Today 95% of San Francisco Superior Court SEIU staff voted to authorize a strike to give union negotiators more leverage in negotiations. While SFSC workers were being laid off, AOC workers were getting raises and we were just beginning to hear the lavish pension packages of the AOC’s elite thirty.
And just before that we learned that all of you were asked to give up pay via furloughs and judges were being asked to give back some of their salary just so AOC managers could get whopping double digit pay increases. After all, looking the other way while crime happens under your nose is lucrative – and damn good work if you can get it.
Judicial Council Watcher supports the rank and file workers of San Francisco Superior Court.
Court management and the AOC: Before you ask these workers to give anything up, lead by example. Pay 8% of your wages towards your pensions and cut your own pay and benefits package as much as you’re proposing to cut theirs.
Related articles
- Court Workers to Decide on Possible Strike (blogs.sfweekly.com)
- Rally to support court funding – not AOC waste (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- San Francisco Court Workers Vote to Authorize Strike Over Contract
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Thank you JCW!
Union Man also supports the rank and file workers of San Francisco Superior Court.
Dan Dydzak
May 24, 2012
Unionman and others associated with him, you are clearly doing your job and you do deserve a beer like James Bond in the upcoming film. All my friends and many lawyers I know are very supportive of the rank and file union members in SF and elsewhere, because we know who does a ton of work in the California judicial system. Here’s hoping the vote pushes things in a positive and righteous direction.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Dan you are the Man! Thanks!
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2012
Unionman – you have hushmail.
Long live the ACJ.
John
May 24, 2012
AOC Employees were all on pay cut and also subject to the 8% increase to pension contribution. Also AOC is laying off workers too, anyone mention the front line hard working staff’s suffering, not the management.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 25, 2012
I thought we had you covered John.
“And just before that we learned that all of you (includes rank and file AOC employees) were asked to give up pay via furloughs and judges were being asked to give back some of their salary just so AOC managers could get whopping double digit pay increases.
unionman575
May 25, 2012
John I focus on the top thirty executives for starters – It’s time to clean house TOP DOWN.
I have no quarrel with line AOC folks – just your executive management group – they ALL have to go now.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Gracias Wendy – looking now.
unionman575
May 24, 2012
Wendy you have mail.
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2012
And so do you, Unionman!
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 25, 2012
Judge White had it right when he said last week that the AOC is a NOT a court.
Our branch “leaders” over at the Palace seem to have forgotten that (and a lot of other things as well).
The SFSC staff and all other trial court staff throughout the entire state should not be laid off. Those “Top 30” that lead the Palace with outlandish salaries and perks must go now out the AOC doors.
The construction program must HALT for now. The building spree isn’t ethical or sustainable.
AOC, it is time for you, the bureaucratic monster, to be cut back down to size, and stop dictating to trial courts. We don’t require your expensive “assistance” as we can’t afford it.
wearyant
May 25, 2012
Judge White also said that the AOC is NOT the judiciary, the JUDGES are the judiciary. The context was the AOC hiding behind judicial robes.
“The SFSC staff and all other trial court staff throughout the entire state should not be laid off. Those “Top 30″ that lead the Palace with outlandish salaries and perks must go now out the AOC doors.”
Yes, Unionman. The California taxpayers would get a bigger bang for the buck if the fatasses were shown the door and the lineworkers, who are actually in the judicial branch trenches dealing with the public day after day, were retained. As far as I know, no one wants the top echelon to stay on. We all want the lineworkers!
Long live Judge White.
Recall Tani.
SFMB
May 25, 2012
“The SFSC staff and all other trial court staff throughout the entire state should not be laid off. Those “Top 30″ that lead the Palace with outlandish salaries and perks must go now out the AOC doors.”
My sentiments exactly.
Delilah
May 25, 2012
Speaking of court workers. Holy cow!! It’s gonna turn into the Wild West soon. (IMO, at this point it seems to be largely by corruption and design.) Unbelievably sad and frightening.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/05/25/2850615/fresno-county-to-close-all-courthouses.html
unionman575
May 25, 2012
Click to access tuolumne_notice_reduction_operating_hours.pdf
unionman575
May 25, 2012
SFSC
http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3094
RELEASE DATE: May 24, 2012
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT WARNS THE PUBLIC ABOUT SERVICE DISRUPTIONS IF SEIU MEMBERS DECIDE TO STRIKE
Court Prepares to Maintain Critical Operations in the Event of a Strike
SAN FRANCISCO — SEIU, the only one of four Court unions to reject a 5 percent pay cut to address ongoing judicial state budget reductions that worsened this week, is refusing to share in the sacrifices agreed to by union members who belong to the Court’s other labor groups.
“It is unfortunate that members of SEIU, Local 1021, have voted to authorize a strike, which would cause widespread disruptions to access to justice in San Francisco,” said J.M. Muñoz the Court’s lead negotiator. “We believe the deal we have put forward and is still on the table is fair to both the union and the Court. Economic recovery in California’s public sector is elusive, and unfortunately, the Governor’s May Revision to the FY2012-13 budget further imperils the judicial branch and the Court.”
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.
“Unfortunately, any job action would create many disruptions to the public
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1021, rejected a tentative agreement reached with the Court in early March that would have taken effect July 1. The tentative agreement included a 5 percent wage reduction in exchange for increases in health benefits and restoration of floating holidays set to expire. The deal, which replicated the terms already agreed to by three of the Court’s other unions, included a provision to potentially reduce the 5 percent wage reduction during the 3-year contract and possibly increase wages by the contract’s last year – depending on the funding allocation the Court ultimately receives from the state and the Judicial Council.
News in the past week from Sacramento, however, further threatens the Court’s fragile budget. The Governor’s May Revision proposes a $544 million cut to the judicial branch in addition to cumulative reductions of $653 million in the past four fiscal years. It proposes to cut $240 million from court construction funds and sweep $300 million from trial court reserves.
“The Court had a 3-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,” Muñoz said. “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. But now that the Governor is seeking to sweep trial court reserves and prevent courts from maintaining local reserves necessary for the stable operation of the Court, we know that these measures will no longer be enough. We will have to consider further staff and service cuts.”
Muñoz added that other union members have recognized the need for shared sacrifice to help the Court save jobs and mitigate the budget cuts that continue to erode access to justice.
“We have not asked SEIU to dig any deeper into their pockets than anyone else,” Muñoz said. “Members of the Municipal Executives Association; International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Local 21, and the San Francisco Court Reporters Association/IFPTE, Local 21, have committed to be part of the solution. We are hopeful that SEIU will join their labor colleagues in recognizing that the Court has negotiated a fair deal that reflects the fiscal reality we face in California.”
unionman575
May 27, 2012
http://www.ncra.org/Government/content.cfm?ItemNumber=8665&navItemNumber=11171&navItemNumber=590
There is clearly a public stake in the competent performance of reporters and, in some cases; life and liberty rely on the record.
Contracting
Litigants, other participants in the judicial system, and the general public expect that depositions and court proceedings be recorded by a competent, independent and neutral court reporter who has no stake, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the action. Prohibiting parties of interest in litigation from having a direct contractual relationship with court reporters, as officers of the court, is necessary to ensure the public’s faith in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.
Electronic/Digital Recording
Because of budget crunches, several courts are exploring the use of electronic recording systems to either supplement or replace stenographic reporters. Although electronic recording may be used in certain environments, such as courts that do not have frequent transcript requests, realtime court reporters, often described as “Guardians of the Record,” remain the most reliable and accurate method of making the record.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
http://www.courtreportersboard.ca.gov/about-us/stratplan.shtml
About the Board
CSRs are professionals who provide verbatim transcripts of oral court testimony, grand jury hearings, depositions and other legal proceedings.
The integrity of our legal system rests on accurate records. Court reporters play an essential role in providing these transcripts by ensuring that there is a verbatim record of judicial proceedings.
Industry, Profession and Workforce
Court decision to stop providing court reporters for civil proceedings will drive a privatization of the civil courtrooms, increasing expense to litigants and decreasing access to justice.
Consumers and Stakeholders
There is an opportunity to educate consumers and lawmakers of the importance of licensed court reporters essential function of protecting the record.
The TRF continues to assist indigent litigants and puts money back in the hands of the licensees. However, removal of officials from county courts may cause TRF to become depleted more quickly as per diem charges would be reimbursable to pro-tems.
As the economy continues to shrink, the court budgets will be affected and there could be more enforcement issues. The public will want more reassurance of the integrity of the court system, including court reporters.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
http://www.kmph.com/story/18630039/fresno-courthouses-closing-layoffs-prevented-for-now
Fresno Courthouses Closing; Layoffs Prevented For Now
Posted: May 25, 2012 10:49 PM PDT
Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:49 AM EST
By Erik Rosales – email
FRESNO, Calif. (KMPH) –
It’s a sign of the times. Governor Jerry Brown announced unprecedented cuts to the state’s judicial branch, and now Fresno County Superior Court administrators say they have no other choice but to make drastic cuts themselves.
Court administrators say they are losing out on about 77 percent of its operating funds; that’s nearly 27 million dollars. Because of that all seven satellite courthouses will close and employees will be forced to work out of downtown Fresno.
Chief Executive Officer of the Fresno County Superior Courthouse Tamara Beard says, “We regret the budget has forced us to curtail public access to the courts and that it impacts our wonderful employees.”
She adds, “A 28 million dollar budget cut to our budget forces us to do something that we would never imagine that we would have to do.”
So come July 30th, the courts in Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Sanger, and Selma will close.
And by August 6th, the courts in Clovis and Kingsburg will shut down as well.
This combined with the reduction of about 70 positions through attrition, a 10 percent pay cut for employees and 12 extra furlough days administrators say will prevent layoffs, for now.
But not forever, Presiding Judge Gary Hoff says, “We are not confident that this is the last cuts we are getting.”
He adds a possible delay in court proceedings will take place, allowing some criminals to remain on the street longer.
Judge Hoff says, “If things get delayed more opportunities to have screw ups and justice delayed is justice denied.”
unionman575
May 27, 2012
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20723650/governors-spending-plans-calls-evaporating-local-courts-reserves
Governor’s spending plan calls for evaporating local courts’ reserves next year
Monica Rodriquez, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/27/2012 02:05:59 PM PDT
Numerous state and local government agencies are preparing for the possibility of profound budget cuts, and California’s court system is no different.
Courts up and down the state are preparing for $544million in cuts from the 2012-2013 fiscal year, according to the Judicial Council of California, the policy-making body of the California courts.
Such a hit follows four years of other cuts in which California’s courts have lost about $650million.
“It’s not good,” said Stephen Nash, court executive officer for San Bernardino County Superior Court.
It’s estimated that of the about $544million in cuts the governor is proposing, about $300million would come from courts’ reserves and the reminder would come from delaying court construction projects, Nash said.
Despite that, San Bernardino County Superior Court could still face a budget shortfall of about $10.3million for the coming fiscal year and $23million to $24million for 2013-2014, he said.
Officials at Los Angeles County Superior Court were still calculating how the cuts might affect it, said spokeswoman Mary Hearn.
However, prior to Gov. Jerry Brown’s May budget revision, the forecast called for L.A. County’s courts to lose $125million if a series of temporary tax measures going before voters in November are defeated, she said.
Bad budget-related news seems to come in waves, Hearn said, adding that “the numbers keep changing in the wrong direction with each day and new bits of information.”
The loss of reserves is huge because it’s money many courts have set aside for unforeseen circumstances after prudent budgeting, said Nash.
Most courts have reserve funds, and in many cases those dollars have been used to offset the loss of state funding.
The governor’s proposal calls for deducting any reserves courts may have from their funding allocation for the coming fiscal year, said Philip Carrizosa, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts, which implements the Judicial Council’s policies.
Such a move would evaporate the courts’ reserves.
During the 2011-2012 fiscal year ending June 30, San Bernardino County’s courts used about $9million of its reserves to offset state cuts and lower local revenue, said Nash.
Projections of $27million to $28million in reserves at the end of the current fiscal year are now in jeopardy, he said.
San Bernardino County’s courts had a 2011-2012 fiscal year budget of about $111.3million, Nash said.
Los Angeles County Superior Court, which had a 2011-2012 budget of $768million, used $21million in reserves to offset funding losses, Hearn said.
By June 30, officials at L.A. County’s courts expect to have about $80million in reserves.
The plan was to stretch out those reserves to continue covering the loss of funding during the next three years, Hearn said.
Nash said reserves are no permanent solution to addressing continuous cuts but they have bought time for court systems around.
“It’s so you don’t have to do rash things,” Nash said. “The reserves would have helped us be able to plan in a very careful and prudent way.”
San Bernardino County Superior Court, which has about 990 employees, has addressed past budgets cuts through a combination of steps including a hiring freeze and only hiring when a critical position opens, he said.
Los Angeles County’s courts, which have about 4,800 employees, has dealt with past cuts partly through court closures and layoffs, Hearn said.
Maintenance projects have been deferred and only work necessary to ensure safety is carried out. Employees have worked to hold down costs and furloughs have been negotiated with labor groups.
Some people have expressed concern that at such a difficult fiscal time a courthouse is being constructed in San Bernardino, Nash said.
The building is needed but it’s a project that uses voter-approved bond funds and is administered by the state, he said.
San Bernardino County Superior Court services a large geographic area with limited resources over the years, he said.
“We’ve been historically underserved, and we’re very lean,” Nash said.
Both San Bernardino and Los Angeles county courts have assembled teams to review their financial futures.
San Bernardino County Presiding Judge Ronald M. Christianson has brought together some of the longest-serving judges to review different options to address future cuts, Nash said.
But “unfortunately, the number just keeps getting bigger,” he said. “The number is just staggering.”
More than a week ago California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, chairwoman of the Judicial Council, appointed a group to monitor budget activity in Sacramento, said Carrizosa, of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The group, consisting of judges and some court administrators, represents all levels and sizes of court systems in the state, Carrizosa said.
“They will be able to monitor 24/7 activities to make sure exactly what is going on” in Sacramento related to the Legislature’s actions on the budget, he said.
The goal is to have a clear idea of what decisions are being made that impact the budget.
Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_20723650/governors-spending-plans-calls-evaporating-local-courts-reserves#ixzz1w73Y9pL1
mg3
May 30, 2012
any word on San Joaquin County hits?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 30, 2012
Nothing reported to us as of yet.
unionman575
May 30, 2012
http://www.seiu1021.org/content/superior-court-san-joaquin-county
Welcome to our new home on SEIU1021.org!
Join the Superior Court of San Joaquin County group to receive alerts and information just for you and your co-workers. To keep the group for SEIU 1021 members only, membership must be approved by your web steward/moderator.
Registration is not necessary to view site content, but you must register in order to post comments or use other interactive features.