judicial appointments or current approach to the Judicial Branch.
On the one hand, he inherited an insolvable budget problem that took over 20 years to develop (term limits). On the other, this Governor really doesn’t care about the trial courts or judiciary as a whole, other than those he has personally appointed. He has never really liked for the courts telling him “no” on any issue…be it the Federal Courts or California Courts. His total focus is going to be the bottom-line of the budget, not who gets hurt within the judiciary during the incremental steps toward in balancing the budget. The easiest way for Governor Brown to deal with the budgetary issues is simply to tell the Judicial Branch – “This is your budget allocation, deal with it.” He really doesn’t care if trial courts are open or closed or for that matter how the budgeted money is spent, just that there won’t be more allocated than he thinks it deserves. Candidly, the more the JC/AOC screws up, the easier it it for him to cut the allocations the following year. The fiscal crisis that we are in is going to be here for at least another 5-7 years, unless the State declares bankruptcy.
The end result is that in the short run HRH-2 and her minions will gain power over the Branch, but everyone suffers because too much of that money will stay in the Crystal Palace. There aren’t enough patriots to overthrow the Monarchy. Remember that it was only a minority of the public that initially supported the American Revolution. Today, the vast majority of the public today could care less about who is in charge of the California Judicial Branch. I’d put the interest level in how our Branch is managed at about 1.5%.
Neverland is sounding better and better to me. Although I have always refused to grow up, I am starting to feel very old…
Faithfully yours,
Gen. N. Woodhull
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
General Woodhull:
“Although I have never been known as one who has run away from a fight, I must admit I am very, very, tired. Years of fighting the take-over efforts of HRH-1 in close-quarters and fending off the fiasco that was CCMS has taken its toll.” So many of us know how you feel, including myself, and are right there with you.
As to Governor Brown’s attitude and approach to the budget and its impact/ramifications for the judicial branch, you have to admit General Woodhull, that the current failed and arrogant judicial branch administration have given Governor Brown an easy target, As for the consequences to the trial courts, those in charge at 455 Golden Gate Avenue could care less.
And as for Neverland, remember there are lost boys, hungry crocodiles, and evil pirates there too.
Follow the star, straight on ’till morning . . .
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
Hey, JCW, you scooped Courthouse News – again! Published today, Tuesday, May 22, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Presiding Judge Questions Whether Legislature Will Listen to ‘Whining’
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Faced with bone-deep cuts in Governor Brown’s proposed budget, the judicial hierarchy in California has resorted to old methods in trying to convince the Legislature to undo the damage. One of those tactics, circulating a petition among presiding judges, has run into a strong objection from a judge in the Northern California, while another old move, creating a committee, has been blasted by a Los Angeles judge.
A petition circulating last week for signature by presiding judges and head clerks throughout California said the proposed cuts “threaten to dismantle our system of justice entirely” and “will have catastrophic, far-reaching impacts on our ability to preserve equal access to justice for all Californians.”
But Presiding Judge John Kennelly of Sierra County Superior Court questioned the effectiveness of the petition and wisdom of trying to get all the state’s presiding judges into lock-step.
“The governor and the legislature have stopped listening to our whining,” wrote Kennelly, expressing what many trial judges have been saying privately for months.
“Why?” Kennelly asks. “Bcause we have not gone hat in hand to them and admitted what a fiasco and mistake CCMS was to our branch financially, that we are sorry we spent approximately $540 million of taxpayers money and it has not achieved what we promised it would, it won’t happen again and in the future we will provide a proper accounting of where our money goes.”
Kennelly is referring to the Court Case Management System, an IT system that was terminated a month ago after a half-billion dollars was squandered on the project. It was seen by many trial judges as the lead example of an arrogant administrative office spending public money without caution.
Explaining his position further, Kennelly said in an interview that it is not in an independent judge’s nature to simply go along with group think and bureaucratic orthodoxy.
“One of the things is that we have spent our whole professional career advocating and disagreeing, but that’s what we’re built to do,” said Kennelly in the interview. “Then we become judges, and there’s some expectation that all 58 courts are supposed to be on the same page, all the time.”
He added that he agrees with the position taken by other courts in opposition to the governor’s proposal to wipe out all the reserves that each court keeps, a bit like a checking account, to manage their budgets.
“I’m in total agreement that our reserves should not be swept,” he said. “And they’re not reserves. Our court doesn’t have reserves — that’s money in our bank account that would last us two weeks. It’s to pay our bills.”
But, he said, the presiding judges should not be required to sign a letter that sends the wrong message to the Legislature.
“I don’t think we should all be required to sign a letter,” he said. “The reason the letter gets signed is for solidarity, but it’s not working. My letter conveys that we are sending the wrong message, that we spend money we don’t account for. We’ve got to fix our perception and recognize we did make a mistake with CCMS.”
The tactic of circulating a petition among the presiding judges has already been used to no effect.
A petition was circulated among presiding judges at the beginning of the year in opposition to a court reform measure pending in the Assembly. The measure, AB 1208, would have starved the administrative bureaucracy of funds and stripped away most of its power to siphon off money intended for the trial courts.
A group of presiding judges, including the presiding judge in Los Angeles, refused to sign the petition, and AB 1208 went on to pass the Assembly three weeks later, with the backing of the majority leader and the speaker.
In a second familiar move, the chief justice appointed last week a new committee to lobby the Legislature in an effort to reverse or ameliorate the new cut of $544 million by Brown in his May revise of the proposed budget for next year. Coincidentally, that amount is almost exactly the same amount as was spent by the court’s bureaucracy on the failed IT project.
That new committee includes only one judge from Los Angeles, retired Judge Terry Friedman, who is widely seen as not being representative of the Los Angeles court. Friedman, for example, provided a testimonial in favor of the CCMS project as part of the administrative office’s in-house production of a slick video promoting the ruinous project. At the same time that he was promoting the IT system, his own court was strongly opposing it.
“Judge Friedman has generally not been seen as a representative of Los Angeles by most of the the judges of L.A.,” said Judge Robert Dukes, “and I think his appointment is an implied slap at both Judge Wesley (our APJ who is on the Council) and our PJ Judge Edmon — a former Judicial Council member and PJ of the most complex and powerful trial court in the United States suffering the most devastating cuts in our history.”
Judge David Wesley is the assistant presiding judge in Los Angeles. He alone on the governing Judicial Council voted in March to stop spending any more money on the CCMS project. The council, instead, decided to spent another $8 million on the project — while terminating it.
Judge Lee Edmon is a former member of the Judicial Council who also often voted independently of the majority and the recommendations of the central administrators. She is now the presiding judge for Los Angeles Superior Court, the biggest court in the nation.
In political terms, the Los Angeles delegation of senators and assemblymembers makes up almost a third of the Legislature. The fact that the leaders of the court have not been appointed to the committee lobbying the Legislature for a reversal of the cuts is unlikely to be lost on the delegation of L.A. lawmakers.
In turn, the effectiveness of a second, politically important committee of judges has come under challenge recently.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye formed the Strategic Evaluation Committee last year to investigate the administrative office and recommend reforms. That decision had as one objective to tamp down a slow-burning furor among trial judges whose budgets were getting squeezed year after year, while the central bureaucracy, which had quadrupled in size, continued to spend hundreds of millions on the controversial IT system.
The SEC, as the reform committee was referred to, has suffered a number of setbacks since it was formed.
One of its members was forced to battle with a slow-moving administrative office simply to obtain a complete list of the office’s work force. Then the committee chairman, retired Justice Arthur Scotland, left to work as a lawyer on separation-of-powers contest over the controller’s decision to cut legislators’ pay last year, until they passed a balanced budget.
Even so, the committee has drafted a hard-hitting draft report recommending substantial changes to the administrative bureaucracy, Courthouse News has been told. However, that draft report is said to be in the process of being watered down. A member of the committee said he could not comment one way or another on that issue.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/22/46727.htm
Long live Judge Kennelly. And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 22, 2012
Wendy, you amaze me with how quickly you get us the news. . .
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
“Portable electronic devices” are a wonderful thing, Justice California!
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Yes they are Wendy: “Droid”.
=)
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Just make sure you have a good security program on your portable electronic device Wendy. I do.
=)
Wendy Darling
May 22, 2012
Good advice, Unionman, and already followed. 🙂
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 23, 2012
Ahh. A ‘Droid. A welcome look into the inscrutable Unionman mind’s workings!
😉
courtflea
May 22, 2012
Hey union man, where are the unions in all of this sweeping fund balances/reserves and the potential of centralizing power even more with that move? Gov. Brown is a big union man, it seems like the unions could give Brown a reality check when it comes to the judicial branch. Sure everyone is taking budget cuts in the state, but it sounds like the Gov does not have the knowledge he needs about the branch. Just a thought, since he is not listening to the judges.
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Newsflash: The Gov does NOT give a shit about the Branch.
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Note: I attended the meeting last Thursday. We are trying.
anna
May 26, 2012
I’m not sure that the Gov is buying into the crap the AOC/JC is spewing, however, word has it that he is compromised, through dealings with the State Bar, and gifts received, from HRH the 1st.
What HRH the 1st could not do thru the AOC/JC, he did thru the State Bar, with threats, and coercion.
versal-versal
May 22, 2012
Woodhull and Wendy, We can’t give up our reform efforts quite yet. I don’t think the Governor is buying into the JC/AOC mantra of centralized control authored by HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey. I think his single focus is on saving money. Our fight to open light into the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate is about democracy, justice , ethics, and fiscal accountability. Due to the efforts of the legislature, State Auditor, the Alliance the thoughtful and well informed bloggers here and the press, the JC/AOC is finally being held accountable. The reckless spending on CCMS and courthouse palaces is over. We need to press on to democratize the JC , end the wasteful spending at the crystal palace and restore funds to the trial courts. I hear you Woodhull. I am tired too, having taken lots of hits like you for standing up to the insular and anti- democratic forces that pervade 455 Golden Gate and beyond. That is all the more reason to fight on. We need to Democratize the JC and recall the CJ .
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Yes Brown = $ savings ANYWHERE he thinks he can get them.
unionman575
May 22, 2012
I am burning the midnight oil as many of you are. I am tired, but I will keep on trucking on our quest for change.
wearyant
May 23, 2012
Thank you, Unionman, Your efforts are appreciated.
JusticeCalifornia
May 22, 2012
The ACJ, representing roughly 25% of the CA bench, has roared. Neither the governor nor the legislature nor the unions can be expected to do the “dirty work” (namely, calling out corruption/waste/mismanagement and demanding a change in leadership) for the other 75% of the CA bench.
The other 75% of the bench cannot sit by and hope for the best, unless in their view our gambling barmaid and her band of thugs represent their idea of the best the branch has to offer. And if that is the best our branch has to offer, the branch is in real trouble, because let’s face it: our gambling barmaid and her crew are not inspiring trust, confidence or respect in ANYONE. To the contrary, everyone just wants to whack them upside the head for being so arrogant, manipulative, wasteful, and generally unclear on the concept of what the branch is supposed to be doing (ethically and responsibly serving the public).
The judges of this state must step forward and democratize and clean up the branch. They signed up for their jobs, and took their oath of office. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and judges are supposed to be trained for that. Judge Kennelly said it best:
“One of the things is that we have spent our whole professional career advocating and disagreeing, but that’s what we’re built to do,” said Kennelly in the interview. “Then we become judges, and there’s some expectation that all 58 courts are supposed to be on the same page, all the time.”
Team George has weakened the branch beyond recognition.
If the judges of this State do not step forward, and curtail top leadership’s power to waste branch funds and run the branch into the ground, the Governor and the legislature have every incentive to do the easy, easy thing– exploit the obvious weakness of the branch (the wannabe-royal CJ/JC/AOC “let them eat cake” attitude) and continue to cut the budget, based on the wasteful practices and priorities of top leadership.
unionman575
May 22, 2012
Trial coiurt judges: I hope you come forward in mass to let your voice be heard that our branch has not been managed well by those in power. We need all of your to help us effectuate change now.
I am aware that you each will be taking a chance and risking retaliation from above. Please help us! We have served you well for many years as your office staff, court clerks, court reporters and in all other support roles that you require to run YOUR courtroom. Help us!
unionman575
May 23, 2012
unionman575
May 23, 2012
TODAY:
http://senate.ca.gov/todaysevents
Budget And Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 On Corrections, Public Safety, And The Judiciary
HANCOCK, Chair
1:30 p.m. – Room 3191 (Listen to Room 3191)
Committees: Budget and Fiscal Review, Judiciary
1:30 p.m.- Room 3191
(Please note time and room change)
Item Description
MAY REVISE AND OPEN ISSUES
0820 Department of Justice
LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT
0390 Contributions to the Judges’ Retirement System
1900 Public Employees’ Retirement System
1920 State Teachers’ Retirement System
7100 Employment Development Department
7350 Department of Industrial Relations
8380 Department of Human Resources
8885 Commission on State Mandates
– Filipino Employee Surveys
9650 Health and Dental Benefits for Annuitants
9800 Augmentation for Employee Compensation
Control Sections 3.60 Contribution to Public Employees’ Retirement
Benefits
3.90 Reduction for Employee Compensation
4.21 Health Care Premium Savings
31.10 Salary Savings
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Published Tuesday, May 22, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmakers Question Plan to Tap Court Reserve Funds
Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Two state senators on Tuesday pushed back against the governor’s proposal to drain $300 million in local trial court reserves, questioning whether the plan is good policy or even feasible.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555677326&Lawmakers_Question_Plan_to_Tap_Court_Reserve_Funds&slreturn=1
Long live the ACJ.
Chuck Horan
May 23, 2012
Wendy, which two Senators?
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Judge Horan: According to Miller’s article, the two Senators are Senator Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Senator Loni Hancock, D-Oakland.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 23, 2012
Judge Horan thank you for your support!
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Lawmakers Question Plan to Tap Court Reserve Funds
Cheryl Miller
2012-05-22 05:12:25 PM
SACRAMENTO — Two state senators on Tuesday pushed back against the governor’s proposal to drain $300 million in local trial court reserves, questioning whether the plan is good policy or even feasible.
“Those of us who have been in local government remember the use-it-or-lose-it mentality, which is not a good financial strategy,” Senator Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said at a budget subcommittee meeting that marked the first extensive legislative review of the governor’s revised judicial budget.
More than a dozen judges, lobbyists, court workers and organized labor leaders pleaded with the committee to reject Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to cut $544 million in funding for the judiciary by sweeping court reserves and diverting construction funds.
Yolo County Superior Court Presiding Judge David Rosenberg told lawmakers that his court relies on its fund balance to pay family court commissioners. The federal government ultimately reimburses the court for the cost, but the process can take 10 to 12 months, he said. Other court leaders said that, without the cash flow their reserves provide, they may not be able to make payroll.
“These fund balances are not just free pots of money,” he said. “Most of it is already committed.”
Michael Cohen, the chief deputy director of the state Department of Finance, said the Judicial Council would be empowered “to work through any of the accounting or cash flow issues” that arise from the reserves sweep.
Budget critics received a sympathetic reception from Wolk and fellow Senator Loni Hancock, D-Oakland, who comprise two of the three subcommittee members and were the only members to appear at Tuesday’s hearing. The senators declined to endorse or reject the governor’s plan for court reserves, choosing instead to “hold open” the issue for more negotiations.
But the lawmakers’ sympathy was tempered by an acknowledgment that if legislators reject or soften the $300 million reduction in reserves, the money will have to be found elsewhere. Hancock called the state budget, revised earlier this month to address a $16 billion deficit, “catastrophic.”
The senators did reject the governor’s proposal to increase the amount judicial branch employees pay toward their retirement from 5 percent of salary to 8 percent, saying that was a policy issue better handled by judicial leaders. Instead, they approved $4 million in funding cuts and told the Judicial Council to report back to the Legislature by Sept. 30 on how it achieved those savings.
Hancock, too, urged branch leaders to end the practice of paying the entire retirement contributions for dozens of top judiciary executives.
“Higher paid employees ought to be contributing the same as average court workers,” she said.
The subcommittee also held open the governor’s proposal to redirect $240 million in court construction money, while it approved an extra $4.7 million to cover a shortfall in funding for court-appointed appellate counsel.
While the budget subcommittee’s votes carry weight, the final language for the courts’ 2012-13 spending plan will be approved by the governor’s office and legislative leaders.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202555677326&Lawmakers_Question_Plan_to_Tap_Court_Reserve_Funds
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2012
‘Hancock, too, urged branch leaders to end the practice of paying the entire retirement contributions for dozens of top judiciary executives. “Higher paid employees ought to be contributing the same as average court workers,” she said.’
DUH. Although top leadership has now heard this advice from many, many sources, it has not acted on it.
Once again the legislature has to paint a picture for top leadership.
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, May 23, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Lavish Perk for Court Bureaucrats Attacked in Senate Committee
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – A top-loaded pension system that gives 30 court bureaucrats a lavish 22% pension payment on top of their pay received the attention of the California’s Senate’s budget committee Tuesday.
The budget committee strongly recommended that the top 30 executives of the Administrative Office of the Courts start contributing to their retirement like all other state employees, instead of having the taxpayers pay the entire pension contribution.
“Certainly those who are now getting a hundred percent who may be among the higher paid employees I think ought to be contributing the same as the average court workers,” said Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley). “I would encourage the courts as they look at the adjustments they might want to make to consider that.”
The committee directed the governing body of the courts, the Judicial Council, to find $4 million in savings by September 30 and recommended they raise those funds by eliminating the lavish perk for the top bureaucrats in the Administrative Office of the Courts.
On a separate issue, the Senate budget committee put off a decision on the governor’s controversial proposal to wipe out the reserve funds held by individual trial courts to manage their bills.
The pension perk for the high bureaucrats is an issue that has been pressed by reform-minded trial judges in recent years who noted that the vast majority of state workers contribute eight percent to their retirement funds, while the top 30 highest members of the central bureaucracy for the courts contribute nothing. That lavish perk was put into jeopardy in Governor Jerry Brown’s May revised budget recommending that all court employees contribute to their pensions, a move that would save roughly $4 million.
Unlike ordinary businesses, where it violates federal law to top load a pension plan, the state court bureaucracy gives its most privileged a full 22% ride on top of their rich salaries.
Federal law does not allow employers to top load pension plans and discriminate in favor of the most powerful and best paid employees. However state government employees in California are exempt from that law.
“Our understanding is that for a small group of executives, that is currently being paid, but the proposal that is being put forward by The Department of Finance is that this will no longer be the case,” said Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
“I think that part of the proposal would be very good,” said Hancock from Berkeley.
The committee made no decision on Brown’s proposal last week to sweep local trial court fund balances to offset a $544 million budget cut to the judiciary, but heard testimony from a number of judges urging them to reject that proposal.
“The elimination of reserves while it sounds like a good and convenient way to get money is really a Trojan horse for a much more significant change to the way the branch is structured and operates,” testified Judge David Rubin of San Diego Superior Court, also president of the California Judges Association.
Judges from all over the state see the taking of their fund balances and creating one big statewide reserve pot as a frightening move toward stripping them of their ability to independently manage their local court finances. Judges are also wary of having to beg for emergency funds from the Judicial Council, the body that would be put in charge of administering the statewide reserve.
In his testimony before the budget committee Michael Cohen, Chief Deputy Director of the Department of Finance hinted that control of the fund would actually rest with the AOC. “We think at a time when we’re making many difficult budget cut proposals, it makes sense to spend down the local reserve amounts,” he said. “Replace it with a statewide reserve equal to three percent of expenditures, roughly 80 percent, that the Administrative Office of the Courts will have the ability to allocate to take care of any unexpected needs.”
Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento urged the legislators not to deprive the courts of managing their reserves, which are really fund balances most courts have already committed to spending to see them through the year.
“Having an emergency fund rest in the control of the Judicial Council, in which every court must run hat and hand when seeking permission to pay workman’s compensation claims or local infrastructure needs will hardly be productive or equitable. Those funds must be left with individual trial courts who have demonstrated fiscal responsibility in accumulating these funds to begin with. Anything less would cripple us,” Earl said.
Alan Carlson, the head clerk for Orange County Superior Court said having control over its finances has been the only way his court has been able to make necessary operational cuts that have allowed it to stay open during times of fiscal crisis. “I urge you not to change the way the trial courts are structured and funded,” he said. “It’s totally within your purview to tell us how much money we get to spend, but I would ask you not to do away with the structure that we have. You’re going to find this is a great structure and has allowed us to do stuff we couldn’t do otherwise. Please leave this alone.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office also urged the committee to reject the proposal to sweep the reserves. Lee said, “It is a significant policy change that raises a number of questions about the role of the state and the Judicial Council versus the local trial courts in making fiscal and programmatic priority decisions.”
Senator Hancock pressed Cohen to defend the Department of Finance’s position on a statewide reserve.
“How do you see a situation in which the courts that worked hard to be creative, to streamline operations to keep a reserve, will lose their reserves, and the other piece of that, are there efficiencies in establishing a statewide reserve really, or does it add another layer of bureaucracy?” she asked.
Cohen replied, “Right now you’ve got 58 different court systems in 58 different places and moving to a statewide reserve would help create a more standard approach to dealing with these types of reductions.” But he then added, “There certainly will be some challenge in a transition, no doubt.”
Though the committee decided to hold open the issue for a couple of weeks, the senators showed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of requiring courts to spend down their fund balances. “I too have concerns about this recommendation involving the reserves, Senator Lois Wolk (D-Stockton), said. “The use it or lose it mentality is not a good management strategy.”
In a press release Tuesday evening, the reform group Alliance of California Judges said, “We believe it is important that all trial judges understand that it was the AOC that provided the Governor with the information concerning the status of trial court reserves. You can access that report here.”
“We all know that many of these “reserves” are encumbered or otherwise spent. We hope that the highly paid staff in the AOC Office of Governmental Affairs clearly explained the encumbered status of these reserves to the Governor’s Office. You may recall that this same staff drafted a bill just a couple of years ago that would have eliminated our right to elect our presiding judges.”
The statement pointed out that California statutes gives the Judicial Council and the administrative office the ability to put in receivership any court that spends beyond its allocation. “In light of the fact that our reserves will be swept,” said the statement, “this potential should concern every judge who believes that the council and AOC already wield too much power.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/23/46771.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Dan Dydzak
May 23, 2012
I witnessed first hand today in a Los Angeles County Superior Court a major hearing where the judge had to advise various parties on his busy calendar that, if they wanted a court reporter for upcoming hearings, they would have to pay for the reporter out of their own pocket.
The court reporters, like other important personnel in the legal system, are important. Instead of catered lunches and expensive junkets to Maui, more attention should be directed to paying the basic bills and necessities. In my legal matter, the trial judge could conceivably order a Receiver or independent auditor to halt any reserve monies from the local courts, such as Orange County and Los Angeles County, from leaving local coffers. The Attorney General of California was served with my lawsuit yesterday, and it will be interesting to see what legal position Ms. Harris adopts towards the lawsuit.
It would appear from the comments of unionman, Ms. Darling and others that the frustration at the situation could end up resulting in potential picketing and recalls. There will likely be a grassroots movement by union members and others if the Legislature and Governor do not adequately heed and address the concerns raised by the commentators to this site.
scaryperry@knac.com
May 23, 2012
I am appalled at the corruption and misconduct of certain judges and attorneys,including those stealing TARP monies, money laundering and bank fraud. The Dishonest Chief Justice and other DISHONEST Judges, should be recalled! By Union members. Where do I sign the Recall Petitions?
unionman575
May 23, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
“Unlike ordinary businesses, where it violates federal law to top load a pension plan, the state court bureaucracy gives its most privileged a full 22% ride on top of their rich salaries. Federal law does not allow employers to top load pension plans and discriminate in favor of the most powerful and best paid employees.”
Common sense would suggest that it violates the law to top load a pension plan and discriminate in favor of the most powerful and best paid employees for “ordinary” businesses, that a “public” business shouldn’t be doing it either, especially when it’s the California Judicial Branch, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. Not that either the spirit or the letter of the law means anything at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
But maybe that’s just me.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 23, 2012
Hey, Wendy D, I totally agree with you. And it’s so weird and ironic that these overly paid scumbags can most afford to pay their own way to their retirement with their ill-gotten gains. They’re supposed to serve the trial courts, in my humble opinion, and trial court judges do not get these obscene perks. I could —
[hurl!]
Long live the ACJ!
Recall Tani!
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Thanks, Ant. It’s nice to know it’s not just me.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 23, 2012
As a long time Union Man I would like to share this:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/05/court_workers_rally_strike.php
Court Workers to Decide on Possible Strike
By Albert SamahaWed., May 23 2012 at 11:06 AM
There are few experiences in San Francisco more excruciating than waiting in line outside the Hall of Justice to take care of a traffic ticket. People crane their necks, instinctively trying to snatch a sight of the front of the line. Somebody inevitably says, “Why are three of the windows closed?” And then someone else inevitably says, “Man, this place sucks.”
One reason three of the five service windows might be closed, of course, is that California is broke and public sector workers have been getting canned. Nearly 70 court employees lost their jobs in October, for instance.
The remaining 263 court workers and the Administrative Office of the Courts, which manages the state court budget, are currently negotiating a new labor contract. The AOC is proposing a 5 percent pay cut, and clearly the workers consider that offer unfair. So today court employees will vote on strike authorization, which means that there could be a court worker strike if the two sides fail to come to an agreement soon.
And you know what that means: The line outside outside the Hall of Justice Room 145 would wind all the way to Trader Joe’s.
The AOC argument is simple: Purse strings are tightening all around these days; it’s time for more shared sacrifices; and money saved from pay cuts will prevent even more layoffs.
But court workers, who are represented by SEIU 1021, believe that they are getting punished for the AOC fiscal mismanagement. Notably, the failed Court Case Management System, a computer network designed to link the filing databases of the state’s 58 counties. The system, slated to cost $206 million, ate up $500 million before the state’s Judicial Council killed it in March.
“The management wastes all this money, totally blows it, and they come to [the] bargaining table and say ‘You gotta pay for our mistake.'” says Steve Stallone, spokesman for SEIU 1021. “How does that sound right? ‘We wasted half-a-billion dollars so you gotta pay for it.'”
The strike authorization vote, which gives union leaders the power to call a strike if negotiations fail, comes as the workers present AOC officials with another contract proposal. While labor leaders are not disclosing whether or not they are willing to accept pay cuts less than 5 percent, Stallone notes that the court management should seek budget cuts through furloughs and holidays rather than pay decreases.
The sides are also tangling over health benefits — the AOC’s proposal bumped-up how much employees contribute for their coverage.
There have been six negotiating session so far, the last one of which included a mediator. Now, SEIU court workers will hold a rally today at noon at Civic Center.
Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Hey Unionman, would you like to take a guess as to who from the AOC is sitting at the negotiating table on behalf of the San Francisco Superior Court? Here’s a hint: until recently he was the Assistant HR Director under the recently departed Ernesto “Bluto” Fuentes, and interviewed for the Assistant CEO position for the Santa Clara Superior Court.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 23, 2012
I just heaved – thanks Wendy!
unionman575
May 23, 2012
Wendy I was sitting on my “Couch” when the urge to heave overcame me.
=)
unionman575
May 23, 2012
You know, I do some good work while enjoying my once a week beer. Just one a week keeps me honest Wendy!
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
I know the feeling, Unionman, and it is shared by many.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 23, 2012
I will really “miss” Fuentes as he was much like Marquis de Sade.
unionman575
May 23, 2012
Wendy here is my bat line if you ever need it: bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com.
I like your style Wendy. You get it done here!
unionman575
May 23, 2012
More AOC business as usual…The “wise stewards” of our branch bring to you another HUGE waste of money…While the trial courts prepare more mass layoffs and plenty of other nasty stuff…
Get me a bucket!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18214.htm
Presiding Judges Orientation and Court Management Program RFP #ASU EG-018
The Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Conference Services Unit seeks proposals from hotels for meeting space, meals and sleeping rooms, for the Presiding Judges Orientation and Court Management program on October 16 – 19, 2012 or November 13 – 16, 2012 in San Francisco, SFO, San Jose or Sacramento.
This is a new process for sourcing hotels and meeting locations and for this program we will be conducting a Pre Proposal Conference Call to answer any questions regarding this specific RFP and the new process. Please call into the number provided below in order to ask your questions in a public conference call. It is strongly recommended that you use this opportunity to ask for clarification on the process, as it is completely new.
Pre Proposal Conference Call: Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Please call these telephone numbers:
415-355-5487 (local)
1-866-223-4037 (long distance)
Any questions must be directed to conferencesolicitations@jud.ca.gov by 5:00 pm Pacific Time, Monday, May 28, 2012.
Proposals must be received by END OF BUSINESS DAY Pacific Time, Tuesday, June 5, 2012.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: John Remington, RFP No. ASU EG020
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
unionman575
May 23, 2012
ET phone home:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lpa-cascade.pdf
unionman575
May 23, 2012
Let’s all put our hands together for another AOC bum Diane Nunn.
Dear Diane, it’s time to retire. All the other directors need to go out the door NOW too!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18229.htm
AOC Director Receives ABA Award
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Philip Carrizosa, 415-865-8044
PDF Version
May 23, 2012
AOC Director Receives ABA award for Work on Behalf of Families and Children
Recipient of ABA’s First Mark Hardin Award
SAN FRANCISCO—Diane Nunn, Division Director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), is the recipient of the First Annual Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Scholarship and Systems Change. The award, created by the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, honors the work of Mark Hardin who served for almost 30 years on the staff of the Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Among the criteria for receiving the award was that the recipient should be someone who embodies “Mark’s leadership style, characterized by humility, a ‘willingness to serve,’ and a deep driving compassion for children and families.”
Nunn was cited for a lifetime commitment to improving the lives of families and children in California. After starting her career as a teacher, she became an attorney in private practice with an emphasis on family and criminal law, including domestic violence prevention and intervention. During this time she also served as a juvenile court referee for the Superior Court of Los Angeles. She joined the AOC in 1986, where she served as an attorney focusing primarily on juvenile and family issues for what is now the Office of the General Counsel. In 2000 she became the director of the Judicial Council’s AOC/Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), the first entity devoted exclusively to family and children’s issues in a statewide administrative office of the courts. As Division Director, Nunn leads a nationally-recognized team that provides an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to serving the state’s family and juvenile courts. Nunn credits her award to AOC and CFCC staff who are dedicated to supporting the work of court programs.
Judge Michael Nash, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a colleague of Nunn’s for more than 20 years, commented that “Diane Nunn has inspired me and mentored me and countless others in our work in the juvenile court. She is always collaborative, recognizes and nurtures talent, inspires innovation, and never takes credit for ideas which began with her.”
Judge Dean Stout, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Inyo County, said “Diane Nunn’s deep knowledge of the law and remarkable ability to assemble and inspire the right people have led to landmark reforms in providing counsel to all children and parents, setting practice and caseload standards for attorneys, and developing local commissions on children in foster care to continue improving the courts.”
According to Justice Richard Huffman, Chair of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, “Diane Nunn was a key architect of California’s legal framework for juvenile dependency practice, a tireless advocate for children, and a leader who has inspired literally hundreds of us in California and around the country.”
Diane Nunn will receive the award on June 28, 2012, at a ceremony held in conjunction with the annual Court Improvement meeting in Washington, D.C.
###
Been There
May 24, 2012
FWIW Unionman I have always liked Diane Nunn and considered her to be one of the few good people at the AOC. Diane created her division, it is true, but I always saw it as an “island of refuge” within the AOC. She did her thing, did it well, and Vickrey & Co pretty much left her and her staff alone. Just my opinion . . . .
unionman575
May 24, 2012
We must reduce AOC overhead now. I would rather the executive management group (Directors) goes than the AOC workers. Just my opinion.
Been There
May 24, 2012
I understand where you are coming from, Unionman, but every once in a while someone rises within the AOC to the role of Director and uses all the power and moxie at her disposal not only to try to do good for families and children in the courts, but also to protect her staff. Take a look at the list of people who work in that division and you will find many good people who have left other problematic divisions to work for Diane Nunn. She is an extremely caring, self-effacing manager, who is fiercely loyal to the people who work for her, unlike her fellow directors, who basically eat their young.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
I’d like to see the AOC shrink by at least 75% in terms of budget dollars. They all have to go at the TOP, good or bad – that does not matter.
Times are hard…they all have to go.
Sorry – we have to keep the trial court doors open.
The AOC is NOT a court.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Diane won’t be servicing TRO applicants. I will.
She has to go with all the rest. We simply can’t afford the AOC bloat at the top anymore. Sometimes BAD trhings happen to GOOD people.
That is life. Deal with it.
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2012
WAY OVER THE TOP. . . .CCMS costs. . . . .Court construction/maintenance costs. . . .pension benefits for top AOC shills. . . .cronyism and backroom deals. . . .resulting in foreseeable budget cuts. . . .and loss of credibility. . .
And yet the the Team George Follies shamelessly proceed.
Team George top AOC cheerleader Jody Patel appears to be giving very bad advice to our gambling barmaid. We don’t have to guess what Patel’s top 5- priorities are because she announced them and some wonderful committee attendee took great notes (my admittedly jaded editorial “Patel” comments to the notes are in brackets):
1. support curt child budget restoration [done, we now have now suckered the bar and yet another very pretty credentialed committee and a whole lotta presiding judges into laying their reputations on the line to tow the party line–yippee]
2. plan for budget reduction [done, we are laying off or retiring people who know where the bodies are buried so they can’t squeal and keeping extra bodies we previously hired in anticipation of this layoff– my gosh we were forward thinking]
3. A. Construction project [done– we cut 10% off a vastly inflated pricetag so we are all still way far ahead in the game. ]
B. CCMS [done– we tricked everyone into thinking we were abandoning this project and then we tacked $9 mil onto the “retirement” and “salvage” of something that never could have worked in a practical and fiscally responsible manner anyway!– LOL freemoney!]
4. Prepare for SEC [done! got rid of Scotland who tried to get rid of me. This will teach him! Now I have the inside scoop on the SEC info and can do damage control, and clean up/water down/repackage/delay his f&*%$# up report. He is NOT going to take down my hard-earned meal ticket! Namely Team George and of course— my biggest meal ticket, Tani.]
5. Staff morale [uh-huh, yep, I’m sure worried about that, especially about how to handle the fallout when we lay off the good workers who know where the bodies are buried. I better start revising layoff procedures now, and sending out e-mails I know workers don’t read warning them about their rights. . . .]
The fact that we are all watching this freak show, and the fact that our cj is either fully complicit or simply is so dumb she cannot see the forest for the trees —-and has to be schooled by the legislature in basic good-sense branch business is just. . . .embarrassing.
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2012
Oh, Justice California, things are WAY past “embarrassing.” “Embarrassing” disappeared into the rear view mirror some time ago. Appalling, disgusting, atrocious, revulsive, and a few other descriptive terms come to mind.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 23, 2012
If Sakauye wants to survive, I sure hope she finds a qualified, respected replacement for the Vickrey/Overholt/Patel director-disasters.
versal-versal
May 24, 2012
Justice, sadly you can go to the bank on this JC to pick someone like Patel to replace Patel. The first problem is that the search process started so late, months after Vickrey resigned/retired. Oh by the way did Vickrey really retire as he is seen regularly patrolling the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. One has to wonder what role he is playing in finding his successor. The search process is headed by J Hull . That is very troubling given his rude remarks about CCMS dissenters who of course turned out to be right . The choice therefore will inevitably be a JC/AOC insider. Obvious choices are Patel, Turner and Roddy. Don’t be shocked when the insiders pick the ultimate insider, Terry Friedman who has been there at every turn supporting HRH 1 , HRH 2 and the anti democratic clique that “runs” and “oversees” the trial courts without any constitutional authority. You heard it here first.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Yes, I could see Terry “I always say yes” Friedman being on that list.
anna
May 26, 2012
Hull is a corrupt SOB whose interest is only to CYA for the powers that be, namely Huffman and George.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 24, 2012
Friedman needs the income and would be a perfect shill for HRH-2. Someone should do a full expose on this guy. His background is really interesting. From being Executive Director of Bet Tzedek (now under investigation) – to the Assembly – to mysteriously orchestrating legislation to change the effective date of JRS-II when he is termed out of the Assembly. At the behest of HRH-1 he becomes the President of CJA during the time they became the wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC. Then, he abruptly “retires” from the LA Superior Court. (Wonder why – maybe something to do with UCLA???) Despite his retirement, he stayed on the Judicial Council and was one of the main mouthpieces for CCMS. Watch the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWRBxyDc6g (hilarious viewing. Bring popcorn and an airline sickness bag though)
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 24, 2012
Oh, and for those who missed the best video of all-time, be sure to watch the attached link. While this video is over one year old, note the number of things discussed that are still of concern, hopefully to all of us…
JusticeCalifornia
May 24, 2012
So it appears you simply cannot get a court reporter in Marin County for child custody trials featuring Verna Adams anymore. Supposedly, no reporters are available. Of course, Judicial Councilmember/Marin CEO Kim Turner’s first move after a court reporter recorded one of Turner’s employees testifying that Kim Turner had ordered the mass destruction of child custody evidence during a BSA audit of the Marin Family Court (under Verna Adams’ watch, and the evidence destroyed involved Verna Adams’ cases) was to eliminate and/or severely curtail court reporters in Marin County.
So let’s take a peak at the Marin County Court budget available online.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Marin-Sch-1-fy1112.pdf
Oh my. Our Judicial Councilmember/Marin CEO/NCSC alum/Cantil Sakauye BFF-top advisor Kim Turner is ostensibly spending a whopping $2.693 million in this small county on Information Technology — or more: The PECT summary indicates $3,852,860 total is allocated for “Information Technology”, with $4,569,291 allocated for “Judges and Courtroom”.
My God, is the tail wagging the dog, or what? I invite anyone to check out Marin’s GARBAGE online services– you cannot even get a register of actions.
I tell you what I see in my crystal ball.
A growing public uprising protesting the treatment of the public in our courts. Starting with the crippliing elimination of court reporters in one of the most important areas of the law– namely family courts. People are losing their livlihoods, their property, their liberty (someone supposedly was sentenced to 20 days in jail recently in unreported DCSS proceedings) and of course– their CHILDREN, and no one is “available” to record the proceedings? This is bull$$$$.
And Turner is an elite Judicial Councilmember, sitting on a multitude of important committees? And Adams is a member of the SEC to “oversee” the AOC?
All those allowing this to go on unabated need to be tarred and feathered, and run out of town.
FYI for other counties– when things like this go down in Marin, it gives EVERY other county a really bad name.
Dan Dydzak
May 24, 2012
Thank you for the important information about Kim Turner. She will be the subject of discovery along with others such as Messrs. Vickrey, Overholt, Ronald M. George, Terry Friedman and others. It is indeed disquieting that family matters in such an important venue as Marin County are being jeopardized in terms of fairness. Keep up the fight General–your input is very much appreciated for purposes of discoverable issues.
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2012
The latest from Bill Girdner, published today, Thursday, May 24, from Courthouse News Service, and, as usual from Girdner, well worth the read:
Road Trip II
By BILL GIRDNER
On a road trip along the Central Coast, I woke up after a meal of rabbit cassoulet and a fine pinot in a restaurant in the central square of Paso Robles, only to return to the same square with a more secular purpose. This time to visit the courthouse.
Our reporter has been told by the court officials that she can only see new cases on microfiche. She cannot see them in paper form, she must wait until they have been microfiched.
But next to the room where the microfiche monitors are located is a small room with a big windows and a locked door. To enter, a clerk must buzz you in.
A sign says the room is for reviewing files, clearly referring to paper files. It confirms my theory that in the past courts commonly developed secure methods to allow reporters, and others, to view paper court records.
The Paso Robles court is a small branch of San Luis Obispo Superior Court. In the court’s main branch in San Luis Obispo, officials have also told us we cannot see the new cases until they are transferred to microfiche, a process that takes a week or two.
In addition to arguing that a court is perfectly capable of providing safe access to new cases in paper form, we have also repeatedly said that putting a private company in the position of gatekeeper to the records is a bad idea.
It creates a monopoly on access.
Unless the court puts strict limits on how that position can be used, the private operator will wheel that monopoly in order to charge lawyers and journalists exorbitant amounts for information.
That big rule was also confirmed in a small way in the San Luis Obispo courts. A researcher working for a local attorney service told us that her employer has the contract to microfiche the court’s records. She then offered to provide print outs of microfiched cases and charge less than the court charges.
I preferred not to feed that particular beast.
But even a tiny operator in a small court is trying the hustle a monopoly on access to the paper record in order to make an extra buck.
The main San Luis Obispo courthouse is a classic and beautiful courthouse built in 1940. It is also comfortably appointed inside. I remark to our bureau chief that judging by appearances, the court does not seem starved for funds.
This court was also first in line for installation of the final version of the Court Case Management System. That system got its plug pulled last month by the Judicial Council.
What a leap the San Luis Obispo court wanted to make, all the way from the many decades-old technology of microfiche to the latest technology of e-filing. And what a narrow escape from disaster, given that CCMS is on its way to the junk yard.
From San Luis Obispo, I drive south 100 miles to Santa Barbara.The court was built in 1929 and the level of craftsmanship that went into the building is unseen today, with ornate and complex tile work and luxurious amounts of dark wood.
The mural room in the courthouse, that looks for all the world like a nave in a catholic church, is a brazen example of revisionist history. The local natives are described as unusually “enlightened” and floor-to-ceiling murals depict the indians working in a friendly and helpful way with gentle conquistadors, all under the radiant heads of Franciscans.
That might be the way the conquerors saw it. Maybe not the indians.
The nearby mission museum notes that diseases brought by the conquistadors, gonorrhea in particular, decimated the Santa Barbara tribe of Chumash indians, killing 9 out of the enlightened 10.
Mixing the sightseeing with work, I meet with our bureau chief and our reporter in the records room. The access to new cases, while delayed, is much, much better that it used to be. The staff is friendly towards us and complimentary of our reporter.
It occurs to me only after the fact that we have fought over access in every single one of these courts along the Central Coast, from Santa Cruz to San Luis Obispo to Santa Barbara, with excellent results in Santa Cruz, improvement in Santa Barbara and nothing in San Luis Obispo.
After visiting the courthouse, I have a glass of wine with our bureau chief sitting on the patio of a little restaurant, also with ornate tile, on State Street about a block away. The patio is empty, and there is a light breeze. It is sunny day, shoppers walk to and fro.
And with that libation, the road trip is over.
The bureau chief heads off to the Coachella music festival and I drive south into L.A. traffic, into the mouth of the whale.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/24/46813.htm
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2012
Published today, Thursday, May 24, from Courthouse News Service, by Dave Tartre:
San Francisco Court Workers Vote to Authorize Strike Over Contract
By DAVE TARTRE
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Court workers Thursday gave the green light for a strike if negotiations between their union and administrators remain deadlocked.
The results of a secret ballot, which were announced at a union rally in front of San Francisco’s Hall of Justice, showed a full 95 percent of members want union leaders to return to talks with more leverage than they had in previous sessions.
Negotiators from the Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, have met five times with court administrators, but the talks have not resulted in a deal to replace the labor agreement that expired in February.
The union says it needs the authorization to show that its members refuse to accept what it describes as an imposition of concessions, including a permanent 5 percent pay cut and no guarantees against future layoffs.
“Across the board, management has turned down every offer we’ve had,” union chapter president Geraldine Anderson told Courthouse News.
Anderson, who works in the court’s civil division, said she and her colleagues go to work every day to help the public, and they don’t want to strike. “We’re ready to go back to the table,” she said.
Diane Williams, a traffic court worker, called the vote “overwhelming.” She said court staff is already stretched thin, and the public feels that impact.
“I sympathize that people have to wait two or three hours in line,” Williams told Courthouse News. “We’re understaffed as it is and lines will get longer.”
Many union members said that the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) should loosen its purse strings for trial court operations now that the heavily criticized Computerized Case Management System is dead. California’s Judicial Council scuttled the statewide computer system project in March after 10 years and $500 million.
On the steps of the Hall of Justice, Gary Feliciano, a union steward who works in the civil division, said, “This isn’t just about contracts.”
“They deny us, they deny justice to the public,” he said of the AOC.
Last summer, Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein announced that 200 court workers would lose their jobs in a belt-tightening that would also result in closed courtrooms, reduced public access and delays in justice across the system. In the end, 67 employees were let go, mainly court reporters.
Once the results of the vote became public, the court released a statement criticizing the potential strikers’ vote, which it said flew in the face of a statewide judicial budget crisis.
Court spokeswoman Ann Donlan said the crisis worsened further with recent news that Gov. Jerry Brown plans to cut another $544 million from the judiciary’s budget.
The statement quotes the court’s lead negotiator J.M. Munoz as saying: “The court had a three-year plan to survive the next three fiscal years, which unfortunately required a staff layoff last fall and wage concessions effective July 1 to achieve our goals. The layoffs of 67 employees and the 5 percent wage concession together were enough to help the court avoid additional service reductions to the public and more staff layoffs.”
Munoz purportedly said that a strike “would cause widespread disruptions to access to justice in San Francisco.”
Echoing the union members’ concerns for the public, however, Munoz said that “the court is prepared to assure that essential services proceed regardless of a strike, including criminal, unlawful detainer, civil harassment and juvenile delinquency cases, as well as any other services that must be performed to prevent an imminent threat to the health or safety of the public.”
No talks are scheduled, but many union members said they are ready to resume negotiating.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/24/46817.htm
Long live the ACJ.