Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, over-paid and badly organized.
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 the 277-page, 11-chapter document, 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 does not pull its punches.
It confirms 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 administrative office staff. In a telling point, the report’s authors noted that not a single organization chart 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.” The report was released by the committee late on Friday as the Memorial Day weekend was starting.
Culture of Control
The committee was established last year by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In a statement accompanying the report’s release on Friday, 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 their report, the judges highlight 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,” said the report. “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 lengthy analysis noted that the top-level bureaucrats became highly insular, making decisions with little or no 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 report 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 slice 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.” “The lack of credibility of messages such as these — on topics of critical importance to the courts — results in mistrust between the AOC and the courts,” the report concluded.
Turning to the issue of staff size, the report’s conclusions are 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 the higher number, despite evidence to the contrary.”The AOC’s reporting of staffing levels has been misleading, leading to mistrust of the AOC,” the report concluded at page 192. “Disingenuously suggesting that AOC staffing levels have been reduced in response to branch-wide budget and staffing cuts has led to further mistrust and cynicism. The need for greater credibility and transparency in AOC counting and reporting of its staffing levels is undeniable.”
‘Fact Sheet’
The report says that a person need look no further than the AOC website for an example of misleading information about staff levels. 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, “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 judges on the committee point out that bureaucrats in the administrative office “are very highly compensated.” “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 judges writing the report note that 17 jobs at the administrative office pay more than $175,000 a year in addition to hundreds that are overcompensated. “All told, several hundred AOC employees have maximum salary levels of over $100,000 per year,” said the report. It recommends cutting the top staff by 50% and cutting overall staff size to somewhere between 680 and 780, which would represent an overall reduction of roughly one-third. The report also assails the management structure — or lack thereof — in the administrative office. “There are too many high-level, highly compensated managers, and that there are too many divisions,” said the report. Because there were so many overpaid bosses, meetings are not productive, said the report. There is no agenda, and issues are often left unresolved, leading to an ad-hoc decision making process based on who the director or chief deputy favors.
This has long been an accusation against the agency from trial judges, saying the administrative office attempted to place favored bureaucrats in head clerk positions at the trial court level and then favored those courts, especially those that adopted the now-defunct IT system for tracking cases, with generous funding allotments.”Multiple persons reported that budget prioritization within AOC has sometimes occurred on an ad hoc basis, in the sense that some division directors simply approached the former Administrative Director with budget requests, which were sometimes granted without comprehensive consideration of other agency-wide priorities or cost-benefit analysis,” said the report at page 115. “This type of approval process is consistent with criticisms that AOC budget decisions sometimes were made on the basis of whether division directors were regarded as favorites of the Administrative Director.”
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. In an understated manner, the authors say the agency has not made accurate financial 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),” the report continued. “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.”
Moving to Sacramento
The judges also point out that some AOC employees were less than cooperative with the committee’s investigation. “Morale at the AOC is at an all-time low and that many of its managing and other employees feel unduly criticized,” said the report. “As a result, some AOC employees who were interviewed or who responded to surveys were defensive or resisted providing information.”
“Some information provided by the AOC and its divisions was incomplete or non responsive,” the report authors added. “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 elimination of a host of 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 rein 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.”
______________________________
THE LATEST ON CALIFORNIA POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
May 29, 2012
Scathing report on judicial bureaucracy bolsters rebel judges
The years-long political war among California’s judges took another turn Friday, when a special commission appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to investigate the Administrative Office of the Courts delivered a scathing report that, in effect, agreed with rebel judges.
The rebels, coalesced in the Alliance of California Judges, have been pushing legislation that would reduce the powers of the Judicial Council, which is headed by the chief justice, and the AOC and give local judges more authority to spend money.
The Alliance has accused the AOC of building a bloated bureaucracy (more than 1,100 employees) and wasting money on itself and on an inoperable computer case management system while starving local courts and forcing them to shut down periodically and furlough employees.
The “Strategic Evaluation Committee” bolstered the Alliance’s case in its 298-page report, concluding, “The top-level decision making process of the AOC became insular, with a top-down management style limiting input from those within the organization.”
While the AOC’s shortcomings went unnoticed when judicial money was plentiful, the report continued, cutbacks in state support made them evident – especially the rapidly escalating costs and planning shortcomings of the case management system. The commission described the AOC as a “top-heavy and unwieldy organization” with “deficient” management processes.
Cantil-Sakauye inherited the judicial war from predecessor Ron George, who presided over the consolidation of 58 local court systems into one statewide system primarily financed by the state. He also launched the case management system – which was recently abandoned – and an extensive courtroom construction program which has been partially suspended to save money.
Cantil-Sakauye and the Judicial Council have been trying to settle the war by appointing the AOC study commission and stopping work on the computer and courthouse construction programs while opposing the Alliance-backed legislation and pleading with the Legislature for more money.
The Alliance hailed the AOC report, saying, “In summary, the report validates positions taken by the Alliance of California Judges and others who for years have warned that the AOC is broken at its very core and has been allowed to run itself, without meaningful Judicial Council oversight, for well over a decade.”
The Assembly has approved the Alliance-sponsored bill, Assembly Bill 1208 by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier, but it’s been stalled in the Senate by President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.
_______________________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________________________________
May 30, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
Yesterday afternoon all judges were sent the Court News Update from the AOC. We understand that many judges, for whatever reason, simply delete these emails. Because of that the Alliance carefully reviews this material.
Yesterday, the Chief Justice delivered videotaped remarks to the AOC staff — not to the judges of this state — regarding the SEC report. Her remarks are brief and we encourage all of you to watch the video for yourself by clicking on this link: Chief’s message to AOC staff, that was included in yesterday’s email. (mms://wms.1A57.edgecastcdn.net/001A57/eop/ccn/SECReportAOC.wmv)
The Alliance is troubled that the Chief Justice would immediately question the accuracy and validity of a report that was the product of a committee that she selected. Committee members worked diligently for over a year on the project while performing their duties as judges. We note that their task was made more difficult by the usual reticence of AOC staff to provide information. See the following language from pages 32 and 63 of the report: ” …some information provided by the AOC and its divisions was incomplete or non responsive,” and “resistance was encountered in obtaining basic and accurate information about the AOC, including both programmatic and administrative data”.
We are also mindful that the unfortunate reaction of the Chief Justice is not an isolated incident. The respected State Auditor, members of the State Assembly, and members of the press have likewise been the subject of displeasure when offering a viewpoint in contradiction of AOC or Judicial Council actions.
While we can appreciate how one might be disappointed in the final product of the SEC, we believe that the committee members deserve our thanks for a job that was made even more difficult by an entrenched bureaucracy unaccustomed to having its actions questioned.
We include two articles, one from the Los Angeles Times, and the other from the Recorder’s Cheryl Miller.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________________________
latimes.com
Agency that runs California courts ‘dysfunctional,’ report says
The report, ordered by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, could undermine her attempts to roll back budget cuts of about $544 million.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
May 30, 2012
advert
The agency that runs the California court system has become “dysfunctional” and bloated with high-salaried bureaucrats and requires a major overhaul, according to a report ordered by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
The 300-page report, which will be presented to judicial branch leaders next month, comes as the courts are trying to stave off large budget cuts from Sacramento. Although ordered by Cantil-Sakauye and written by a committee she named, the highly critical evaluation may undermine the chief jurist’s efforts to roll back projected budget cuts of about $544 million.
The committee of 11 judges said the Administrative Office of the Courts, the San Francisco-based agency that runs the court system, is overstaffed, “top-heavy” and unwieldy. The office has strayed from its required task of serving the courts and become controlling, deceptive and secretive, the judges said.
“The top-level decision-making process of the AOC became insular, with a top-down management style limiting input from those within the organization,” the report said. The judges cited 17 positions with maximum annual salaries at or above $175,000, “numerous positions” with salaries in excess of $100,000 and a staff attorney who was permitted to telecommute from Switzerland.
The problems occurred during the tenure of retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George and retired administrative office Director William Vickrey, the report said. During that time, new committees, rules and programs were established at the behest of the Judicial Council, the courts’ governing body headed by the chief justice, the report said. The council failed to keep a close eye on management and bureaucracy as staffing swelled to 1,100, according to the analysis.
The report recommends greater oversight by the Judicial Council, a restructuring of the bureaucracy, regular internal audits, staff cuts and possible relocation of the Administrative Office of the Courts from pricey office space in San Francisco to Sacramento.
Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged that the report contains “hard criticisms” and noted that downsizing and restructuring are already occurring. She said staffing will be down to 860 by June 30 because of ongoing layoffs.
The Alliance of California Judges, a dissenting group that has complained about the court bureaucracy, called the evaluation “an A to Z indictment of an out-of-control organization.” The group said the report confirmed what the Alliance has been saying for years: “The AOC is broken at its very core and has been allowed to run itself … for well over a decade.”
maura.dolan@latimes.com
Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
_________________________________________
Published today, Tuesday, May 29, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Judges Criticize Court Bureaucracy in Blistering Report
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO – In a blistering indictment of the state’s judicial administration, a long-awaited report released Friday night concluded that the Administrative Office of the Courts is over-staffed, dysfunctional and less than forthcoming about sensitive issues.
The Strategic Evaluation Committee, comprised almost entirely of judges, said the AOC has “lost its focus” on serving the trial courts and assumed a more dominant, controlling role in its relationship with California’s 58 superior courts. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye created the committee in March 2011 in response to concerns the AOC had grown too large despite an era of lean budgets.
“Every organization needs to periodically re-examine its mission and its functions and in this case, it doesn’t appear that that was done in a meaningful way for a long time,” the committee’s chairman, Placer County Superior Court Judge Charles Wachob, said Tuesday. “The organization drifted from its essential function of supporting or assisting the courts if the courts request assistance.”
What’s more, AOC officials skewed budget and staffing-level numbers to give the false impression that the administration has suffered as much as trial courts in the economic downturn, the report said. For instance, the AOC reported in February that it had a staff of “more than 750.” In fact, when all of the agency’s contract and temporary workers – some of which had been with the AOC for more than two years — were added in, the actual number climbed to above 1,000, a near-historic level.
“The AOC’s reporting of staffing levels has been misleading, leading to mistrust of the AOC,” the report said. “Disingenuously suggesting that AOC staffing levels have been reduced in response to branch-wide budget and staffing cuts has led to further mistrust and cynicism.”
The committee’s report recommends a major overhaul of the AOC’s “top heavy” structure, which would eventually leave the agency with somewhere between 680 and 780 authorized positions.
The 297-page report will undoubtedly shape the current budget negotiations – Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised spending plan issued earlier this month spared the AOC, but not the trial courts, from direct cuts – as well as impact the search for a new administrative director. Committee members called former Administrative Director of the Courts William Vickrey “a visionary” but criticized the Judicial Council for not providing more oversight of his work.
Critics of the AOC seized on the report as proof of their long-held contention that the administration is bloated and unresponsive to local courts.
“The nearly 300-page report is an A-to-Z indictment of an out of control organization,” directors of the Alliance of California Judges wrote in an email Monday. “It is an absolute ‘must read’ for everyone concerned about the functionality and credibility of our judicial branch.
Jody Patel, who was a regional director for the AOC for five years until her appointment as AOC’s interim administrative director, said she couldn’t “speak for the past administrators” but insisted that “a lot has changed and will continue to change” at the AOC in the coming months.
In a brief conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Cantil-Sakauye called the committee’s work “fabulous” but said the report is “backwards-looking” and does not consider the restructuring and staff reductions now planned.
“I think that this is the branch doing what it is supposed to do: taking a hard look at ourselves and how we can best perform under limited resources,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “That’s what we do. I didn’t need anyone to tell me to do that. I didn’t need the Legislature to order it. It’s something I want to do. It’s something the Judicial Council wants to have done.”
Cantil-Sakauye also bristled at criticism that the report was released after 7 p.m. Friday, just at the start of a three-day weekend, when a holiday-minded public traditionally pays little attention to the news. Cantil-Sakauye said she released the report as soon as she received it.
“I didn’t think for a minute that there was anything untoward or surreptitious or suspicious about releasing it on a Friday,” the chief justice said. “In fact, had I waited and released it on Tuesday I’m sure people would have said ‘She sat on it for a weekend, for three days.’ So you know, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.”
The report describes an administration that is top heavy with highly paid managers and that often disregards employment policies. For instance, three staff attorneys telecommute from outside of California – one from Switzerland – in an apparent conflict with rules limiting such long-range working arrangements. Also, some division directors openly admitted to the committee that they employed temporary workers to get around a hiring freeze.
The committee made dozens of recommendations to overhaul the AOC, including:
•Considering the transfer of all AOC offices from San Francisco to Sacramento to cut down on costs;
•Reorganizing top management to include an administrative director, a chief of staff and a chief operating officer;
•Reassessing all attorney jobs “with a goal of reducing their numbers;”
•Requiring the Judicial Council to conduct regular assessments of the administrative director’s job performance.
The report now goes to the Judicial Council for consideration at its June meeting. Chairman Wachob and the committee’s vice chair, Judge Brian McCabe of the Merced County Superior Court, have been appointed to the council as advisory members.
“My hope is that the Judicial Council will take into consideration the many different voices that are out there,” said San Diego County Superior Court Judge David Rubin, president of the California Judges Association. “There may be places that we as judges want to go further or in a different direction” than this report, he said.
Related articles
- California court bureaucracy battered in new report (mercurynews.com)
- Petition to disband the AOC nears 500 signatures (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
May 30, 2012
Let the games begin…We have more work to do.
Guest
May 30, 2012
In top of the findings if the AOC out of control the report also makes it clear that the AOC was allowed to run amok due to the lack of oversight by the Judicial Council. JCW should list the current and former JC members who allowed this to happen. Roddy, Turner, Planet, Patel, Yamasaki et al are obvious suck ups who blindly nodded as all this was spiraling out of control. What about the judges who were on the jc?Shouldnt they be held accountable too? Isn’t this the best argument for a democratically elected Council instead of a friends and relative selected governing body as used by third world countries?
unionman575
May 30, 2012
Welcome to the party Guest. We have been following the JC Players for years both current and former. Visit the JCW wall of shame for a nice appetizer list of the players.
Welcome aboard Guest!
unionman575
May 30, 2012
For those of you short on time here is the weblink from the post above for Tani’s address to AOC staff:
:
mms://wms.1A57.edgecastcdn.net/001A57/eop/ccn/SECReportAOC.wmv
Now all you need is a bucket!
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 30, 2012
There is a side of me that feels vindicated, in that each and every issue which I and others have been raising since 2004 were verified by the SEC report. The other side of me is sad. Sad because despite the incredibly devastating nature and content of this report, HRH-2 and those in charge at the Crystal Palace don’t “get it.” HRH-2 feels that she should be heralded for having commissioned this report and that everything is now fine or will be fine in the short run because all of these “problems” have been identified and addressed.
The only way that things will get better is with a complete housecleaning. Everyone and anyone on the Judicial Council, CJP, Judicial Council committees, AOC command staff needs to go. For any of them to try and claim that they didn’t “notice” any of these issues over the past decade and a half are one of two things. This despite the fact that there have been dozens of judges screaming at them for years, most all of us who have been treated as lepers. Either they are prevaricators, or they are such abysmal managers that they have no business managing this or any other institution.
The Governor and Legislature want the easy way out. They only want to deal with “one” entity when the Judiciary is involved. The Executive and Legislative Branches must be ecstatic to see the Judiciary in the state they are in. It makes it easier for them to further cut our budget. Unless and until the Judicial Council is fully democratized, there is no hope of real change. Those currently in seats of power believe that the page has been turned and everything is fine. How can they say that with a straight face or force us to walk into the Ronald George and William Vickrey buildings, hallways, and/or outhouses. Anyone associated with the Judicial Branch should be ashamed at the waste of public funds that has occurred over the past decade. It looks like at least a Billion Dollars has been thrown down a rat-hole. That’s not something you just brush under the carpet and say, “well that’s in the past, now let’s look to the future.”
I’m so glad that the Scholar-in-Residence, Judge-in-Residence and foreign lawyers are going to be displaced come July. Why were they there in the first place?
People need to rise up and demand fundamental change. Get the petition from unionman575 and hang outside your local supermarket.
unionman575
May 30, 2012
http://signon.org/sign/disband-the-aoc-in-californi?
Disband the AOC in California
Been There
May 30, 2012
I agree the upcoming departure of the Scholar-in-Reidence and the Judge-in-Residence is a start, but as long as Mr. Vickrey and Mr. Overholt remain on the job at full pay, it is all just part of the window dressing.
Perhaps JCW should consider restoring Messrs. Vickrey and Overholt to the Hall of Shame — they haven’t retired.
Wendy Darling
May 30, 2012
I second that recommendation. All in favor, say “aye.”
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 30, 2012
Take a peek. They never left.
Digital Purgatory
unionman575
May 30, 2012
People need to rise up and demand fundamental change. Get the petition from unionman575 and hang outside your local supermarket.
🙂
unionman575
May 30, 2012
https://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Eileen Lasher
May 30, 2012
Dan Dydzak
May 30, 2012
General Woodhull and others,
Thanks for your input. When I depose the CJ, I will of course cover the areas raised by the commentaries and other pertinent lines of inquiry in Mel Belli and Louis Nizer fashion.
unionman575
May 30, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/46946.htm
Wednesday, May 30, 2012Last Update: 11:56 AM PT
When the AOC Is Gone
By CHARLES HORAN
Recently Tehama County Superior Court’s Presiding Judge Richard Scheuler authored an editorial in the Daily Journal titled, “Small Courts Rely on AOC Services.”
The editorial was a rebuttal to comments by Judge Robert Dukes of the Los Angeles Superior Court that appeared days earlier in the Courthouse News service, which Judge Scheuler mischaracterized as a “blog,” though it is a fully-staffed national news service that has been doing business since the 1990s.
Scheuler took issue with Dukes’s assessment of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as a bloated and not terribly useful or productive bureaucracy.
Judge Scheuler oversees a court consisting of four judges and a commissioner, and roughly 45 full time employees. His editorial argued that small courts like Tehama simply could not function without the help of the AOC.
He made similar points to the Courthouse News Service on 1/27/12, when he voiced his concern that “the forces that oppose the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts oppose centralization, without which small courts could not survive.”
I do not come from Tehama, but I note that Judge Scheuler’s court has existed since 1860, or thereabouts, and for roughly the first 120 years of that period there was no AOC and there was absolutely no centralized governance of the 58 county trial courts.
Yet somehow Tehama’s court survived.
Now, however, Judge Scheuler believes that his court must depend on the AOC for almost everything — judicial training, contract drafting, legal advice, financial oversight, lawsuit defense, financial services, labor negotiation, legal compliance “support” (AOC audits), technology support, assistance in dealing with “justice partners,” backfilling for judges away at AOC mandated training, and “much, much more.”
Not to mention the new $72 million courthouse he candidly hopes the AOC will provide — at roughly twice the per-square-foot cost of courthouses built in New York City.
Why are five bench officers and 45 employees incapable of handling the court’s business in a county of 60,000 residents? Why must services be centralized in order to be affordable and available?
Scheuler doesn’t even attempt to answer these questions, apparently simply assuming that centralization is always a positive attribute of governance. That some AOC services are necessary is undoubtedly the case. However, small courts have traditionally handled all of the functions above, and more.
Why is the 150 year old Tehama Superior Court now content to have its affairs largely managed by a central bureaucracy? Why can’t Tehama hire people to perform tasks now done by the AOC or contract out for those services?
The answer is quite clear: The AOC has bled the courts, including Tehama, bone dry.
While our budgets are being relentlessly cut due to a horrible economy, the agency Judge Schueler describes as “stupendous” took hundreds of millions from the Trial Court Trust Fund for a computer system that the judges of this state didn’t want, didn’t need and couldn’t afford.
(Hypocritically, at the same time the AOC was tossing a half billion dollars down the drain, and lobbying against a CCMS audit, it performed an audit of the Tehama court, which was published on-line in May 2011. The AOC auditors chastised the court for, among other things, violating an AOC policy by buying sandwiches and soft drinks for non-sequestered jurors. Tehama promised to do better.)
At the same it was spending trial court operating funds at a breathtaking rate, the AOC shoved its way into every aspect of statewide court operations it could, both to increase its power and its staff — 20 years ago, the AOC had 200 employees, and in recent times has had over 1000, though it has been chronically dishonest about the true number of employees.
That Scheuler now feels incapable of handling his court’s affairs for the benefit of his constituents without constant intervention and oversight by the AOC is exactly the problem — centralization has led to dependence, which has morphed into subservience, taking power from those elected to wield it and responsibility from those chosen to shoulder it.
Instead, both power and responsibility has devolved to unelected and wholly unaccountable bureaucrats.
“Stupendous” is not a word I would use to describe the situation where bureaucrats are empowered and elected constitutional officers perceive themselves as dependent upon them for survival. I call it intolerable.
Former Chief Justice Ron George, the chief architect of our current governance structure, believed that “economies of scale” would enable a central bureaucracy to save money on everything from CCMS to court construction to routine courthouse maintenance, and that the current model would guarantee an “adequate and stable” source of funding.
Experience has shown the opposite — chewing gum removal and light bulb replacement costs thousands of dollars, $200 million computer systems cost $1.9 billion and have to be abandoned midway through, and courthouses are overpriced even in the planning stage.
California Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos noted in May that, “A fundamental reorganization of the court structure carried out under former Chief Justice Ron George had exacerbated the financial difficulty for the courts.” (Courthouse News Service, May 14, 2012).
More and more judges refuse to see themselves as helpless and are awakening to the fact that the price of centralization has been the subjugation of our courts by bureaucrats and handpicked members of the Judicial Council, a financial crisis in the judiciary, and deep schisms among judges.
A mix of large, medium, and small courts support the passage of AB 1208, a bill sponsored by the over 400 members of the Alliance of California Judges that would mandate that funds delivered to the trial courts not be captured by the AOC.
Los Angeles, with over 450 judges, Sacramento with 53, Kern with 35, San Mateo with 23 all have endorsed the bill. Mariposa and Amador, each with two judges, were early supporters of AB 1208, not sharing Judge Scheuler’s notion that only a central bureaucracy will allow small courts to thrive.
AB 1208 would, at a minimum, allow courts to keep that which is allocated to them by the legislature, without AOC holdbacks.
Courts would still be free to contract for services with the AOC if they wished — then the AOC could compete for trial court dollars just like any other vendor.
For that matter, there is absolutely nothing to prevent courts from forming consortiums and other cooperative agreements for training, legal assistance, and purchasing of services, whether from the AOC, from vendors, or from one another.
The judges of this state are remarkable people. Most are talented, hard-working, and inventive. It’s time they get busy and retake responsibility for the future of their courts, which existed before the AOC, and will exist long after the AOC is gone.
Charles Horan is a retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and was a founding Director of the Alliance of California Judges
wearyant
May 30, 2012
Hon. Charles Horan, we’re all in debt to you for taking the time to set the record straight. Very well said, sir!
Long live Hon. Charles Horan!
AB 1208 must be passed for all our sakes.
And recall teensy Tani.
Oh, long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 30, 2012
Judge Horan tells it the way it is.
🙂
Dan Dydzak
May 30, 2012
Thanks Judge Horan for the useful information.
Wendy Darling
May 30, 2012
Judge Horan rocks!
Long live Judge Horan. And long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 30, 2012
Yes, Judge Horan’s article rocks.
Top leadership has specialized in justifying its existence and robbing the trial courts by claiming it is “solving” problems. . . . .uh huh, the problems it has created.
Ummmmm. . . .I think that is the definition of racketeering.
Sakauye’s teleprompted video once again shows she is in over her head. . . .but the branch should make very clear to her that those who participated in bringing the branch to its knees must be fired, not promoted.
courtflea
May 31, 2012
Judge Horan, you rock. Tehama County judge is in the minority and I would suggest it is because they have a new AOC sponsered CEO that has no administrative experience (poor thing). More than likely the judge as well, like Judge Kaufman of Plumas county has higher political hopes, mainly an apellate court appointment and as you suggest a new courthouse. Goes a long way with his buddies, oh excuse me his consitutants. His statements are a bunch of excuse me, bullshit. I can say from personal knowledge that most small courts can care less or do not want anything from the AOC other than to be left alone. Oh maybe an occasional legal opinion from the legal division but other than that, forget it! Or their CEO’s may use AOC services to save them using their own budgets for stuff.
One thing I also wanted to point out is that CEOs are NON voting members of the JC. The ones to blame are Judges and Justices that have the votes and kissed butt, excuse me, toed the AOC line in those meetings.
Lastly the legislature needs to call a hearing in which the existing and former finance directors of the AOC should be sworn in and called to testify why AOC funding and expenditures are so hard to decifer. Face it, even though we are a sperate branch, there needs to be checks and balances regarding this kinda stuff. Sort of a la Oliver North. Oh will Fawn Hall actually be the CJ?
It just cracks me up that HRH 2 says she still has to digest the report when she had a draft copy forever!!!
Lando
May 31, 2012
General you said it all. This whole structure needs to be dismantled. Ronald George’s vision of total control of the trial courts through a centralized and unaccountable bureaucracy has failed and failed miserably. The wasting of billions on everything from a failed state wide computer system to lawyers in Europe while draining the coffers of the trial courts is inexcusable as the taxpayers of California pay the price. While AOC managers pay nothing into their retirements litigants seeking access to an actual court are delayed for months or need to pay to bring their own court reporter Thousands all around the state have lost their jobs in the trial courts while the AOC pays a Scholar in Residence in Virginia vacation time. Incredibly the CJ appears to want to defend all this and undermine the very SEC she appointed. General Woodhull is right. Everyone from the JC to AOC management and the CJP should resign and a democratically elected Judicial Council can start all this over by respecting the work of the local trial courts and the citizens they represent.
JusticeCalifornia
May 31, 2012
Great comments, Lando and courtflea. Although flea, I absolutely place blame on CEO/JC members — they are vocal members of the council and many council committees, they freely render advice (like the Turner/Roddy advice: “let’s teach the legislature a lesson and keep spending on CCMS and expensive new courthouses instead of shifting funds to keep trial courts open”),and they present many reports at council meetings– garbage in,garbage out.
Our gambling barmaid’s deer-in-the-headlights teleprompted SEC video shows her desperation– and her plea for anyone– anyone at all!!! to report any “mistakes” in the SEC report to “Jody” is bizarre. Doesn’t she realize that EVERY recent report on the AOC has EXCORIATED the AOC — most especially for bad money management and reporting– and ongoing misrepresentations—and obfuscation? Doesn’t she realize how serious that is, and why she MUST fire all those involved in AOC management who allowed this to happen?
Buh bye, “Jody”. It must have been nice when you had unlimited taxpayer funds at your disposal with which to enthusiastically remodel your fancy AOC digs at will.
Our cj is in denial right now. She needs to snap out of it and clean house, real quick.
The AOC house of cards is folding. The fallout has not yet even begun. The AOC has harmed many, many people, and trashed the branch. Heads must roll and investigations must be undertaken.
I am very impressed with the ACJ, which has calmly, logically stated its case, taken active steps to expose waste and mismanagement, and proposed a viable solution to the problem– democratization of the Judicial Council, and passage of a trial court bill of rights.
And of course. . . .we all know how invaluable and prolific AOC Watcher and Judicial Council Watcher have been — JCW is now scooping the media. . . . and providing a one-stop spot for the latest news stories. . . .(Wendy has immediate JCW postings of news stories down to a fine science!)
Wendy Darling
May 31, 2012
“Our gambling barmaid’s deer-in-the-headlights teleprompted SEC video shows her desperation– and her plea for anyone– anyone at all!!! to report any “mistakes” in the SEC report to “Jody” is bizarre. Doesn’t she realize that EVERY recent report on the AOC has EXCORIATED the AOC . . .”
It’s worth remembering that when the AUDIT report came out from the BSA and Elaine Howell, the Chief Justice also dismissed that report as being inaccurate and misrepresenting facts. Now, a committee appointed by the Chief Justice herself – her own self-selected committee – releases a report that identifies even more of the mismanagement, misconduct, malfeasance, deception, and duplicity as was identified in the BSA audit, and the response is it’s inaccurate and misrepresents facts because . . . it’s not an audit and the Chief Justice didn’t get to “respond” before it was released.
The hypocrisy is just astonishing.
Long live the ACJ.
Dan Dydzak
May 31, 2012
Thanks for all recent posts with revealing information. Keep it coming. Videotaped deposition notices in DYDZAK V. DUNN et al. are going out to Eric M. George, Esq., son of Ronald M. George, and Carlos Moreno, retired Associate Justice, now of counsel to Irell & Manella. Documentation related to RICO activities, mail fraud, securities fraud etc. is being requested, as well as AOC documentation. Again, thanks Justice America and others for all the valuable input. This information assists me greatly in the prosecution of the pending Orange County Superior Court. Certain of the remedies therein demand accountability from the AOC and for AOC and Supreme Court of CA to return ill-gotten gains. As part of my requested equitable relief, I will be praying that AOC be disbanded and have independent accountant/Receiver appointed. Thanks again for everyone’s assistance and of course Judicial Watcher.
Wendy Darling
May 31, 2012
Published today, Thursday, May 31, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Alliance Critical of Chief Justice’s Response to Committee Report
From Staff and Wire Service Reports
The Alliance of California Judges yesterday criticized Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye for criticizing the scathing report released Friday by the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
“The Alliance is troubled that the Chief Justice would immediately question the accuracy and validity of a report that was the product of a committee that she selected,” the directors of the alliance said in a statement. “Committee members worked diligently for over a year on the project while performing their duties as judges. We note that their task was made more difficult by the usual reticence of AOC staff to provide information.”
The statement included a link to a videotape in which the chief justice addresses AOC employees about the nearly-300-page report, which called the agency “dysfunctional.” The video was included in a Court News Update that the AOC regularly sends to judges, the alliance said.
The Alliance, in its initial response to the report on Tuesday, had criticized the chief justice for releasing the report on the eve of a holiday weekend, suggesting the timing was intended to mute media reaction.
‘Very Helpful Recommendations’
In her brief remarks, Cantil-Sakauye offered guarded praise for the committee, saying it had offered “some very helpful recommendations” which will be considered by the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee.
But she also suggested that the report was “a snapshot in time” that did not reflect the changes that have taken place at the AOC since the committee was formed over a year ago. She also told employees there was “a good chance you will find a find information that is substantially incorrect in your view,” and noted that the report was unlike a traditional audit, because there was no opportunity to respond before the report was finalized.
“While the report is critical of the AOC,” she added, “it is not critical of its employees.”
The committee which drew up the report was created in March 2001. It is chaired by retired Third District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland and includes Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. MacLaughlin and retired Superior Court Judge Judith Chirlin among its members.
The group described the AOC as secretive and top-heavy with overpaid executives.
Too Much Growth
The report chided the AOC for claiming in February that it employed “more than 750” when it concluded that the AOC has grown from 430 workers in 2002 to more than 1,100 last year with hundreds earning six figure salaries amid a supposed hiring freeze. AOC managers conceded they got around the hiring freeze by employing temporary and contract workers.
The report also said the AOC appeared guilty of violating its own work rules by allowing some workers to telecommute from long distances, including one attorney who works from Switzerland. The report criticized the agency for a lack of transparency.
“The AOC’s reporting of staffing levels has been misleading, leading to mistrust of the AOC,” the report said. “Disingenuously suggesting that AOC staffing levels have been reduced in response to branch-wide budget and staffing cuts has led to further mistrust and cynicism.”
‘Needs to Be Right-Sized’
The report calls for staffing cuts to fewer than 700 employees and for the agency’s headquarters to be moved from San Francisco to Sacramento, an idea recently rejected by a state Assembly committee. “The organization needs to be right-sized,” the report concluded.
The release of the report also comes amid Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to cut $544 million from the third branch’s budget.
In a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, the chief justice said the report was a look at the past and didn’t consider the AOC’s current plans to grapple with deep budget cuts. She also defended the timing of the release of the document, saying she released it as soon as she received it.
The alliance called the report “an A-to-Z indictment of an out of control organization,” and “an absolute ‘must read’ for everyone concerned about the functionality and credibility of our judicial branch.” The group called for even more staff cuts.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Keep swinging ACJ!
🙂
wearyant
May 31, 2012
Has anyone noticed the following:
“A federal grand jury is investigating possible criminal financial misconduct of the Los Angeles Dodgers and related entities during the ownership of Frank and Jamie McCourt, the Los Angeles Times reported.”
When will someone assemble a federal grand jury to look into the huge sums wasted by the JC/AOC with the CJ’s approval? How about the possible RICO violations that may have been committed? Misuse of public funds and malfeasance in office? Those matters are much more interesting and relevant to all California taxpayers than the McCourts. The wrong-doing is not limited by my imagination or knowledge of these thugs tearing down the California judicial branch. I think most of us are tired of hearing about the McCourts anyway, newspeople.
Long live the ACJ.
Recall Tani.
Delilah
May 31, 2012
Good call, Ant.
Sorta related:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/30/BAMM1OP8GR.DTL
There is no oversight anywhere. I am telling you, folks, it is by design. All these people belong to the same club. People in power (gov’t) cannot help themselves from thievery and gluttony, especially when there is no oversight, accountability or punishment for their corruption, criminality, and all manner of malfeasance. $250 is chump change compared to the billions wasted by the AOC. The Guv orders an audit into this license plate scheme, yet there already WAS an audit of the CCMS program (thanks to the ACJ and SEIU), and both the audit and the SEC report positively excoriate the CJ/AOC. Yet the Guv’s latest brainchild proposal is to turn over all trial court reserves to the very entity that has been proven to be corrupt, inept, and full of thieves? We have gone down the Rabbit Hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
Delilah
May 31, 2012
Should read “$250 million is chump change.”
unionman575
May 31, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/31/BUPF1OQ7TP.DTL
Administrative Office of the Courts needs trims
Andrew S. Ross, Chronicle Columnist
Thursday, May 31, 2012
As Gov. Jerry Brownhas made clear, California’s courts, including San Francisco’s, are facing more closings and layoffs in an attempt to close the state’s budget chasm.
But an official report, released ever-so-quietly over the Memorial Day weekend, suggests there are other places the governor should be looking.
The 298-page report, compiled by a panel of judges appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, takes a hard look at the system’s governing bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and finds it wanting in numerous ways.
For example: “Many of the AOC’s management functions – including the manner in which it carries out its decisions, plans projects, and exercises fiscal options – are flawed (and) lack transparency … with significant negative fiscal impacts as a result.”
Even as trial courts began laying off staff last year, the administrative office, which controls the courts’ purse strings as part of the state’s policy-making Judicial Council, continued to balloon in size, from 430 employees in 2002 to 1,100 in 2011, while its internal management “largely went unmonitored,” according to the report.
Among the unmonitored items:
— A slew of six-figure salaries enjoyed by its “overstaffed” management.
— “Seemingly unlimited funding” for what turned out to be a $1.9 billion white elephant – a computerized statewide case management system.
— $11 million annual rent for its San Francisco headquarters at 455 Golden Gate Ave. (when Sacramento, the state capital, would be so much cheaper).
— A “scholar in residence” who gets paid $6,000 a month, works part time and lives in Virginia.
— A full-time staff attorney listed as working in the San Francisco office who “telecommutes” from Switzerland.
The 11-member Strategic Evaluation Committee spent over a year putting the report together, concluding that “the AOC has not been credible or transparent concerning such important matters as budgeting, staffing levels, hiring freezes and furloughs, large-scale projects, and other areas of importance.”
Who’s in charge? The report makes 120 recommendations, including slashing the office’s payroll, eliminating many of its functions and moving its headquarters out of high-priced San Francisco.
While that would do little to mitigate the judiciary’s pain – compare the office’s 2010-11 budget of $163 million, as itemized on Brown’s “May revise,” with the $544 million in cuts he wants from the courts this year – at least some of the pain would be more equitably shared.
Commenting on the report, Cantil-Sakauye said cuts to the administrative office’s budget have already begun, including a planned staff reduction of approximately 250 by the end of the month.
However, she added, “I want to make sure that work of the committee is front and center on the Judicial Council’s agenda in the coming year.”
Whether the Judicial Council, the policy-making body that is supposed to oversee the office, is up to the job is another matter.
“The AOC is supposed to function as the staff to the Judicial Council, but the roles seem to have been reversed. It’s as if the bureaucracy has taken over the board of directors,” said San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein, echoing a criticism other California judges have made.
As to the report on the office itself, Feinstein said, “I have way more to say than The San Francisco Chronicle could possibly print.
“Aside from all the flaws and horrors the report points out, it’s prima facie evidence that the trial court’s financial future shouldn’t rest solely at the discretion of the Administrative Office of the Courts.”
Andrew S. Ross is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Blogging: http://www.sfgate.com/columns/bottomline E-mail: bottomline@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @andrewsross Facebook page: sfg.ly/doACKM
This article appeared on page D – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/31/BUPF1OQ7TP.DTL#ixzz1wVp0GMD6
Michael Paul
May 31, 2012
…and so it begins…
unionman575
May 31, 2012
🙂
Delilah
May 31, 2012
@MP. Yes, and so it begins. But when and how will it ever end? Please, somebody make it STOP!
JusticeCalifornia
May 31, 2012
yep. Fallout from the collapse of the corrupt house of cards.
Just beginning.
Dan Dydzak
May 31, 2012
Very perceptive, wearyant and others.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Agreed.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Hell no!
Click to access LEG12-02.pdf
Executive Summary and Origins
The Court Executives Advisory Committee1 recommends that the Judicial Council sponsor legislation to modernize and improve the statutes concerning the retention of trial court records and to realize financial savings. Specifically, this proposal recommends that the records retention statutes be amended to authorize the destruction of various court records earlier than is permitted under existing law; this will enable the trial courts to reduce their storage costs. The amendments will also establish statutory records retention periods for new types of records that are not dealt with under existing law—such as records resulting from the new criminal realignment process. The proposed amendments will eliminate gaps and ambiguities in the law relating to records retention; this will clarify for how long certain records are to be retained. This proposal will also amend the trial court records statutes to clarify that the clerk of the court may use technology to generate certified copies of court records. Finally, the amendments will result in Government Code section 68152, the main records retention statute, being organized in a more logical, readable and understandable manner.
Dan Dydzak
May 31, 2012
It is about time the mainstream press and some great reporters are finally writing about the AOC mess. It is amazing that the government goes after John Edwards — whatever one thinks of that prosecution, arguably over its prurient interest in a love child and a sexy mistress — and neglects the big fish in the ocean. Attorney Holder knows about the transgressions but does not act in any meaningful manner. Ms. Harris’ response on behalf of the CA government is coming due, yet I have not heard from any attorney in her LA office or elsewhere.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Click to access reduced_court_hours_notice.pdf
PUBLIC NOTICE OF REDUCED COURT HOURS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106
AND CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT, RULE 10.620
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: MAY 29, 2012
Pursuant to Government Code section 68106, the Superior Court of California, County of Orange is providing 60 days’ notice of the reduction of hours of operation for each of the branches of the court.
Effective Monday, July 30, 2012 and except as provided below, the regular hours of operation for the Clerk’s offices will be 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding judicial holidays. Clerk’s offices shall be closed for the transaction of business after 4:00 p.m.
The financial constraints imposed by the California state fiscal crisis, as well as the repeated decreases in state court funding, compel this reduction in court hours.
unionman575
May 31, 2012
I responded to the service reduction above in OC Superior and this is the BULLSHIT I received:
Way to go Chief Executive Officer Alan Carlson…I am NOT a fan of yours Big Al…
“Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. A key goal of the Court is to serve the public courteously and efficiently. As a reminder emails sent to Criminal Traffic Internet Feedback will not receive a response and will only be used to improve the Orange County Superior Court website and help the Court meet this goal.
Public trust and confidence in the judicial system is a core value of this Court. Any input from the community is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
The Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Criminal Traffic Internet Feedback
wearyant
May 31, 2012
Geeeezz, I hope your bucket was handy nearby. What smarmy, unctuous language Carlson uses to basically tell you to buzz off. The “civility” and “collegiality” this JC/AOC criminal enterprise would nauseate anyone with half a brain.
Wendy Darling
May 31, 2012
If I Only Had A Brain :
(Scarecrow)
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain
I’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain
(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain
I’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you’d be thinkin’
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain
(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
unionman575
May 31, 2012
Ant -I have a 5 gallon bucket right here in case of emergency.
wearyant
June 1, 2012
Wendy Darling and Unionman —
😀
Wendy Darling
June 1, 2012
Thanks, Ant! 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
May 31, 2012
ummmmmm. . . . .maybe Alan shouldn’t be [grooming for future use] taking so many of his Orange County employees to expensive luxury national state court administrator gigs.
unionman575
June 1, 2012
I know some here feel he has some “potential”. I don’t. He is a “POS”. (Not a reference to proof of service)
Oh my! Pardon my French!
🙂
unionman575
June 1, 2012
Now I understand Tani:
unionman575
June 1, 2012
This one reminds me of your temper tantrums in the office Jody Patel:
courtflea
June 2, 2012
back at you Wendy and this is for the CJ, Jody, Kim Turner, other dip shit kiss butts that are just looking for political power, not giving a crap about the branch, et. al.:
Tin Man
When a man’s an empty kettle he should be on his mettle,
And yet I’m torn apart.
Just because I’m presumin’ that I could be kind-a-human,
If I only had heart.
I’d be tender – I’d be gentle and awful sentimental
Regarding Love and Art.
I’d be friends with the sparrows … and the boys who shoots the arrows
If I only had a heart.
Picture me – a balcony. Above a voice sings low.
Dorothy
Wherefore art thou, Romeo?
Tin Man
I hear a beat….How sweet.
Just to register emotion, jealousy – devotion,
And really feel the part.
I could stay young and chipper and I’d lock it with a zipper, If I only had a heart.
On another note: Alan Carlson would be horrible as the new Direcktor. Not that he is not a nice guy but he is just another plain ole yes man. Outside CA canidates: they will bolt as soon as they see the SEC report. But hey, since when has the AOC put the right person in there….I mean Bil. V, Ron O? Jody? pleeze. I am not suprised with any of this stuff, but it never ceases to amaze me. Makes the word bureaucrat sound like an accroynm for genious.
Will Steve Love (a former Vickrey crony from Utah) come creeping out of the walls ala Carlson? Will M Roddy slither up from down south? Will Jody remain after her hatchet job at the AOC? Will former Judge/Scholar in residence Rodger Warren or Clark Kelso emerge as the dark horses in order to continue on the dole of the AOC? Wait! Don’t touch that dial! Tune in next week or whenever frikin ever for your answers 🙂 But my bet is still on Roddy BUT maybe in order to placate the legislature, Tani may choose Kelso since he is stupidly considered a god by all other state agencies to come in and clean up after the shit hits the fan. Hummm. Will be interesting, but I predict ultimately a lame choice that won’t satisfy anyone with a brain or heart.
Wendy Darling
June 2, 2012
Or anyone with courage.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 2, 2012
I don’t think Cantil Sakauye can pick anyone involved in the past AOC debacles for top leadership positions anymore. In fact, at present the best arguments for our gambling barmaid herself to step down are that a) she fully vetted and approved everything that crossed the Judicial Council’s path for three years before she became CJ; b) she has staffed her administration with Team George leftovers who were intimately involved in the creation of the AOC monstrosity; and c) she has been one of the most vocal advocates for giving the AOC not less, but MORE power over the the trial courts and MORE money.
I would venture a guess that the idea of an SEC report may have been planted in our cj’s mind by a certain Justice Scotland who back in early 2011 was still very publicly one of Sakauye’s trusted advisors/mentors. I doubt that if Sakauye had ANY idea where it would lead she wouldn’t have gone forward. Once the information for the report was solicited and gathered, the raw data was created, and you can water down raw data, and put spin on it, but in the end if the report is questioned the raw data can be hauled out and compared to the final product.
If I am wrong, and the SEC was Sakauye’s brainchild, and she intends to responsibly follow through and clean house, I apologize for doubting her. Let’s see. . . .she is now on the hotseat, and has a responsiblity to clean up the problems revealed in that SEC report.
Think about it–
If a publicly-held business was being robbed and going belly-up under the leadership, direction and management of the board of directors, CEO, COO, CFO and their inner circle of satellite directors — all of whom had a shared idea for how to run the company (screw the stockholders, stakeholders, employees, the quality of the product, and the public; heap enormous salary and pension benefits upon the inner circle; issue false financial and business reports; refuse to turn over information upon demand of stockholders and regulatory agencies; contract with unlicensed contractors and companies with a long history of litigation based upon poor performance; etc., etc. etc.) — there would be regulatory and probably criminal investigations, and demands for restitution, sanctions, and a clean sweep.
I hope Sakauye understands that EVERYONE expects the Chief Justice of the largest judiciary in the Western World to immediately clean house and start serving the public, and unless and until she does, the branch ain’t getting its allowance — or any credibility or respect. Given the information in the BSA and SEC reports. . .and all the talk of Vickrey, Overholt, Roddy,Huffman etc still wandering the halls. . . .and the fact that Team George sycophants remain firmly in charge. . . .Tani is on borrowed time. She better act fast or get the hell out.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 2, 2012
I have often wondered why Tani picked Justice Scotland to lead the SEC and Justice California, your post makes it clear. But oh my, oh, my, she had to absolutely clueless about her trusted advisor/mentor if she thought he would write anything other than what the survey/investigation disclosed. Any one of a thousand people could have told her that — or did she think that based on her relationship with him, he would do her bidding? Even I would not have made that mistake.
Michael Paul
June 2, 2012
If the Chief Justice were serious about AOC reform, she would move quickly to implement the SEC recommendations while cleaning house at the same time.
If she does nothing except send out soothing messages of support to AOC employees, come June 30th the judicial branch will have reaped the seeds sown by this chief. I agree with the chief that the SEC does not have a problem with AOC employees – and most of those employees would make exceptional additions to any organization – and many of the rank and file would make great managers in this organization.
The current management must be replaced. This is where the issues lie, where the lies and deceit are incubated and where everyone takes the ethics courses but only those below management actually adhere to them
Judge Kennelly suggested the best course of action. Come forward, admit your failures, Invite investigation and move forward. Otherwise you will probably move forward, stick your head in the sand some more and make my day, day after day after day. You might as well disband the office of communications while you’re at it though because I think we’re doing a damn effective job of making pariahs out of them and it would be a good way of saving several million a year.
courtflea
June 2, 2012
Yes Wendy, courage. IJustice CA, I just have to disagree, that is way too conspiracy theory for even my jaded soul. Justice Scotland is an honorable man.
courtflea
June 2, 2012
Sorry I cut off that last post too soon. I have never heard an ill word about Justice S. but maybe JCA, you know more than I the humble flea.
Also, I just wanted to say that anyone that had a brain, a heart, and courage, WILL NOT be the next dirkector. Maybe somewhere over the rainbow (while we are on the OZ theme) but not in our lifetime.If you care, you cannot be that politically powerful. Did any of you hear the story of the CEO that took over Sunbeam Corp and just loved firing people, especially after like 30 years with the company? What is the right word for these folks? megliomaniacs? sociopaths?….nice people don’t make it to the top of this POS. This new Dirkector will need to use bath salts to continue the death star’s wishes.
JusticeCalifornia
June 2, 2012
courtflea, I don’t know and have no experience with Justice Scotland, but apparently everyone on this blog agrees with you. I was NOT saying there was a conspiracy between Scotland and Tani re the SEC.
What I was saying is that, as a reportedly honorable man, he might have mentioned to his protegee that it would be a good idea to get input about the AOC from the trial courts. When the info rolled in and the gambling barmaid realized she had a tiger by the tail, thanks to her mentor. . . .perhaps mentor and protegee parted ways.
I could be completely wrong. But that certainly looks like a possibility.
We know Justice Scotland got into a beef about the AOC’s refusal to provide requested info, and we have heard that he gave Tani some 411 she didn’t like early this year. . . .then quickly exited the SEC scene within a couple of weeks.
Go figure.
Eventually we will connect the dots.
Wendy Darling
June 2, 2012
It would seem, Justice California, that the dots are beginning to connect themselves.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 2, 2012
Yes indeed, Wendy.
This is going to be an interesting month.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 3, 2012
I worked with Justice Scotland over a period of years (I started at McAllister and moved with the AOC to Marathon Plaza, and then to the Crystal Palace), and I am frankly puzzled in some ways by the selection. Justice Scotland is charming, intelligent, deeply conservative, and I would have always characterized him as not a huge fan of the AOC and its bureaucracy — and that is where I found the choice by the CJ odd. I can never imagine him expressing support nor “feeling the love” for the AOC bureaucracy, which had grown obscenely over the time he served on various JC Advisory Committees. Hell, he thought there was tremendous overreach by the AOC when we were working at Marathon Plaza!
Clearly the CJ wanted a whitewash report; she should have picked someone else for that.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 3, 2012
…or more briefly, the CJ is as poor at reading people as she is reading her current situation.
Wendy Darling
June 3, 2012
More directly, Res Ipsa, it was presumed that Justice Scotland could be controlled; more specifically, it was presumed that Scotland could be manipulated. Talk about not being able to accurately read a situation, or a person, anyone that knows Justice Scotland, knows he is not one that can be manipulated.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 3, 2012
” … the CJ is as poor at reading people as she is reading her current situation.”
Interesting thought, Res Ipsa. And teensy Tani thinks she’s so good at zeroing in after discerning the “tell.”
Has Hon. Scotland left the California bench entirely? I believe he is currently working as an attorney in a complex matter at bar?
JusticeCalifornia
June 3, 2012
cantil sakauye has embarrassed and compromised many of those who once supported her, and misread, insulted and underestimated her opponents across the board.
Thanks to her ego; her relatively lackluster educational, professional, and administrative background; her reliance on Team George leftovers; and her proven willingness to say anything and do the down and dirty in order to get what she wants, she is her own — and many believe the branch’s– worst enemy.
She needs to “get it” or get out.
We are going to see what she is made of and where she intends to take the branch this month.
Ummmmm. . . .when is she going to reveal who the AOC direktor candidates are? A day or two before the next JC meeting, as usual? Of course she knows who the candidates are– she is just not revealing them.