We’re guessing that the SEC report was intentionally released on a Friday before a long holiday weekend as to blunt the response. JCW’s own analysts will be reviewing the SEC report over the long holiday weekend and will be updating this thread periodically section by section. Additionally, we wish to supplement our own analysis with yours and make this an interactive blog post.
A very brief analysis-
The AOC’s expenditures exceed a half billion dollars a year from all revenue sources, yet they don’t adjudicate a single case.
.
.
After spending a few hours poking around the report (my how judges can write….) we agree with the SEC findings but believe that these findings must have been sanitized because we have some of the same records provided to the SEC.
As to solutions, some proposals appear to continue to diffuse ownership and accountability, like the three chiefs concept.
.
.
Perhaps it’s in the names – but since it replaces directors and assistant directors for a more focused 4 person senior management team, we like is the concept of eliminating all directors and all of the assistant directors and reclassifying many of these positions as unit managers. Eliminating all of the silos, directors and assistant directors were specific recommendations made by JCW over the last couple of years. Having attorneys in lots of the divisions makes it a “I’ll have my division attorney contact your division attorney” mentality or rigorous chains of command where few things progress because workers were discouraged to speak to or work with other divisions.
It appears that the SEC’s recommendations take a larger chunk out of the senior management ranks in an attempt to reduce the 2.7 workers to every manager ratio. Patel herself indicated that about 160 positions would be eliminated by June 30th yet the SEC report makes recommendations that go well beyond those numbers, potentially doubling the positions eliminated should the recommendations be put into place. This report was hard on every division and recognized the duplicated efforts, mismanagement and waste in the organization, starting with management ranks. And if one was to demonstrate some real leadership (hint, hint Tani/Patel ) you would start asking for all of those resignations now, before the June 30th budget is chiseled into stone and before the trial courts lay siege to the Judicial Council over AOC excess.
One thing that is evident by the report itself is that Mary “The Lizard” Roberts will soon be submitting her resignation, retiring or being terminated and another thing that is evident is that the organization has been grossly mismanaged as a whole and that falls on the shoulders of the two clowns that occupy part of the 4th floor – Mr. William Vickrey, who was recently ordained with a conference center named after him recognizing his accomplished mismanagement and our pal Tonto that has a really, really nice back yard.
This report suggests gross mismanagement that would call for their termination and the end of their retired on active duty pension padding status.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In-depth analysis & discussion:
Executive Summary-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Summary of Recommendations
There are no recommendations in chapters 1 through 3.
Chapter 4. Judicial Council Oversight
Recommendation No. 4-1: The Judicial Council must take an active role in overseeing and monitoring the AOC and demanding transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the AOC’s operations and practices.
Recommendation No. 4-2: The primary role and orientation of the AOC must be as a service provider to the Judicial Council and the courts.
Recommendation No. 4-3: In exercising its independent and ultimate governance authority over the operations and practices of the AOC, the Judicial Council must demand that the AOC provide it with a business case analysis, including a full range of options and impacts, before undertaking any branch-wide project or initiative. In exercising its authority over committees, rules, grants, programs and projects, the Judicial Council must demand that the AOC provide it with a full range of options and impacts, including fiscal, operational, and other impacts on the courts.
Recommendation No. 4-4: The Judicial Council must conduct periodic reviews of the performance of the Administrative Director of the Courts. These reviews must take into consideration input submitted by persons inside and outside the judicial branch.
Chapter 5. Organizational Structure
Recommendation No. 5-1: The AOC should be reorganized. The organizational structure should consolidate programs and functions that primarily provide operational services within the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division. Those programs and functions that primarily provide administrative services should be consolidated within the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division. Other programs and functions should be grouped within an Executive Office organizational unit. The Legal Services Office also should report directly to the Executive Office but no longer should be accorded divisional status.
Recommendation No. 5-2: The Chief Operating Officer should manage and direct the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, consisting of functions located in the Court Operations Special Services Office; the Center for Families, Children and the Courts; the Education Office/Center for Judicial Education and Research; and the Office of Court Construction and Facilities Management.
Recommendation No. 5-3: The Chief Administrative Officer should manage and direct the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division, consisting of functions located in the Fiscal Services Office, the Human Resources Services Office, the Trial Court Administrative Services Office, and the Information and Technology Services Office.
Recommendation No. 5-4: Other important programs and functions should be consolidated within an Executive Office organizational unit under the direction of a Chief of Staff. Those functions and units include such functions as the coordination of AOC support of the Judicial Council, Trial Court Support and Liaison Services, the Office of Governmental Affairs, the Office of Communications, and a Special Programs and Projects Office.
Recommendation No. 5-5: The Chief Counsel, manager of the Legal Services Office (formerly the Office of the General Counsel) should report directly to the Administrative Director, depending on the specific issue under consideration and depending on the preferences of the Administrative Director.
Recommendation No. 5-6: The Chief Deputy Administrative Director position must be eliminated. If the absence of the Administrative Director necessitates the designation of an Acting Administrative Director, the Chief Operating Officer should be so designated.
Chapter 6. Management Structure, Systems, and Processes
Recommendation No. 6-1: The Administrative Director, the Chief Operations Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Chief of Staff should be designated as the AOC Executive Leadership Team, the primary decision making group in the organization.
Recommendation No. 6-2: The AOC Executive Leadership Team must begin to implement a formalized system of program and project planning and monitoring that includes, at minimum, a collaborative planning process that requires an analysis of impacts on the judicial branch at the outset of all projects; use of workload analyses where appropriate; and development of general performance metrics for key AOC programs that allow expected performance levels to be set and evaluated.
Recommendation No. 6-3: The AOC Executive Leadership Team must order immediate compliance with the requirements and policies in the AOC personnel manual, including formal performance reviews of all employees on an annual basis; compliance with the rules limiting telecommuting; and appropriate utilization of the discipline system.
Recommendation No. 6-4: With an appropriate individual employee performance planning and appraisal system in place, the AOC must utilize the flexibility provided by its at-will employment policy to address serious employee performance issues.
Recommendation No. 6-5: The Executive Leadership Team must direct that a comprehensive review of the AOC position classification system begin as soon as possible. The focus of the review should be on identifying and correcting misallocated positions, particularly in managerial classes, and on achieving efficiencies by consolidating and reducing the number of classifications. The Chief Administrative Officer should be given lead responsibility for implementing this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 6-6: The Executive Leadership Team must direct that a comprehensive review of the AOC compensation system be undertaken as soon as possible. All compensation-related policies and procedures must be reviewed, including those contained in the AOC personnel manual. AOC staff should be used to conduct this review to the extent possible. If outside consultants are required, such work could be combined with the classification review that is recommended above. The Chief Administrative Officer should be given lead responsibility for implementing this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 6-7: The AOC’s fiscal and budget processes must be transparent. The Executive Leadership Team should require the Fiscal Services Office to immediately develop and make public a description of the fiscal and budget process, including a calendar clearly describing how and when fiscal and budget decisions are made. The Fiscal Services Office should be required to produce a comprehensive, publicly available midyear budget report, including budget projections for the remainder of the fiscal year and anticipated resource issues for the coming year. The Chief Administrative Officer should be given lead responsibility for developing and implementing an entirely new approach to fiscal processes and fiscal information for the AOC.
Recommendation No. 6-8: The AOC must develop a process to better assess the fiscal and operational impacts of proposed rules on the courts, including seeking earlier input from the courts before proposed rules are submitted for formal review. The AOC should establish a process to survey judges and court executive officers about the fiscal and operational impacts of rules that are adopted, and recommend revisions to the rules where appropriate. The AOC should recommend changes in the rules process, for consideration by the Judicial Council, to limit the number of proposals for new rules, including by focusing on rule changes that are required by statutory changes.
Recommendation No. 6-9: The Executive Leadership Team must develop and make public a description of the AOC’s process for determining which grants to pursue. The process should mandate a detailed impact analysis for every grant proposal, including consideration of all anticipated impacts on the workload and resources of the courts and the impacts to the AOC as a whole. Only after such analysis should the Executive Leadership Team make a determination whether the AOC should pursue grant funding.
Chapter 7. AOC Divisions and Specialized Offices
Executive Office
Recommendation No. 7-1: The Administrative Director must operate subject to the oversight of the Judicial Council and will be charged with implementing the recommendations in this report if so directed.
Recommendation No. 7-2: The practice of employing a special consultant on a continuous basis should be reevaluated and considered for termination, taking into account the relative costs, benefits, and other available resources.
Center for Families, Children and the Courts
Recommendation No. 7-3: The Center for Families, Children and the Courts should be an office reporting to the Chief Operating Officer in the AOC’s Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, rather than a stand-alone division. The CFCC manager position should be compensated at its current level.
Recommendation No. 7-4: CFCC’s current number of authorized positions should be reduced. To achieve the reduction, these areas should be reviewed and considered, and appropriate actions taken:
● CFCC has a one-over-one management structure with a Division Director and an Assistant Division Director position. The Assistant Division Director position should be eliminated.
● There are nearly 30 attorney positions in CFCC, including 7 attorneys who act as Judicial Court Assistance Team Liaisons. All attorney position allocations should be reviewed with a goal of reducing their numbers and/or reallocating them to nonattorney classifications.
● The CFCC has numerous grant-funded positions, including five in its Rules and Forms Unit. Implementation of our recommendations for the AOC’s Grants and Rule-making Processes could result in some reductions in these positions.
● The CFCC has a number of positions devoted to research programs, as do other offices to be placed within the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, presenting opportunities for efficiencies by consolidating divisional research efforts.
● CFCC staff members provide support to a number of Judicial Council committees and task forces. The recommended consolidation of this support function under the direction of the Chief of Staff will present opportunities for efficiencies and resource reduction.
● The CFCC maintains a Core Operations Unit, which is essentially an administrative and grant support unit. The consolidation of administrative functions and resources within the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division should lead to the downsizing of this unit.
● CFCC staff members produce various publications. They should be considered for reduction or elimination.
● The Judge-in-Residence position in this division should be eliminated.
● Positions related to CCMS should be eliminated.
● Although staffing reductions in this division are feasible, any reorganization or downsizing of this division must continue to allow for reasonable servicing of the diverse programs mandated by statute and assigned to this division, including such programs as the Tribal Project program.
Recommendation No. 7-5: The Judicial Council should exercise oversight to assure that grant-funded programs are undertaken only when consistent with predetermined, branch-wide policy and plans. The fiscal and operational impacts of grant-funded programs on the courts should be considered as part of the fiscal planning process.
Recommendation No. 7-6: Consistent with recommendations in this report calling for a review of AOC’s rule-making process, legislative proposals generated through this division should be limited to those required by court decisions and approved by the Judicial Council Advisory Committees.
Recommendation No. 7-7: A systems review of the manner in which trial court records are reviewed should be conducted to streamline audits, if possible, and to lessen the impact on court resources.
Recommendation No. 7-8: The CFCC should discontinue investigating and responding to complaints from litigants about judicial officers who handle family law matters, as such matters are handled by other entities.
Recommendation No. 7-9: Self-represented litigants in small claims, collection matters, foreclosures, and landlord-tenant matters are frequent users of court self-help centers. A majority of self-help clients seek assistance in family law matters. Consideration should be given to maximizing and combining self-help resources with resources from similar subject programs, including resources provided through the Justice Corps and the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel program.
Court Programs and Services
Recommendation No. 7-10: The Court Operations Special Services Office (COSSO), formerly CPAS, should be an office reporting to the Chief Operating Officer within the AOC’s Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, rather than a stand-alone division. The COSSO manager position should be at the Senior Manager level.
Recommendation No. 7-11: COSSO’s current level of approximately 74 positions (including those reassigned from the former regional offices as recommended in this report) should be reduced. To achieve the reduction the areas listed below should be reviewed and considered, and appropriate actions taken.
- COSSO should have a management structure that includes a Unit Manager, but the Assistant Division Director position should be eliminated.
- The research functions and units of COSSO should be reviewed for possible consolidation with other research programs in the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, presenting opportunities for efficiencies and position reductions.
Recommendation No. 7-12: The Promising and Effective Programs Unit functions are largely discretionary and should be considered for reduction or elimination, resulting in position savings. Consideration should be given to the following.
● To save resources, the Kleps Award Program should be suspended temporarily.
● The Justice Corps Program should be maintained, with AOC’s involvement limited to procuring and distributing funding to the courts.
● Since funding for the Procedural Fairness/Public Trust and Confidence program has ceased, it should be eliminated.
● Once the 2013 summit has concluded, the Administrative Director and Judicial Council should evaluate continuing support for the Civics Education Program/California On My Honor program.
● The Jury Improvement Project is of high value to the judicial branch, especially as jury service represents the single largest point of contact between citizens and the courts. The Judicial Council should evaluate the extent to which financial and personnel support for the project should be maintained.
● The Fund Development Group concerns itself with training to obtain grants, seeking grants, and grant reporting. As is the case with other divisions in the AOC, grants should be sought in accordance with well-articulated AOC-wide priorities, as established by the Judicial Council. The Administrative Director and the Judicial Council should develop written policies and guidelines that control the pursuit and acceptance of grants and other funding, including utilizing a cost-benefit analysis.
● The Administrative Director and Judicial Council should study the budget and operational components of Court Interpreters Program to determine whether greater efficiencies can be implemented to deliver interpreter services to the courts. Internally, the Finance Division should not act as an impediment in the delivery of interpreter services to the courts.
Recommendation No. 7-13: The Editing and Graphics Group, with half of its eight positions currently vacant, should be considered for elimination.
Recommendation No. 7-14: A significant number of COSSO staff members, such as those in the Administration and Planning unit, are assigned to various functions in support of the Judicial Council. The recommended consolidation of Judicial Council support activities under the direction of the Chief of Staff will present opportunities for efficiencies and resource reduction.
Recommendation No. 7-15: Some COSSO staff are engaged in activities relating to the education and training of Appellate Court Justices. These functions should be consolidated with the Education Division/CJER.
Recommendation No. 7-16: The Judicial Administration Library should be consolidated with the Supreme Court Library.
Recommendation No. 7-17: Modifications to the Assigned Judges Program should be considered, including the following:
- The Assigned Judges Program and Assigned Judges Program Regional Assignments units should be merged, resulting in the elimination of a unit supervisor position.
- The program’s travel and expense policies should be reviewed to mitigate adverse impacts on the availability of assigned judges to smaller and rural courts.
- Consideration should be given to a pilot program to allow half-day assignments of judges, taking into account the probable inability of small, rural courts to attract judges on this basis.
- Consideration should be given to development of an Assigned Commissioner Program to assist courts with such matters as AB1058 child support cases.
Recommendation No. 7-18: The functions of the Trial Court Leadership Service unit should be moved under the auspices of the new Executive Office, as matters of policy emanating from the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee often relate to branch-wide policies.
Education Division/CJER
Recommendation No. 7-19: The Education Division should be an office within the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division, under the direction of the Chief Operating Officer, rather than a stand-alone division. The Education Division/CJER manager position should be compensated at its current level.
Recommendation No. 7-20: The Education Division’s current staffing level is one of the highest in the AOC and should be reduced. To achieve the reduction, the following areas should be reviewed and considered, and appropriate actions taken:
- A workgroup has been formed to review all education for new judges to ensure that it is being provided in the most effective and efficient way possible. The efficiencies identified by this working group may present opportunities for reductions.
- There are in excess of a dozen attorney positions in the Education Division in units such as Design and Consulting, and Publications and Resources, in addition to the Judicial Education unit. All attorney position allocations should be reviewed with a goal of reducing their numbers and/or reallocating them to nonattorney classifications. In particular, education specialist positions are staffed by attorneys, a staffing practice that appears unnecessary.
- The Court Case Management System training unit and any other positions engaged in CCMS-related activities should be eliminated in light of the Judicial Council’s decision to cancel the full deployment of the CCMS system.
- The Production, Delivery and Educational Technologies unit has grown to more than 25 positions plus several temporary staff. The number of staff in this unit should be reduced in light of the difficult fiscal environment.
- The Curriculum and Course Development unit includes several positions assigned to develop training for AOC staff. This activity should be evaluated and reduced, especially if training requirements are relaxed.
- The Administrative Services unit contains more than 20 staff engaged in support activities such as records management, printing and copying, scheduling and planning training delivery, and coordinating logistics for all AOC events. The number of staff in this unit should be evaluated and reduced commensurate with the reduction in the number of live programs and events, and reflecting a reduction in the number of employees AOC-wide.
Recommendation No. 7-21: The Education Division should conduct true cost-benefit analyses — and not rely only on its own preferences — in determining the types of training and education it provides, including types, lengths, and locations of programs, delivery methods, and the costs to courts. This type of analysis should apply to training and education programs for new judicial officers.
Recommendation No. 7-22: The Education Division should support and provide requested assistance to those courts that collaborate with other regional courts in providing judicial education and staff training or that request support in providing their own programs.
Recommendation No. 7-23: As to training currently required of AOC staff and court personnel, the Judicial Council should examine and consider a relaxation of current mandatory requirements to allow the Administrative Director of the AOC and/or court executive officers greater discretion and flexibility in utilizing their workforces during times of budget constraints.
Recommendation No. 7-24: As to training currently required of AOC managers, supervisors, and employees, the Administrative Director should order a review of the content of training courses offered, the number and location of courses offered, and the means by which courses and training are delivered. Training opportunities should include greater orientation and development of understanding of court functions.
Finance Division
Recommendation No. 7-25: The functions performed by the Finance Division should be placed in the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division. The Finance Division should be renamed the Fiscal Services Office, reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer. The Fiscal Services Office Manager position should be at the Senior Manager level.
Recommendation No. 7-26: The number of managers and supervisors should be reduced.
Recommendation No. 7-27: The AOC must improve its fiscal decision making processes. The AOC must make a commitment to involve the Fiscal Services Office in all phases of fiscal planning and budgeting, especially with regard to large-scale or branch-wide projects or initiatives.
Recommendation No. 7-28: The budgeting process must become more transparent. Budget information must be readily available to the public, including online. Budget documents must provide understandable explanations and detail concerning revenue sources, fund transfers, and expenditures.
Recommendation No. 7-29: This division must make a commitment to processing contracts in more timely fashion, with an eye toward better serving courts, contractors, vendors, and others.
Recommendation No. 7-30: The Finance Division must assess its workload needs, especially in light of legislation on court security and auditing functions being assumed by the State Controller’s Office, so that any necessary adjustments in staffing positions can be made.
Recommendation No. 7-31: The need for a Strategic Policy, Communication, and Administration Unit should be reevaluated by the Chief Administrative Officer and, most likely, be eliminated.
Human Resources Division
Recommendation No. 7-32: Consistent with recent consolidation of this division, the HR function should no longer be assigned stand-alone division status in the AOC organizational structure and should be combined with other administrative functions, reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer in the AOC’s Administrative Services Division.
Recommendation No. 7-33: The AOC leadership must recommit itself to developing and maintaining effective and efficient HR policies and practices. The new Administrative Director, among other priority actions, must reestablish the AOC’s commitment to implement sound HR policies and practices.
Recommendation No. 7-34: The current number of higher-level positions in the HR Division should be reduced, as follows:
● The Division Director position should be permanently eliminated as the HR function should no longer be a stand-alone division.
● The number of manager positions should be reduced from five to three, with some of the resulting resources allocated to line HR functions.
● One of the three Senior Manager positions is vacant, a vacancy that should be made permanent by reallocating managerial responsibilities to the two filled Senior Manager positions.
● With the elimination of the positions discussed above, consideration should be given to redirecting the resources from those positions to support vacant HR analyst positions that can be assigned work needed to help reestablish effective HR policies and practices in the AOC.
Recommendation No. 7-35: The AOC must commit to overhauling current practices for its classification and compensation systems. The AOC then must develop and consistently apply policies for classification and compensation of employees, by actions including the following:
● A comprehensive review of the classification and compensation systems should be undertaken as soon as possible, with the goal of consolidating and streamlining the classification system.
● Priority should be placed on reviewing all positions classified as supervisors or managers, as well as all attorney positions, to identify misclassified positions and take appropriate corrective actions.
● The manner in which the AOC applies its geographic salary differential policy (section 4.2 of the AOC personnel manual) should be reviewed and, if maintained, applied consistently.
● Given current HR staffing and expertise levels, an outside entity should be considered to conduct these reviews.
Recommendation No. 7-36: The AOC’s at-will employment policy provides management with maximum hiring and firing flexibility, and should be exercised when appropriate.
Recommendation No. 7-37: The AOC’s existing policy calling for annual performance appraisals of all AOC employees (AOC personnel manual, section 3.9) must be implemented uniformly throughout the AOC as soon as possible.
Recommendation No. 7-38: A consistent employment discipline policy must accompany the employee performance appraisal system. Section 8.1B of the AOC personnel manual discusses disciplinary action, but is inadequate. A policy that provides for performance improvement plans and for the actual utilization of progressive discipline should be developed and implemented consistently across the entire AOC.
Recommendation No. 7-39: The AOC must utilize its layoff process to provide management with a proactive way to deal with significant reductions in resources.
Recommendation No. 7-40: The AOC must adhere to its telecommuting policy (Section 8.9 of the AOC personnel manual). It must apply the policy consistently and must identify and correct all existing deviations and violations of the existing policy.
Recommendation No. 7-41: A gradual, prioritized review of all HR policies and practices, including all those incorporated in the AOC personnel manual, should be undertaken to ensure they are appropriate and are being applied effectively and consistently throughout the AOC.
Recommendation No. 7-42: The Administrative Director should resolve any remaining issues that have existed between the HR Division and Office of General Counsel, including by redefining respective roles relating to employee discipline or other HR functions.
Information Services Division
Recommendation No. 7-43: The committee recommends that the functions of this division be placed under a unit titled Information and Technology Services Office, combined with any remaining functions of CCMS. The office should report to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division. The IS Manager position should be compensated at its current level.
Recommendation No. 7-44: A reexamination of technology policies in the judicial branch must occur now that CCMS does not represent the technology vision for all courts. Formulation of any new branch-wide technology policies or standards must be based on the input, needs, and experiences of the courts, and including cost-benefit analysis.
Recommendation No. 7-45: Especially with CCMS not being fully deployed, staff reductions in this division are in order, including:
● Unnecessary CCMS positions should be eliminated.
● The total number of senior managers should be reduced.
● The use of temporary employees, consultants, and contractors should be reviewed and reductions made accordingly.
Recommendation No. 7-46: Different divisions in AOC operate from different technology platforms, including SAP used for the Phoenix system, Oracle, and CCMS. As part of a long range plan for the use of technology in AOC operations, the AOC should conduct a review and audit of all technology currently used in the AOC Efficiencies and cost savings could result from the use of a single platform.
Trial Court Administrative Services
Recommendation No. 7-47: TCAS should be made a unit under the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division, reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer. The TCAS Manager position should be at the Senior Manager level.
Recommendation No. 7-48: The Phoenix Financial System is in place in all 58 superior courts; however, trial court use of the Phoenix HR/Payroll functionality should remain optional to individual trial courts.
Recommendation No. 7-49: As policy matters, it is recommended that the Judicial Council determine whether to continue with the charge-back model whereby courts reimburse the AOC from their Trial Court Trust Fund allocations for the courts’ use of the Phoenix financial system; and whether the Los Angeles court will be required to reimburse the AOC for use of the Phoenix financial system.
Recommendation No. 7-50: As with the Information Services Division, the AOC should determine whether to continue use of multiple or overlapping technologies for similar functions, as using a single technology could result in efficiencies and savings, both operationally and in personnel cost.
Recommendation No. 7-51: TCAS should continue to provide clear service-level agreements with respect to services provided to the courts.
Office of Communications
Recommendation No. 7-52: The Office of Communications should remain in the Executive Office and under the direction of a Chief of Staff. The Office of Communications manager position should be placed at the Senior Manager level.
Recommendation No. 7-53: The resources of this office, including the Public Information Officer, should be made more available to furnish increased media relations services to courts requesting such assistance.
Office of Emergency Response and Security
Recommendation No. 7-54: There is no need for a stand-alone Office of Emergency Response and Security. Most necessary functions performed by the office can be reassigned and absorbed by existing units in the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division.
Recommendation No. 7-55: The functions of this office should be refocused and limited to those reasonably required by statute or by the Rules of Court, primarily including review of security plans for new and existing facilities; review of court security equipment, if requested by the courts; and review of emergency plans.
Recommendation No. 7-56: Reductions in this office are feasible. The office cannot effectively provide branch-wide judicial security and online protection for all judicial officers. Positions allocated for such functions should be eliminated. The Administrative Director should evaluate whether some activities undertaken by this office are cost-effective, such as judicial security and online protection functions.
Court Case Management System Program Management Office
Recommendation No. 7-57: The AOC must seek the fully informed input and collaboration of the courts before undertaking significant projects or branch-wide initiatives that impact the courts.
Recommendation No. 7-58: The AOC must first employ an appropriate business case analysis of the scope and direction of significant projects or initiatives, taking into account the range of fiscal, operational, and other impacts to the courts.
Recommendation No. 7-59: The AOC must develop and communicate accurate cost estimates for projects, programs, and initiatives.
Recommendation No. 7-60: The AOC must apply proper cost and contract controls and monitoring, including independent assessment and verification, for significant projects and programs.
Recommendation No. 7-61: The AOC must maintain proper documentation and records of its decision making process for significant projects and programs.
Recommendation No. 7-62: The AOC must identify and secure sufficient funding and revenue streams necessary to support projects and programs, before undertaking them.
215
Recommendation No. 7-63: The AOC must accurately report and make available information on potential costs of projects and impacts on the courts.
Office of Court Construction and Management
Recommendation No. 7-64: The OCCM should be renamed Office of Court Construction and Facilities Management Services. The functions of this unit should be placed under the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division and reporting to the Chief Operating Officer. The manager of this unit should be compensated at the same level.
Recommendation No. 7-65: A cost-benefit analysis of the entire scope of OCCM operations is needed.
Recommendation No. 7-66: The current facilities maintenance program appears inefficient and unnecessarily costly. The consultant report is necessary and should be considered part of a necessary reevaluation of the program. Courts should be given the option to assume responsibility for maintenance of court facilities and for smaller-scale projects.
Recommendation No. 7-67: Fiscal planning for facilities maintenance for new and existing facilities needs to become an immediate priority, and revenue streams to fund increased costs for maintenance of court facilities must be identified and obtained.
Recommendation No. 7-68: Staff reductions appear feasible in light of the slowdown in new court construction and should be made accordingly. The Chief Operating Officer should be charged with implementing necessary reductions.
Recommendation No. 7-69: The use of temporary or other staff to circumvent the hiring freeze should cease.
Recommendation No. 7-70: The contracting process utilized by OCCM needs to be improved. This process should be reviewed as part of the AOC-wide review of its contracting processes.
Office of General Counsel
Recommendation No. 7-71: The Office of General Counsel should be renamed Legal Services Office, consistent with its past designation, and should be a stand-alone office reporting to the Administrative Director of the Courts. The Legal Services Office manager position should be compensated at its current level. The Legal Services Office should not be at the same divisional level as the Judicial and Court Operations Services Division or the Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division. The Chief Counsel, manager of the Legal Services Office, should not be a member of the Executive Leadership Team.
Recommendation No. 7-72: The Legal Services Office’s current level of approximately 75 positions, including more than 50 attorney positions, should be reduced. To achieve the reduction, the following areas should be reviewed and considered, and appropriate actions taken:
- In addition to the General Counsel, there are nine management level attorney positions in the Legal Services Office, including the Assistant General Counsel, three Managing Attorneys, and five Supervising Attorneys. This is an excessive number of management positions, which should be reduced. The position of Assistant General Counsel position could be eliminated. One managing attorney could be assigned to manage each of the two major functional components of the division, house counsel, and Judicial Council services, with each managing attorney reporting directly to the Chief Counsel.
- Despite the large number of management positions, management systems and processes are particularly lacking in the Legal Services Office. Implementing fundamental management practices to address the underperformance of staff members and provide better supervision and allocation of work should produce efficiencies that can result in reductions.
- A large number of Legal Services Office positions are dedicated to supporting the Judicial Council and its various committees and task forces. Assigning responsibility for coordinating the AOC’s Judicial Council support activities to the Executive Office under the direction of the Chief of Staff will lead to efficiencies that should result in reductions of Legal Services Office positions dedicated to these activities.
- Implementation of the recommendations designed to streamline and improve the AOC’s contracting processes should reduce contract-related work performed by the Legal Services Office.
- The Legal Services Office has promoted and contributed to the “lawyerizing” of numerous activities and functions in the AOC. There are opportunities for work currently performed by attorneys in the Rules and Projects, Transactions and Business Operations, Real Estate, and Labor and Employment units to be performed by nonattorneys, resulting in efficiencies and possible staff reductions.
- Development and use of paralegal classifications, as found elsewhere in legal services throughout both the public and private sectors, could lead to the reduction of attorney positions in the Legal Services Office.
Recommendation No. 7-73: There currently are at least two positions in the Legal Services Office that violate the AOC’s telecommuting policy. These should be terminated immediately, resulting in reductions. Nor should telecommuting be permitted for supervising attorneys in this division.
Recommendation No. 7-74: As recommended elsewhere, the Judicial Council should assess the costs and benefits of allocating staff attorneys and resources to various advisory committees, task forces, and working groups.
Recommendation No. 7-75: The Administrative Director should make an AOC-wide assessment to determine whether attorneys employed across the various AOC divisions are being best leveraged to serve the priority legal needs of the organization and court users.
Recommendation No. 7-76: The role of the Chief Counsel should be redefined to reflect the primary role of providing legal advice and services, as opposed to developing policy for the judicial branch.
Recommendation No. 7-77: This office must place greater emphasis on being a service provider and in improving how it provides services, including as follows:
● Most fundamentally, this division should employ and emphasize a customer service model of operation — recognizing a primary goal of providing timely service and advice to its clients, including to internal clients in the AOC and to those courts that request legal advice or services from this office.
● This office should adopt an operations model whereby its attorneys generally are housed at one location. This would eliminate nonsupervision of some attorneys, promote better and more regular supervision of staff attorneys, and promote better utilization of available skills.
● The service model should emphasize that time is of the essence when it comes to delivering advice and opinions to the courts; that recommendations and advice to courts should include a full range of options available to the courts; and that there must be a greater recognition that the AOC’s interests may conflict with the specific interests of the courts. Clearer procedures should be put in place to safeguard the interests of individual courts in those instances when legitimate conflicts arise.
● Emphasis must be placed on reducing bottlenecks for advice, contracts, and other projects. More effective tickler and tracking systems for opinions, contracts, and other documents should be put in place.
● Court users of legal services should be surveyed periodically to determine if such services are performed in a timely and satisfactory manner.
Recommendation No. 7-78: The Administrative Director should resolve issues that have existed between the HR Division and OGC, including by redefining respective roles relating to employee discipline or other HR functions.
Recommendation No. 7-79: The Judicial Council and/or Administrative Director should order an independent review of this office’s use, selection, and management of outside legal counsel to determine whether outside counsel is being utilized in a cost-effective manner.
Office of Governmental Affairs
Recommendation No. 7-80: The Office of Governmental Affairs should be placed in the Executive Office, under the direction of the Chief of Staff. The OGA Manager position should be at the Senior Manager level.
Recommendation No. 7-81: The OGA should represent the interests of the judicial branch on the clear direction of the Judicial Council and its Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee. The Chief of Staff should take steps to ensure that the PCLC is apprised fully of varying viewpoints of the courts, court executive officers, and judges before determining legislation positions or proposals.
Recommendation No. 7-82: The Administrative Director should direct that attorney resources in the AOC be utilized to best leverage and draw on subject matter expertise, which may assist OGA as legislative demands may require.
Recommendation No. 7-83: The Office of Governmental Affairs should be directed to identify legislative requirements that impose unnecessary reporting or other mandates on the AOC. Appropriate efforts should be made to revise or repeal such requirements.
Regional Offices
Recommendation No. 7-84: The regional offices should cease to exist as a separate division within AOC. The BANCRO and SRO offices should close. Advocacy and liaison services provided to the trial courts should be provided through the office of Trial Court Support and Liaison in the new Executive Office.
Recommendation No. 7-85: Leases for space utilized by SRO and BANCRO should be renegotiated or terminated, if possible, as such lease costs cannot be justified. To the extent AOC staff from other divisions is assigned to work at leased space at the regional offices, the need for locating such staff in currently leased space should be reevaluated.
Recommendation No. 7-86: While responsibility for essential services currently provided to courts through regional offices should be consolidated and placed under the direction of Trial Court Support and Liaison services in the Executive Office, a physical office should be maintained in the Northern California Region area to provide some services to courts in the region.
Recommendation No. 7-87: The significant special projects previously assigned to the regional offices should be placed under the direction of the Chief of Staff in the Executive Office.
Chapter 8. AOC Budgets
Recommendation No. 8-1: All fiscal information must come from one source within the AOC, and that single source should be what is currently known as the Finance Division (to become the Fiscal Services Office under the recommendations in this report).
Recommendation No. 8-2: Tracking systems need to be in place so that timely and accurate information on resources available and expenditures to date are readily available. Managers need this information so they do not spend beyond their allotments.
Recommendation No. 8-3: Information displays need to be streamlined and simplified so they are clearly understandable.
Recommendation No. 8-4: The Finance Division (Fiscal Services Office) should track appropriations and expenditures by fund, and keep a historical record of both so that easy year-to-year comparisons can be made. This can be done by unit, division or by program — whichever provides the audience with the most informed and accurate picture of the budget.
Recommendation No. 8-5: Expenditures should be split into those for state operations and local assistance (funds that go to the trial courts) so it is clear which entity benefits from the resources. State operations figures should be further broken down as support for the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts. In most state departments, administrative costs are distributed among programs. The AOC should adopt this methodology.
Recommendation No. 8-6: The AOC should schedule its budget development and budget administration around the time frames used by all state entities. Assuming the budget for any fiscal year is enacted by July 1, the AOC should immediately allocate its budgeted resources by fund among programs, divisions, units. Management of the AOC, and the Judicial Council, should receive this information, which should be posted on the AOC website.
Recommendation No. 8-7: Requests for additional resources are presented to the Judicial Council at its August meeting. These requests identify increased resources requested and should be accompanied by clear statements of the need and use of the resources and the impact on the AOC, as well as the impact on the judicial branch, if any. A cost-benefit analysis should be part of any request and there should be a system to prioritize requests.
Recommendation No. 8-8: After the Governor’s Budget is released in January, the AOC should present a midyear update of the judicial branch budget at the next scheduled Judicial Council meeting. This presentation should tie to the figures in the Governor’s Budget so that everyone has the same understanding of the budget.
Recommendation No. 8-9: Except for changes that must be made to comply with time requirements in the state budget process, the AOC should not change the numbers it presents – continual changes in the numbers, or new displays, add to confusion about the budget.
Recommendation No. 8-10: The AOC must perform internal audits. This will allow the leadership team and the Judicial Council to know how a particular unit or program is performing. An audit can be both fiscal and programmatic so that resources are tied to performance in meeting program goals and objectives.
Recommendation No. 8-11: As part of the reorganization and downsizing of the AOC, the leadership team should employ budget review techniques (such as zero-based budgeting) so that the budget of an individual unit is aligned with its program responsibilities. In the future, there should be periodic reviews of units and or programs to make sure funding is consistent with mandated requirements.
221
Chapter 9. Staffing Levels
Recommendation No. 9-1: The total staff size of the AOC should be reduced significantly.
Recommendation No. 9-2: The total staff size of the AOC must be reduced significantly and should not exceed the total number of authorized positions. The current number of authorized positions is 880. The consolidation of divisions, elimination of unnecessary and overlapping positions and other organizational changes recommended in this report should reduce the number of positions by an additional 100 to 200, bringing the staff level to approximately 680 to 780.
Recommendation No. 9-3: Vacant authorized positions should be eliminated if they have remained unfilled for six months.
Recommendation No. 9-4: Employment of temporary or other staff to circumvent a hiring freeze should not be permitted. The Executive Leadership Team should immediately review all temporary staff assignments and eliminate those that are being used to replace positions subject to the hiring freeze. Temporary employees should be limited to periods not exceeding six months and should be used only in limited circumstances of demonstrated need, such in the case of an emergency or to provide a critical skill set not available through the use of authorized employees.
Recommendation No. 9-5: The staffing levels of the AOC must be made more transparent and understandable. Information on staffing levels must be made readily available, including posting the information online. All categories of staffing — including, but not limited to, authorized positions, “909” staff, employment agency temporary employees and contract staff — must be accounted for in a manner understandable to the public.
Chapter 10. Other Issues
Recommendation No. 10-1: The AOC should renegotiate or terminate its lease in Burbank. The lease for the Sacramento North spaces should be reviewed and renegotiated to reflect actual usage of the office space. The AOC should explore lower-cost lease options in San Francisco, recognizing that DGS would have to find replacement tenants for its space.
Recommendation No. 10-2: As part of its long-term planning, the AOC should consider relocation of its main offices, based on a cost-benefit analysis of doing so.
DLC
May 26, 2012
It’s about time they clean up and starting with the directors!
anonymous
May 28, 2012
These directors are directors only by the title on their business card, the money in their pay checks, their occupation of an opulent corner office and their personal administrative assistants that act as their secretaries. No function they perform would place them beyond a functional title of a manager. This didn’t get by the SEC.
Most believe all of the current directors, assistant directors and senior managers represent most of the mismanagement to date. These ranks include all of the people pigging out at the public trough who benefit from the generous pension top-loading, paid parking privileges and other perks. They should all be forced out as this will be the only way to change the culture of the AOC.
unionman575
May 28, 2012
“They should all be forced out as this will be the only way to change the culture of the AOC”
.I have been saying thatand lots of other folks have been saying that for a long time.
Thanks anonymous.
🙂
unionman575
May 26, 2012
JCW you were burning the midnight oil! NIce! Keep up the good work!
Disgusted
May 26, 2012
Fresno Superior Court Closing all Courts Outside of FresnoBy Audrey Asistio, KSEE24 News
May 25, 2012
Updated May 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM PDT
Drastic budget cuts to the Fresno Superior Court has called for drastic measures. It’s closing all courts outside of Fresno. Fresno Superior Court judge Gary Hoff said, “It has never been our desire to close courts in the outlying communities. This is now a prudent operational change dictated by the lack of resources given to us by the governor’s budget.”
Governor Brown’s budget has forced the court to cut $11.8 million from it’s budget for the current fiscal year. This is on top of the $14.8 million the court has already cut for the year. Hoff announced, “The courts in Firebaugh, Reedley and Sanger and Selma will close July 30th of this year and the Clovis and Kingsburg courts will close effective August 6th of this year.”
Digital Daily – subscribe to our daily newsletter
Judges and personnel working at those courts will be relocated to the three courthouses in Downtown Fresno. In addition, the court has to create 70 vacancies. It’s urging workers who are thinking about retiring or taking a job elsewhere to take the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, salary reductions and/or layoffs will have to take place.
“Also, we are giving notice, or have given notice today to our un-represented employees, that there will be a 10% salary reduction effective July 1st,” added Fresno Superior Court executive officer, Tamara Beard.
It’s a drastic change many are still finding hard to believe. Beard expressed, “This has been devastating and we’re doing the best we can. We regret the governor’s budget how forced us to public access to the courts and that it impacts our wonderful employees.”
Despite the drastic cuts, Fresno Superior Court will still face a $5.4 million dollar deficit in the coming fiscal year.
Disgusted
May 26, 2012
Riverside County Update: COCRA has been informed that layoff notices have gone out to 10 officials reporters in Riverside Superior Court. The officials are meeting with their union reps to discuss impact and options.
COCRA’s sympathies and support go out to our fellow officials in Riverside. COCRA has contacted officials in Riverside offering what assistance and advice it can.
Disgusted
May 26, 2012
Ventura County Update: Ventura is now facing a structural deficit of a little over $13 million. Ventura Superior Court’s preliminary plans call for the removal of official reporters from civil, family, and probate courtrooms as of June 1.
Six per diem reporters have been let go by the court. Voluntary furloughs will be offered. They are proposing a 6-day court closure around the holidays which is the equivalent of a 2.3% paycheck reduction.
More updates to follow.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
Yes I have tracked the Ventura situation closely. Simi courthouse is gone 6-25.
And, the CSR cuts are devasting too. Absolutley devastating.
It’s all bad. The citizens of Ventura Couty will feel the pain when services are no longer avaialble. It is a huge blow to jusitce.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
LASC will unload 350 on 6-14- or 6-15.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
Here again is my public e-mail (wink wink) for anyone that may want it: bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
Disgusted
May 26, 2012
Recall Ghidra
unionman575
May 26, 2012
King Ghidorah (キングギドラ Kingu Gidora?) (also known as King Ghidrah, King Ghidora and Monster Zero) is a kaiju, a fictional Japanese monster featured in several of Toho Studios’ Godzilla films. Ghidorah appears as an armless, three-headed dragon with large wings and two tails.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
All aboard!
Disgusted
May 26, 2012
Stanislaus County Update: Stanislaus civil courts are now quasi-freelance. Two civil courts will be covered by staff official reporters, while two other civil courts will not have officials. Litigants must bring their own reporters to those courts.
Most law and motion calendars will be reported by staff reporters. Trials will also be covered if possible. Otherwise, BYOR. Bring Your Own Reporter. A running theme in more and more civil courts throughout the state.
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
“One thing that is evident by the report itself is that Mary “The Lizard” Roberts will soon be submitting her resignation, retiring or being terminated . . .”
William Kasley should go out the door along with Mary “The Lizard” Roberts, as well as least half, or more, of the over 100 other “attorneys” in the AOC’s Office of General Counsel, all of whom have forgotten their public and ethical duties as State paid lawyers.
Long live the ACJ.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
May 26, 2012
Agreed, Wendy. As for all the “attorneys” in the OGC and beyond, if you took a good look you would find a large number of law school graduates holding down project management positions, or in the education division, the majority of whom have never worked a single day in a law firm, either public or private. In my experience, and I know I am going to sound elitist, but that is not my purpose, these attorneys are largely lower tier graduates of second and third tier law schools.
The placing of so many attorneys in the agency was a Bill Vickrey idea based on his belief that judges preferred to work with staff who were law school grads. I cannot comment on whether or not that is true, and I leave it to the judges to decide.
That said, the AOC could shed the majority of these non practicing lawyers without any negative effects.
But please folks don’t take your eyes off the big fish pulling down the big bucks simply to grease their retirements — I will not believe any AOC downsizing until Mssrs. Vickrey and Overholt are shown the door, and Mssrs. Kelso, Warren, and Jones are removed forthwith from the payroll.
It is wrong to target line and career staff for layoffs when there are bigger fish sucking up over $100,000 each plus outrageous benefits. Terminate the big fish first!!
Dan Dydzak
May 26, 2012
Where are the budget cuts at AOC? Why don’t they sell the Crystal Palace Building to meet payroll and return the multimillions in stolen AOC monies? Where is the accountability at the upper level? Is the Switzerland attorney still employed and looking at monies going into the Vatican Bank? It is painful to see the cuts brought on to a large extent by AOC mismanagement and pilfering. Keep the information flowing to everyone out there.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 26, 2012
This “report” is simply devastating. It makes you wonder how the unedited version must read. So much for the carefully crafted legacy of former Chief Justice Ronald George. His mantle is a little tarnished, even in the eyes of his toadies.
“Many of the problems associated with the growth and increased control by the AOC went largely unnoticed during the period when the funding to the judicial branch was sufficient and stable.” It was during this period that people, myself included, were called “shrill” “uninformed” and mere “ants on a trail” when we raised these very concerns.
Everyone should be concerned with the tone and focus of this report when it references how the AOC’s credibility should be restored. It looks like rather than slashing the overall size and focus of the operation, the SEC is going to be a push to create even more unmanageable bureacracy.
The approach at this point should be simple and straightforward.
1. CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE PURPOSE OF THE AOC. “The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, authorizes it to appoint an Administrative Director of the Courts; and requires it to survey judicial business, make recommendations to the courts (emphasis added!), adopt rules for court administration, practice and procedure, and to perform other functions set by statute. In turn, the AOC derives its authority from the Judicial Council.” (page 3 of the SEC Report)
For almost a decade, many of us have been telling anyone who would listen that the AOC and Judicial Council, have been exceeding their authority. This passage on page three of the SEC report finally acknowledges the legal authority and purpose of the JC and AOC. They are NOT the policy-making body for the California Courts, they merely recommend policy to the trial courts.
2. THE AOC SHOULD BE RADICALLY DOWN-SIZED. AT LEAST HALF OF THE CURRENT AOC STAFF, WITH A HEAVY EMPHASIS ON THE ATTORNEYS AND THOSE MAKING OVER $10,000 PER MONTH SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.
As evidenced in the SEC report, the juggernaut that is the Crystal Palace has evolved to a perpetual motion machine of “make work” opportunities.
Unless they are performing a function that meets the criteria set forth hereinabove, staff members should be let go. Certainly the management staff should be shown the door.
2. THE ‘RONALD GEORGE MEMORIAL’ , INCLUDING THE WILLIAM B. VICKREY OUTHOUSE SHOULD BE SOLD OR LEFT TO BE OCCUPIED BY OTHER STATE OFFICES AND THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND AOC SHOULD MOVE TO SACRAMENTO, BAKERSFIELD, AND/OR FRESNO.
Simply moving operations out of San Francisco will not only save incredible amounts of overhead costs, but will result in assembling of staff without the current mindset. This would include the Commission on Judicial Performance which is completely out of control and is now pursuing judges on issues that deal with “legal decisions”.
3. ANY MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, VOTING OR ADVISORY, WHO WAS ON THE COUNCIL OR ON ANY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNSEL PRIOR TO JANUARY 2011 SHOULD BE SHOWN THE DOOR.
Anyone who allowed these problems to develop and go “unnoticed” has no business being in a position of management. Sorry, but this includes HRH-2, J. Bruiniers, and Mr. Terry B. Friedman. Countless numbers of us have been screaming for years, at the top of our lungs, that there are severe structural problems within both the Judicial Council and AOC. We have pointed out many concrete examples and were told we were “ill-informed” “shrill” and simply jealous “naysayers”
Now that the SEC Report (redacted version) has been published, do they expect that we will applaud them for having commissioned the report????? You were all in charge when the irreparable waste of public funds was happening and were telling us that the concerns we expressed were “full of it.” Since you have demonstrated that you cannot identify a major problem when it is staring you in the face, why do you now suddenly become qualified to “fix” the problem???
4. DEMOCRATIZE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
HRH-1 and HRH-2 have demonstrated that they are completely incompetent to run this or any other organization of note. Appointments to the Judicial Council have in recent history (1996 – to date) have been made on the basis of loyalty and philosophy, not merit. There is no way that anyone is going to believe that this will change.
A very large percentage of the judiciary has less than seventeen years experience. As such, they have only known operations during the HRH-1 and HRH-2 eras. They attended New Judge Orientation under the AOC run philosophy (you judgie-wudgie work for us, we don’t work for you.) Unless the Council is comprised by a majority of people with a clear understanding of history, things will not truly change for the better.
The released SEC Report is a start, but it is simply that, a start.
wearyant
May 26, 2012
Oh, General, you have said it all! Excellent missive. I would suggest to the JC/AOC as a rudimentary first start to show us their good faith, remove that sickening motto from all forms of communication and identification that claims they are the policy makers of the judicial branch!!
General, you ROCK! Long may you live and prosper!
Michael Paul
May 26, 2012
This report is devastating. While the two report co-chairs were elevated to the council to ensure the reforms take place, this report doesn’t go far enough in calling for an independent audit and an independent outside investigation. In its place are millions of cubic feet of billowing smoke and that age old saying of where there is smoke, there is fire.
We’re left with nothing more than a call to radically reform the agency by ridding it of much of the management regardless of the fact that it is the judicial council that praises their AOC at every turn. Then we hear that this report is accompanied by yet another time-purchasing statement of this report being things we need to discuss in the coming months. instead of implementing it forthwith.
There’s still no leadership in the crystal palace
Never in all of my years have I ever encountered so much management bloat where layers of managers managed layers of other managers or where wildly incompetent people were intentionally promoted into management just to make other managers look good.
This report seemingly tosses the chief justice and the council under the bus as well for their lack of oversight. It does make one wonder what the unedited version of this report looked like. Nonetheless, I feel partly vindicated because this report highlights organizational dysfunction of having too many managers managing, and the marked lack of accountability, cost controls and oversight that I sought to bring to your collective attention.
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
And perhaps some accountablity and justice for AOC employees, especially the ones that told the truth and got punished for it.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
Wendy, I’ll be happy to organize the AOC. I
I”ll be retired soon and I look forward to further informal “public service”.
🙂
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
I’ll join you, Unionman!
lando
May 26, 2012
My, My My. The SEC report should be entitled “The Arrogance of Power”. This whole fiasco should be required study in Political Science and Public Administration courses throughout the country. The authors of the SEC report would have all believe that the countless problems identified therein were the result of inattention by the JC and the overwhelming demands placed on the AOC after trial court funding was enacted in 1998. That is not the reality at all. HRH 1 and his loyal minion Mr Vickrey set out to use the trial court funding legislation to build an empire that they would control. They took control of judicial education, drove the CJA out of an outstanding judicial ethics program they replaced with their loyalists.They tried to control the trial courts by imposing their ill planned and flawed case management system, CCMS on every trial court which cost the California taxpayers half a billion dollars to produce nothing. They took over every courthouse and bought into the problems these facilities presented, spending multi- millions to build new and unnecessary palaces. To support all this, they build a never ending bureaucracy complete with “Regional Managers” , “Scholars in Residence” and over 100 lawyers including 2 that live in Europe. Money and spending it large was no object. Sadly it didn’t end there. They sought trailer bill legislation to give them the power to pick local trial court Presiding Judges and CEOs. They turned without constitutional authority, their handpicked JC into the dictators of the trial courts. One should never overlook the role J Huffman, and J McConnell played in this process. The breaking point came when HRH 1 and his JC mandated court closures denying citizens access to their courts. With the ever growing California recession trial courts were forced to lay off countless loyal employees while the JC and AOC kept growing and awarded 30 senior managers the gift of not requiring them to pay into their retirement funds. Now after wasting that half billion on CCMS courts up and down the state are suffering and the public will soon feel the effects. Commissioners , court reporters, research attorneys courtroom clerks and loyal staff losing their jobs with resulting massive cutbacks to the public. Many of us who know the history stated above, have warned of this for years. Our warnings were the subject of derision, by HRH 1, J Huffman and their insular supporters. We were called “clowns” “shrill and uninformed” and no more important than “ants on a trail”. HRH 2 has continued this legacy by failing to democratize the JC and by appointing the same insular loyalists that have continued to lead us down the path of branch wide financial ruin. We need to do the following: 1. 1208 needs to be passed. 2. The trial courts reserves should not be raided by the incompetent managers at the AOC. 3. The AOC should be reduced by 75%. 4. The Ronald George complex should be auctioned off and the JC. AOC and CJP moved to more reasonably priced lease space in Sacramento. 5. To avoid future train wrecks like the above, the JC should be democratized and the CJ recalled. 6. The CJP needs to be reformed and term limits put in place to prevent a repeat of the arbitrary and unfair rule of J McConnell and J Horn. 7. Respect in the common sense and hard work of the elected constitutional officers of the trial courts. They really do serve the citizens in their communities. 8. End the JC/AOC dictation of policy and management of the trial courts. . Sorry to be so long but the truth needs to be told .
unionman575
May 26, 2012
That is 5 star Lando, 5 star!
Outstanding!
🙂
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
Actually, Lando, given the length, scope, depth, and previously demonstrated overwhelming indifference to the problems, issues, mismanagement, and misconduct, that have led to this mess, that was a rather succinct summation.
And yes, the truth most definitely needs to be told. Perhpas NOW the State Legislature will finally do something, such as ordering an investigation, holding a hearing, and order those responsible to testify under penalty of perjury, with law enforcement in attendance.
Long live the ACJ.
lando
May 26, 2012
Thanks Unionman ! You like many here have contributed to the reform that will inevitably follow. The beauty of the SEC report is that the JC cannot deny what HRH 2 has set in motion. In fact, the SEC report may be the most compelling argument for the passage of 1208. Have a nice Memorial day everyone. It is always a great honor to remember those that fought to protect the very freedoms that allow us to voice our opinions and speak freely about any and all issues our society deals with !
lando
May 26, 2012
Thanks Wendy. You are awesome. A legislative investigation into this mess is entirely called for. The first thing I would ask for is Justice Scotland’s “interim” SEC report. Given this redacted released version one can only imagine what was contained in the original. So many issues remain to be investigated. Why was Deloitte picked to build CCMS when they never produced a successful computer system before? How did the Shapiro fund to the AOC come about ? Were the “gifts” he gave reported to the FPPC?Could someone please account for where all that half billion dollars on CCMS actually went ? Are the gifts the JC gave to their managers including the lack of any retirement contribution a gift of public funds? Why oh why did the JC/AOC employ two lawyers in Europe and what do their expense reports look like? All these questions and more about the management of the crystal palace at 455 Golden Gate San Francisco, need to be addressed .
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
A State attorney “telecommuting” from Switzerland. One can only imagine the justification or rationalization for such a thing. Approved by Vickrey. Which can only mean that Ronald George knew about, and approved it, too. Truth be told, indeed.
Members of the State Legislature, are you paying attention? This makes the recent CalTrans scandal over falsified testing date look like child’s play, and screams for an immediate investigation, with testimony under penalty of perjury. Or does Darrell Steinberg’s “friendship” with the Chief Justice and personal desire for an appointment to the appellate court go so far that no one in Sacramento will do anything, and condone this misconduct as an acceptable standard of public administration?
And by the way, Lando. in 2007, certain members of the State Legislature, and the California Attorney General’s Office, were given documentation of the European “telecommuting” attorneys at the AOC. Along with quite a bit of other documentation, including the embezzelement in the AOC’s HR Division, as well. No one would do a damn thing about any of it. In fact, the Attorney General’s office told the persons who reported it that the Attorney General’s office had no “jurisdiction” over judicial branch misconduct, and that the persons should report it to . . . wait for it . . . the Director of the AOC’s Human Resources Department, and there are letters to prove it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 26, 2012
Report it to AOC HR…Welcome to the Twilight Zone ladies and gentleman…
Wendy Darling
May 26, 2012
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Legal “advice” flows more freely from Switzerland. Didn’t you know that Wendy?
I personally do my best thinking while in Spain or Italy.
🙂
unionman575
May 26, 2012
Lando, hold on..I just heard a toilet flush..there went the CCMS cash…
lando
May 27, 2012
What an outrage. The AOC’s European lawyer goes back to 2007? The taxpayers and those losing their jobs in this economy deserve some explanation for all that.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
May 27, 2012
Why would the AOC want not one, but two lawyers based in Switzerland? Swiss banks no longer protect the privacy of their depositors from US Govt. inquiry, so if someone is parking $$ there must be more to the story. The Swiss franc is rock solid — but WTF is going on? It just smells of the need to move and conceal money but where and why?
lando
May 27, 2012
Wendy is right. You can’t make any of this stuff up. Billions wasted and no constitutional authority to waste those billions and try and dictate to the hard working trial courts. My favorite email says to those in the crystal palace, we answer to the voters of our county, not to some faceless bureaucracy in San Francisco.The very same at 455 Golden Gate. That says it all.
versal-versal
May 27, 2012
Hmm speaking of legislative hearings. The legislature needs to address the waste and abuse of the CJP. Under J McConnell they have decided that legal error is within their domain to punish and hammer on trial Judges.This is totally wrong. The abuse of the CJP is well known by trial Judges just trying to do the best they can. Making Judges lives miserable is a hallmark of the J McConnell regime.. Imposing discipline on former Judge Zellerbach for “thinking” of running for DA is a gross violation of all our constitutional rights. Trying to punish a Judge for questioning a totally trivial lawsuit in Sacramento regarding a creeping vine on a roof is an outrage.Punishing a Judge for letting his son go on a police ride along shows just how out of control the McConnell/ Horn regime has become.. HRH 1 wanted total control. He enforced such by empowering and reappointing J McConnell and J Horn over and over again to the CJP. HRH 2 has endorsed this continued tyranny by reappointing these same Judges who could care less about Judges just trying to do their jobs. The huge waste of taxpayer dollars for the CJP’s wasteful and vindictive investigations should be front and center in legislative hearings on budget accountability.Moreover the CJP needs to be removed from the penthouse at the Crystal palace and relocated to cheaper real estate in Sacramento.
JusticeCalifornia
May 27, 2012
Top leadership and the CJP have protected and given free passes to really horrific, unethical Team George party line judges. I have no doubt that they have come down on hard on those who do not tow the party line. Now that Team George is being outed for what it has done and stands for. . . .well, let’s see.
Dan Dydzak
May 27, 2012
Lando, the General and all others–great insights and perspectives. The General is right. It may be possible to ask the Orange County Superior Court to disband the AOC as form of equitable relief.
Aside from power issues, let us not forget the salient fact that many of the actions taken by the AOC bureaucracy and the coterie of private attorneys and certain judges at the highest level were driven by the Almighty Dollar–in effect, RICO activities and embezzlement of funds through a Century City Bank and all kinds of mail fraud, securities fraud and money-laundering. Ronald M. George and others hold court at the Chancery Club with Eric M. George and Alan I. Rothenberg and Thomas V. Girardi–with their direct phone lines to CJ– and the Vatican Bank enters the picture, no less. Girardi is active with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in LA. Thank you for all the information. It is necessary and important discovery ammunition. Vito Corleone said a lawyer with a briefcase can do more damage than a bunch of Mafia thugs running around. The input on the European attorneys and the paperwork thereto are important as is all the information everyone is providing. Keep it coming. Most appreciatively, Dan
unionman575
May 27, 2012
I”t may be possible to ask the Orange County Superior Court to disband the AOC as form of equitable relief.”
Go for it Dan!
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Dan if you ever want to “chat” then send me an e-mail: bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Death Star Communications presents:
Honorable Edmund G. Brown
Governor of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Members of the California State Legislature
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Judicial Branch Budget
Dear Governor Brown, Senators, and Assembly Members:
Over the past four years the judicial branch has received a staggering $653 million in ongoing budget reductions. In fiscal year 2011-12, with the addition of one-time sweeps and loans to the General Fund, the branch provided over $1.1 billion in budget solutions to address the state budget shortfall – from a total budget of $3.1 billion.
Four successive years of unprecedented budget cuts have put justice at risk in California. The proposed additional cuts in the May Revise threaten to dismantle our system of justice entirely. As the constitutional policymaking body of the California courts, the Judicial Council is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. But we alone cannot meet that charge. The judicial branch depends on our sister branches of government to provide an appropriate level of funding to allow us to meet our constitutional and statutory obligations to California’s 38 million residents, to ensure access to a forum to resolve disputes, get restraining orders to protect against violence, serve our criminal justice system, protect the safety and rights of children and the elderly, and much, much more. We urge you to protect access to justice for the people of California by rejecting further cuts.
These additional reductions will seriously impact the judicial branch’s ability to fulfill its role of delivering justice. As the Chief Justice noted in her recent State of the Judiciary Address:
“We need the courts to be open. When homes are lost and jobs are taken and services are eliminated, people rightly come to the courts and have an expectation that there will be justice for all. . . .
More than ever, the judicial branch must serve as the safety net for a democratic and civil society. Yet judges do not get to choose the number or kinds of cases that come before us. In fact, the cruel irony is that the economic forces that have led to budget reductions to the courts are the same ones that drive more of our residents to court. They seek help with evictions, debt collection, and modifications of child support orders. . . .
As Californians lose their livelihoods and as the California dream disintegrates for some, they rightly come to the courts for restoration of lost resources and dignity. . . .
In times like these, after four successive years of severe reductions, we have “closed” signs on courtrooms and clerks offices in 24 counties around the state.”
Trial Courts recognize that the consequences of ongoing fiscal crisis must be shared by everyone. We will continue to look to available, existing branch resources to help us make it through these difficult times. But those resources will not be sufficient, and the cuts targeted for the judicial branch will have catastrophic, far-reaching impacts on our ability to preserve equal access to justice for all Californians. That is why Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers representing _____ of the 58 California Trial Courts have agreed to add their names to this letter.
And there is one more huge concern to trial courts expressed in a Finance Letter dated May 14. The Department of Finance proposes to eliminate one of the basic and historic tenets of trial court funding – the ability to carry forward funds. The proposal sets the trial courts back to the 19th Century “spend it or lose it” model of government funding. Without this ability many of our trial courts would now be in truly dire straits. This abandonment of carry forward is a retreat from smart government we cannot afford. It removes an incentive to operate more efficiently, kills the best stimulus for innovation we have found so far, and thereby severely weakens fiscal accountability for trial courts.
Kurt Duecker
Senior Court Services Analyst
Court Programs and Services Division – Trial Court Leadership Services (TCLS) Unit
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
http://www.courthousenews.com/…/pj%20petition%20to%20leg.doc
Res Ipsa Loquitor
May 27, 2012
Ahhh, the delightful Mr. Kurt Duecker, the one whose memo (ala will somebody in Sierra County pleeeeze sign this fricking letter before 3 pm today) inspired Judge Kennelly’s inspired response resurfaces.
Michael Paul
May 27, 2012
~~~~just dies laughing~~~~ Was this an order to fall on the sword as this memo being Kurt’s own handiwork? I see a bit of disassociation from this being, to coin a term.. a Rosengram..
Wendy Darling
May 27, 2012
You’ll notice, Res Ipsa, that the letter wasn’t under the signature of a single member of the Judicial Council, or under the signature of the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Yes Duecker is a delight!
Res Ipsa Loquitor
May 27, 2012
Right on Wendy, so why would a Senior Court Analyst be tasked with writing a letter of purported import to the Governor and the Legislature? A letter might be more impressive if signed by members of the JC, the CJ, or anyone else. Why would anyone in Sacramento care what Mr. Druecker has to say? And the answer might be that the targeted audience is not in Sacramento.
Note to Mr. Druecker: Your memo to Sierra County was a classic of such proportions that it could form the basis of endless SNL skits.
Anonymous Staff
May 27, 2012
A Senior Court Services Analyst would not tasked with writing the memo. They are tasked with hitting the ‘send’ button and taking the subsequent heat so the author of the memo doesn’t have to.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”
Uh huh.
We are ALL here to “help” you out up there at the JC/AOC Death Star HQ.
Don’t worry up in SF we are here to stay. We all wil continue to speak out for CHANGE and to have those responsible for the mess in OUR Branch held accountable.
I’ll be spending a lot more time here crowing like a rooster.
🙂
unionman575
May 27, 2012
The JC needs to release the original unredacted version of the SEC Report. I am sure that would be a very interesting read. There has to be a copy somewhere. Hmm…
unionman575
May 27, 2012
You gotta love it. All other courts are laying off subordinate bench officers (Referees & Commissioners) BUT Marin’s Ms. “Twilight Zone” Kim Turner & the Marin PJ are hiring 2 referees? Wow! WTF? My. my,my…The Death Star does take care of its loyalists.
While the rest of us get whacked out via mass layoffs and other trial court service reductions.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Nevada County SC: http://www.nevadacountycourts.com/documents/public/PublicNotice050712.pdf
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Even San Bernardino CEO Steve Nash (former AOC Finance Director) can’t perform a hat trick out there in the Inland Empire. I guess the Death Star isn’t as fond of Nash, as say Turner, Torre or Roddy.
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qZpOVZAZvzY%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
CCROLA
May 27, 2012
You have hushmail
disgusted
May 27, 2012
oops — you have hushmail
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Received your hushmail & I am working on your request CCROLA.
disgusted
May 27, 2012
Court Workers to Decide on Possible StrikeBy Albert Samaha Wed., May 23 2012 at 11:06 AM Comments (1) Categories: Labor
Hennepin County Library
Management vs. workers: an age old American conflict.
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 are getting laid off. Nearly 70 court employees lost their jobs in October, for instance.
The remaining 263 Superior Court workers and the Administrative Office of the Courts, which manages the state court budget and serves as the county court’s bargaining agent, are currently negotiating a new labor contract. The court is proposing a 5 percent pay cut, and 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 that would mean the line outside the Hall of Justice Room 145 would wind all the way to Trader Joe’s.
The court’s 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 the workers, who are represented by SEIU 1021, believe that they are getting punished for the AOC’s 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, a 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 sessions 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
unionman575
May 27, 2012
CCROLA / Disgusted.
You have hushmail – it’s ready for distribution and/ or editing as you wish.
Anything else you want just let me know.
FYI – I am going to send it to the powers that be as well.
Youi have my best wishes.
🙂
courtflea
May 27, 2012
Unionman, BBQchefs? man! I gotta get to know ya one day. my local “Qmaster” retired due to illness recently. But I can make some mean stuff “trash can cookin” ! Sorry if that does not translate for some 🙂
Good weekend all and thanks to those who gave their lives and service for us, so we could all live free. Speaking of those who have served us; there was a great”zippo” quote from a Vietnam vet (I hope you heard this on NPR today), “when I die I am going to heaven because I have spent my time in hell”. Not to diminish the the time these guys spent in combat but, I think that applies to those that have worked or are still working at the AOC………………myself included.
Now go and eat those hot dogs and hamburgers!!!
unionman575
May 27, 2012
I just did a real nice flank steak and my senorita made some real tasty sides. Nice and tender cooked medium rare on the Q.
🙂
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Flea come on down to the “Ventura County Area” and we’ll have a BBQ. That one is for you AOC sec unit.
🙂
wearyant
May 28, 2012
Welcome to Ventura! Come here on vacation! Leave on probation. Return on revocation.
–courtesy of the Ventura muni court workers years ago and “Mad Dog” Hunter, municipal court judge, may he rest in peace. He may have gone out as a superior court judge, thanks to that CA proposition “streamlining” the courts.
Hope all had a good Memorial Day.
Michael Paul
May 28, 2012
Ah, Ventura 2D6 (second district court of appeals, division six) located a few blocks from the beach. (I did lots of their Microsoft migration stuff) Best Mongolian BBQ place I ever ate at is in that city. Can’t recall the name of the place.
“Come here on vacation, leave on probation, return on revocation” sounds like driving through the deep south with California license plates.
unionman575
May 28, 2012
“Come here on vacation, leave on probation, return on revocation”
🙂
wearyant
May 28, 2012
The Golden China just off the 101 at California Street?
Dan Dydzak
May 27, 2012
Hi unionman, I will in the near term email you. Let’s have lunch one day in Ventura County–a veritable tete-a-tete. Enjoy those steaks. Ventura is great for all that fresh produce and fruits.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
10-4 Dan
versal-versal
May 27, 2012
Woodhull and Lando’s historical perspectives are spot on. However, the actions of our current CJ need to be examined carefully as well. Check out old You Tubes, she was a passionate supporter of CCMS. She appointed J Bruiners to oversee CCMS despite the fact he lobbied against the State Audit that exposed it’s failings to the public. She continues to claim CCMS was like a “Ferrari ” we could no longer afford, when the objective evidence shows it is a complete failure and could have never been deployed after wasting a half billion dollars. She like HRH 1, won’t tolerate any dissent and has insured the JC remains a closed insular group. Upon the passage of 1208 in the State Assembly,the CJ denounced those legislators that supported that reform. Despite the loud and clear message to reform the CJP, she has left J McConnell and J Horn in office to further undermine trial Judges. Finally, in the face of the most dire budget cuts in the history of the courts she wouldn’t reach out and select a group of Judges to lobby the legislature that weren’t part of the insular “insider group” like Terry Friedman. You really can’t make this stuff up. We need to democratize the Judicial Council and recall the CJ if any meaningful change is ever going to occur in the California courts.
Wendy Darling
May 27, 2012
She was a voting member of the Judicial Council during the time all of the misconduct, mismanagement, dishonesty, deception, and duplicity, identified in the sanitized SEC report was taking place, and supported, endorsed, and voted for the very practices and decisions that have led the branch to disgrace. By her own claim that “everything is fully vetted,” she shares the responsibility for letting the misconduct, mismanagement, dishonesty, deception, and duplicity happen, and for letting it continue to this very day. She has praised Vickrey, and Overholt, and defended them both, and defended the very AOC management practices that have been politely identified in the SEC report as inappropriate and deficient. And she, herself, has been less than honest, forthcoming, accountable, or transparent.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 27, 2012
Let’s do it folks!
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
courtflea
May 27, 2012
Yes, I’d love to come there! But you all have to try trash can cooking or really it is barrel cooking. You get a food grade metal barrel with a lid, at the bottom you add charcoal get it hot then when it is ready you can cook anything in two hours put specially made hooks into the meat and hang on across a rebar bar, a thanksgiving turkey, ribs, whole chickens awesome. But I will only come if there is no reveal…
Man we had angus beef burgers last night awesome!
Sorry I got off the subject matter here, just a bit of levity? You guys are all so great. Sleep well.
Dan Dydzak
May 28, 2012
Thanks for the valuable information and commentary, Wendy Darling. Many of the parties’ responses to my lawsuit are due soon. It will be interesting to see what the responses of CJ, retired Justice Moreno, State of CA, Vickrey and Overholt and others are. The information being disseminated on Judicial Council Watcher is invaluable, and we may all even learn some tips on how to grill steaks in Ventura and other great venues in the State of CA!
unionman575
May 28, 2012
Anytime Dan the Man!
unionman575
May 28, 2012
I can already feel the love…
June 20, 21, 22 Judicial Council Meetings, San Francisco
http://www.courts.ca.gov/10134.htm
unionman575
May 28, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/28/46868.htm
Monday, May 28, 2012Last Update: 4:23 PM PT
Crucial Report Blasts “Unwieldy” California Court Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path, has been deceptive about finances and personnel. They also excoriated the bureaucracy as top-heavy, badly organized, and employing too many overpaid workers. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento. In a 277-page, 11-chapter report, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.
Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report did not pull punches. It confirmed the position of critics on a host of points, including the agency’s effort to control the trial courts and their judges and the agency’s domination of proceedings before the Judicial Council, the body of judges which is ostensibly in charge of the staff in the administrative office.
In a telling point, the report’s authors noted that not a single organization provided by the administrators showed the Judicial Council in its rightful place at the top of the chart. In drawing an entirely new organization chart for the agency, the committee put the Judicial Council back at the top.
“A fundamental overhaul of the agency’s organizational structure is needed,” said the report that has been a year in the making. “Over time, the AOC has amplified its role and has lost its focus on one of its primary roles and core functions, which is providing service to the trial courts.”
While the report is replete with calls for transparency as well as condemnations of the agency’s tendency to manipulate information, the deeply critical report was nevertheless released well after works hours Friday evening as the three-day Memorial Day week end was starting. Such timing is traditionally associated with an effort to tamp down news coverage.
“Released Friday at 7:43 pm on a 3-day weekend,” one trial judge commented. “What a great way to showcase transparency.”
In a comment later in the weekend, a judge said, “The report was unveiled in a manner more typically used by disgraced public figures hoping to bury a negative story: the classic document dump after 7:30 pm on a Friday before a 3 day weekend. The manner of the release alone raises questions about how sincere the claim of transparency is and is at a minimum beneath the dignity of those who purport to represent truth and justice.”
“Culture of Control”
The committee was established last year by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In a statement accompanying the report’s release, she took a neutral position, saying she had not had time to review the report’s more than 100 recommendations for specific changes.
The judges on the committee were appointed in response to widespread anger from trial judges against the large bureaucracy. In its report, the committee highlights what it calls a “culture of control” that has permeated the agency in its dealings with the trial courts.
“A pervasive feeling in the trial courts is that the AOC developed a culture or attitude of control in its dealings with those in the judicial branch,” it says. “Full input and dissenting viewpoints of courts and judges were generally not sought or believed to be valued by the AOC, even with respect to major branch-wide initiatives concerning technology or financial systems.” In discussing the control the bureaucrats exercised over the Judicial Council, the report noted that the top-level decision making process at the AOC became insular, limiting input from judges.
“Information was controlled, and dissent was not encouraged,” said the report. “Judicial Council meetings were tightly scripted, with limited time for review of materials and for meaningful, open discussion of important issues.”
Staff Size and Perks
In one of the many slams to the agency, the authors focused on the self-indulgence of the staff during a time of severe budget strains and staff cuts in the local trial courts.
“The AOC announced that it, like the courts, had instituted a one day per month furlough program for its employees; however, unlike courts that involuntarily imposed the furlough without remuneration or offsets, for a six-month period the AOC gave voluntary participants a credit of one day of leave time for each furlough day. Thus AOC employees did not feel the same impact as that experienced by many trial court employees.”
In patient and occasionally elliptical fashion, the authors lay out the financial gimmickry used by the administrative office on personnel and financial matters.
For example, the administrative office claimed that it absorbed a 12% cut while the trial courts had taken a 6.8% percent, when in fact a much much bigger tranche had been cut out of trial court budgets.
“This was not an oversight because the discrepancy had been questioned at an earlier meeting of the Trial Court Budget Working Group, but the AOC continued to use the 6.8 percent figure,” wrote the authors at page 40. “A more accurate and credible statement would have been that the trial courts had been subject to a nearly 23 percent reduction in their budgets as a result of the continuing cuts that had occurred over several years.”
In addressing the question of staff size, the report is scathing.
“A frequently voiced criticism is that the AOC has not been fully transparent or credible in its discussions and public comments about staffing levels, especially as the state’s fiscal crisis hit the judicial branch over the last several years. This criticism is valid.”
While the report’s authors note that the AOC has ballooned in size, hitting its peak in fiscal year 2010-2011 with 1,121 positions, an AOC spokesperson insisted to Courthouse News last year that the agency employed no more than 877 people. When Courthouse News reported higher staff levels than the spokesperson provided, it was accused of fabricating that number.
“The topic of AOC staffing levels is a sensitive one within the branch, as many courts have been forced to make significant cutbacks in their own staffing levels, with an expectation that AOC staffing levels would be reduced as well,” the report says. “Such has not been the case, though. The more likely scenario is that the AOC minimized true staffing levels to present the picture that it had suffered the same types of staffing reductions endured by the courts.”
The report says that a person needs look no farther than the AOC website for example of misleading information about staff levels.
‘Fact Sheet’
A `Fact Sheet’ from February still appears on the AOC website, saying the administrative office has a staff of “more than 750 serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”
“While it is true there was a staff of more than 750 at that time,” says the report in taking the Fact Sheet apart, “a more accurate statement is that total staffing exceeded 1,000.”
“Finally, the ‘Fact Sheet’ further omits mention of an additional 124 contract staff then performing the work of regular AOC employees. ‘Fact Sheets’ stating only partial facts are not credible and do not promote transparency or trust. It is more unfortunate that misleading information about staffing levels has come from the very top levels of the AOC.”
The SEC committee further notes that AOC staff are also overpaid for the work they perform. “AOC managers and employees reported that there are numerous situations in which employees are being paid more – and in some cases, substantially more – than is appropriate in light of the duties assigned to them,” the report says.
The report recommends a staff size somewhere between 680 and 780, which would represent a reduction of the the current staff size by roughly one third.
The report also assails the management structure — or lack thereof — in the administrative office.
Because there were so many bosses in the administrative structure, meetings were not productive, said the report. There was no agenda, and issues were often left unresolved, leading to an ad-hoc decision making process based on who the director or chief deputy favored.
“Instances were cited demonstrating that significant decisions were made based primarily on the favored status of particular division directors. Not unexpectedly, some division and office directors became more adept than others at availing themselves of this ad hoc process,” the report says
The Money
The report further substantiated many judges’ concerns about the lack of transparency in the AOC’s budget. For years, judges and reporters have been asking questions about the size of the AOC’s budget and how it is funded, to little avail. The report said in an understated manner that the agency had not made accurate reporting “a priority.”
“Concerns have been expressed both internally and externally that the budget process employed by the AOC is not understandable and is so confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand what is funded or how it is funded,” said the report at pages 182 and 184. “There is currently a complete lack of faith in the fiscal information released by the AOC. It does not appear that management has made accurate and timely financial information a priority.”
That criticism of the agency’s handling of money is consistent with a report last year from the Bureau of State Audits that said the administrative office had been concealing the true cost of a controversial IT project called the Court Case Management System.
The judiciary spent half a billion dollars on the project over nine years before pulling the project’s plug two months ago.
Friday’s report also upbraided the agency for that project, siding with the State Auditor in finding that the agency had not planned well for the massively expensive undertaking.
“In many instances, the AOC has not undertaken necessary business case analyses for branch-wide initiatives and projects, or if it has done so, it has been late in the game, with significant negative fiscal impacts as a result.”
“Although courts experienced budget shortfalls and were required to engage in court closures, seemingly unlimited funding continued for the controversial and costly Court Case Management System (CCMS).
Criticisms over the escalating estimated costs of the CCMS project, and its lack of proper planning and management, merged with broader criticisms and debate concerning the role of the AOC,” the report says.
Taking Charge
It adds that some AOC employees were less than cooperative with their investigation. “In all fairness, the SEC recognizes that, by all accounts, morale at the AOC is at an all-time low and that many of its managing and other employees feel unduly criticized. As a result, some AOC employees who were interviewed or who responded to surveys were defensive or resisted providing information.”
The AOC also demonstrated a lack of transparency in delivering information to the committee. The report notes, “Some information provided by the AOC and its divisions was incomplete or nonresponsive. The SEC encountered numerous delays in receiving some information.”
The committee’s report teems with recommendations, among them that the agency be pared down through the complete overhaul of the AOC’s organizational structure, the closure of its regional offices and the elimination of unnecessary positions.
In suggesting that moving headquarters to Sacramento, the report says, “The high cost of the lease in San Francisco certainly underscores the need for the AOC to evaluate the continued economic viability of that location in the course of conducting its long-range planning.”
“The judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to use taxpayer funds prudently. In this case, the Sacramento lease rates are substantially lower than the space leased in San Francisco. If the AOC had its primary operations in Sacramento, that would place its headquarters in the political capital of California and emphasize the standing of the judicial branch as a co-equal branch of state government.”
In one of its most fundamental recommendations, the committee calls on the Judicial Council and the chief justice to reign in the agency, saying, “The Judicial Council must take an active role in overseeing and monitoring the AOC and demanding transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the AOC’s operations and practices.”
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye said in a statement late Friday that she has appointed the SEC chair and vice-chair, Assistant Presiding Judge Charles Wachob of Placer County and Presiding Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County, to sit on the Judicial Council, adding, “I want to make sure that work of the committee is front and center on the Judicial Council’s agenda in the coming year.”
wearyant
May 28, 2012
Thank you, Maria Dinzeo, for setting it all out there! Misuse of public funds cannot be disputed. We’re approaching malfeasance in office now. When will a Federal investigation begin?! Yes, it will be dirty and ugly, but sometimes it’s necessary to root out all the evil crooks.
Been There
May 28, 2012
Although his work was sanitized, thank you Art Scotland for all you have done and all you tried to do for the California courts.
Wendy Darling
May 28, 2012
Justice Scotland honored his public duty, and told the truth in his original report. That others would seek to hide or obfuscate that truth, and seek to silence Justice Scotland, does not diminish that Scotland honored his duty, his conscience, and his ethics.
Long live Justice Scotland. And long live the ACJ.
versal-versal
May 28, 2012
Justice Scotland is a man of great intelligence and integrity. He set the tone for writing an honest and true evaluation of the AOC and its countless excesses. His interim report must be even more devastating than the released version. Senators considering 1208 should ask for the interim report and carefully compare it to the final version. My mother used to have a great expression, ” the chickens always come home to roost” . They certainly have along the ever darkening hallways at the Ronald George crystal palace located at 455 Golden Gate. Recall the CJ and democratize the Judicial Council .
Jimmy
May 29, 2012
Scotland didn’t write ANY of this report.
Stuart MIchael
May 29, 2012
Jimmy is correct – Scotland just signed off on the sanitized version of the unreleased report.
This one was written by the current gang. Although its pretty good as far as it goes, the real report must have been really brutal and proposed even more drastic changes and cuts. Someone needs to get it out in the open for all – including the Exec & Legis branches- to see how deep the rot really is and what should be done about the JC/AOC – not just merely rearranging the chairs on the rapidly sinking ship.
The report confirms what many have been saying about the HR division. Its a long-overdue affirmation of what courageous people like Paula Negly have been saying – at great personal sacrifice.
The recommendation that AOC employees’ at-will status be used to clean house is OK for management, but rank & file staff should have have a true merit protection system and collective bargaining rights. Along with passage of 1208, relocating the AOC to Sacramento would be a real game changer.
Another example of the CJP’s corruption is the case of one of its judicial members who was reported for using his court computer during work hours to access hundreds of pornographic sites. He was allowed to quietly resign from the Commission but no discipline was imposed and it was never made public. Fortunately, he was defeated for reelection after his conduct was exposed (by a courageous court employee who had trial court “merit system” status).
If the CJP’s files were opened for public scrutiny the public outrage would be wide-spread.
The TCEPGA required each Superior Court (but not the AOC) to adopt a merit system to replace the old County Civil Service status. Unfortunately, the new system gave final authority to the CEO’s to ratify their own personnel actions. Look at what happened to courageous career employees in courts such as Santa Clara, Marin and Contra Costa, and is continuing to be done to this day. The news report about cuts in Fresno stated that employees were “being encouraged to retire.” Imagine what’s going to happen to those who resist but can only appeal adverse actions to their own CEO’s.
JCW – you should be proud of what you have already stimulated – and hopefully will be continuing to do in the struggles that lie ahead.
The factual knowledge, insights and perceptions of all the contributors is truly amazing – with dining & cooking and travel trips thrown in for free.
The entire debacle is akin to watching a soap opera on TV – without the commercial interruptions!
unionman575
May 29, 2012
“The recommendation that AOC employees’ at-will status be used to clean house is OK for management, but rank & file staff should have have a true merit protection system and collective bargaining rights. ”
Collective bargaining rights? Yeah Stuart you are speaking my language!
I have organized before, I can organize again.
🙂
Sue Donim
May 29, 2012
I am a current AOc employee who is in agreement with much of the SEC report and also very much dissatisfied with current agency management. I visit this site occasionally to see how the discussion surrounding the AOC is progressing in the real world. I would suggest that if you don’t know the difference between the words dupilcative and duplicitous few will take your analysis seriously. If you know the difference then your choice of snark presented as analysis discredits you already.
Please focus your analysis on actual analysis and post editorial comments in an editorial section.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 30, 2012
We have a spell checker, not a grammar checker. This word was a spell check approved even though it was grammatically incorrect. P.S. if you want the job of an editor (we can use an editor but be forewarned the pay sucks) you’re hired. Other than that, you’re wrong on both assumptions.
unionman575
May 30, 2012
I’ll pass on your suggestion AOC troll.
wearyant
May 29, 2012
“Senators considering 1208 should ask for the interim report and carefully compare it to the final version.”
How I wish the interim report would appear so we could all compare it to the final version!
unionman575
May 29, 2012
Wow! JCW you spent a ton of time reading that huge report & Summarizing the rec’s.
Do you ever sleep?
Thanks!