.
June 6, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
Many courts in the last few months have notified employees that they will be laid off effective June 1st. These are dedicated, hard-working people who are on the front line of what we do in the local courts: judicial assistants, court reporters, front counter staff, the list goes on. While these painful cuts are being delivered to our employees, the AOC continues to hire, notwithstanding its self proclaimed ” hiring freeze.” Click here to see the recent job announcements.
Among the many troubling issues addressed in last Friday’s SEC report was that the AOC lacks credibility. We agree. How does one credibly request of legislators that our branch be spared further cuts when the central bureaucracy continues to hire? How does one credibly argue that the Judicial Council should be entrusted with “emergency funds” to assist the local courts, while the central bureaucracy does business as usual? How does one credibly assert that the branch has been “cut to the bone,” when it is obvious that bloat continues unabated by those charged with managing our fiscal affairs?
As further evidence that it is business as usual at the AOC, we also report to you that the CCMS (wasn’t it killed off?) demonstration for selected invitees has been rescheduled due to “technical difficulties.” Following is the agenda:
_______________________
Functional Demonstration of CCMS – Agenda
10am – 12 pm (WebEx is booked until 1pm in the event of extra questions).
o Opening Remarks
o Functional Demonstrations of CCMS followed by Q & A
o Global User Interface and Navigation
o Civil Case Initiation
o Civil Judgment
o Felony Case Initiation
o Felony Courtroom Minutes
o Family Law Mediation Investigator Report
When: Friday, June 8, 2012 10:00 AM-12:00 PM.
In the next few days, we expect that you will hear additional evidence of the need for reform. We intend to keep you informed of all of these matters.
Restoring credibility in the Judicial Branch will require true reform.That’s why the Alliance supports democratizing the Judicial Council and passing AB 1208. We can no longer afford decisionmaking done by an insular chosen few and a bureaucracy that sees itself at the top of an organizational chart.
The AOC announced yesterday that roughly 1/3 of the recommendations of the SEC committee have either been partially or fully implemented. The basic concerns noted in the SEC report have not been addressed and the culture of control and self-determination at the AOC has not been changed. Perhaps yet another “independent consultant” will now be retained, at taxpayer’s expense, to verify that all is well and that the 300-page report, the product of 55 weeks of research, was but a “snapshot in time.” We would rather see the recommendations of the SEC implemented.
A thoughtful editorial from Bill Girdner of the Courthouse News, setting forth his views on the SEC report, follows.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________
A Long Ways to Go
By BILL GIRDNER
For all the worries that it would soft-pedal the problems, the 11-judge committee hit hard in its massive analysis of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo called me on Saturday over Memorial Day weekend — after I had just gone for an ocean swim — saying the story could not wait.
“This report is scathing as hell,” she then emailed. “I’m only 10 pages into it and it’s so damn quotable. It even says the AOC had 1,100 employees in 2010-2011, which we reported and were accused of misrepresenting.”
And indeed the Strategic Evaluation Committee’s report covers a lot of ground and delves into an array of shortcomings at the administrative office that are impressive by their sheer number. But the matter that most intrigued me was how the money controlled by the bureaucrats is doled out.
The adage “follow the money” tends to provide good results for reporters looking into an organization and, when we could get financial information, we have focused on the issue of how financial decisions are made at the administrative office.
For example, Dinzeo’s story showing that, based on administrative office numbers, Californians would be spending $240,000 a day on a big IT project — every single day from now until half way through 2014 — was a shocker. A judge called it “a nuclear bomb.”
But we had consistently heard commentary from judges saying that the bureaucrats played favorites with the trial courts based largely on the head clerk. So little was disclosed about funding decisions by the central office, however, that we could not track the story down.
So the biggest eye opener of the report was the confirmation that financial decisions were made “on an ad-hoc basis” by the administrative director. Said the report, “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.”
But the report did not get into specifics. So the veil of mystery remains about the actual favorites, about what projects and what courts were favored through the ad-hoc system.
You can bet Los Angeles was not one of them.
The court has fought the administrative office on every attempt by the bureaucrats to impose a central control on the trial courts through technology, both on the centralized financial software and the centralized case management software.
The dispute over the financial software came to a head with the central bureaucrats threatening to hold back funds and Los Angeles officials making it plain that the bureaucrats did not have that authority and, furthermore, that they would be “misappropriating” public money if they did.
It is fair to characterize those terms, in the context of the normally polite and formalistic exchanges of bureaucrats, as fightin’ words.
So that is the next hill to climb on the way to reform of the administrative office, putting in place a system that shows how the money is spent and ensures a fair process for making those decisions, as opposed to the current feudal system of fear and favor.
The question remains whether that hill will be climbed.
In the wake of the report, most trial judges and most observers looked with understanding on the chief justice’s effort to buck up the staff at the administrative office. But her argument that a lot of change has already taken place sounded familiar.
For example, the state auditor rebuked the administrators last year over financial decisions and statements regarding the bureaucracy’s boondoggle of an IT system. Literally within minutes, the administrators put out a press release saying they had already implemented most of the auditor’s recommendations.
It would fair to say that was not true, based on the findings of the judges’s recent report, which banged a lot harder on the same basic points as the auditor, about lack of accuracy, transparency and professionalism in the financial decisions by the administrative office.
In a video circulated to the administrative staff, the chief justice said, “The report is a snapshot in time about an AOC that in some ways has substantially changed since the SEC began its work.”
The judge who heads the committee that wrote the report, Charles Wachob, was careful to not overstate the amount of change that has taken place. He told Dinzeo, “Several division directors left and some divisions were consolidated, so yes, I guess there has been some change.”
That leaves an awful lot of change still to go.
Related articles
- Legislative action now needed – Contact your legislators (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Two new ACJ articles for discussion: The fallout and the CJ’s response (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Petition to disband the AOC nears 500 signatures (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Judicial Council Watcher
June 8, 2012
A special thanks goes out to AOC management who yesterday assisted us in establishing yet another new readership record.
wearyant
June 8, 2012
Congratulations, JCW. This board has uncovered and shown the chutzpah and hubris of the AOC; the mismanagement and attempts at cover-up; the misuse of public funds and cronyism in high places; the hearty partying during an agenda that is based on budget concerns; and on and on in this bloated, gangland concern that cheats the public and blatantly lies to the trial court judges whom it is supposed to serve.
But now — the AOC has proven itself to be CERTIFIABLY INSANE!
Recall Tani
Long live the ACJ
Disgorge AB 1208, Steinberg! The absence (hahahaha) of billV and big ronnyG does not make you king!
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
My question is: when is the blame going to be placed squarely where it belongs– and that is on Tani Cantil Sakauye? She and her best bud Patel are running the branch show.
The fact that the AOC is hiring. . .while the AOC spokesman cannot give basic details about how many AOC workers will be affected by layoffs or the amount of money that will be saved is well. . . . .same as it ever was.
From yesterday’s (June 7) Recorder article:
“Have we been presented with all the kinds of programs … that do not directly provide justice in the courtroom as alternatives in this year’s budget?” asked Senator Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. “What about AOC programs?”
Told by finance staff that the Judicial Council had scrapped the Court Case Management System and “those savings” were taken into account in the governor’s budget, Lowenthal responded, “Well, I’m still not satisfied.”
Fasten you seat belts, ladies and gentlemen. The branch is in for a bumpy ride. No one is buying the bull$$$$ that the gambling barmaid and her best bud Jody are serving up.
Team George members remain firmly in charge at the AOC and until that changes, EVERYONE knows nothing will really change, and the branch is going to continue to lose credibility and have its ass kicked.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 8, 2012
I wonder who at the AOC is presenting this CCMS “functional demonstration” and more importantly I wonder who the attendees might be. Is there any court so desperate to “buy” a failed product when they can buy something off the shelf from vendors with demonstrated success less? Or is this a publicity exercise? Ahh, to be a fly on the wall!
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
RIL, my question is whether this is going to be a way for people like Kim Turner to “park” court reserves and funnel money to the AOC in the guise of buying into CCMS. It appears from the Marin budgets for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Turner moved $2 million in reserves to commit a whopping $3.8 million 2011-2012 for Marin Court IT– yet here we are, at the end of the fiscal year, and Marin’s IT system still cannot create an online register of actions. And an off-the-shelf system with e-filing capabilities has been and is reportedly available to Marin for $700K.
Let’s see.
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
hmmmmm. . . . .what is the family law mediation investigator report that is going to be unveiled today? I am guessing it is NOT the report requested by the Judicial Council in October of 2010 about best practices in retaining Family Court Services child custody evidence so it is available to challenge Family Court Services custody recommendations at trial.
I suspect bolstering claims of how top leadership’s pet project CCMS is going to “help” family court users is far more important to Cantil Sakauye and the AOC than creating and handing over a damning Judicial Council report that will undoubtedly support the retention of Family Court Services child custody evidence — of the type that the AOC and Kim Turner enthusiastically destroyed during the BSA investigation of the Marin family court.
Let’s see.
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
CCMS is the AOC’s own version of Fatal Attraction; it just won’t die.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
Anyone in favor of stripping pension benefits and a criminal investigation? It has been done.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/record-cuts-in-made-in-pensions-of-top-vernon-officials.html
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
CalPers also recently stripped pension benefits for a number of those corrupt public officers in the City of Bell, many of whom are now under criminal indictment.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
Aye
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
Published today, Friday, June 8, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo (and in a related note, not a single attorney was laid off in the AOC’s Office of General Counsel this week, and that includes the attorneys “telecommuting” from Europe):
General Counsel’s Office Focus of Criticism in Wake of Judges’ Report
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In the wake of a scathing critique of California’s court bureaucracy, trial judges have targeted the General Counsel’s Office within that bureaucracy as inefficient, overstaffed and out of line.
The general counsel, Mary Roberts, has been the focus of criticism over the hiring decisions and practices of her office, which allow a number of lawyers to work from home. She is also referred to indirectly by the judges who wrote last week’s 221-page analysis.
“It is appropriate to question the effectiveness of the management of the Office of the General Counsel,” said the report from 11 judges on the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
Not unlike the difficulty encountered by the committee in getting a fix on the overall staff size at the administrative office, the sum of lawyers working for the general counsel has proven to be a slippery and elusive figure.
In a related matter, the general counsel’s office hired another lawyer earlier this year despite a hiring freeze. The new lawyer formerly worked at the same law firm as general counsel Roberts and replaces a retiring lawyer who also worked at the same firm at the same time.
The hire was made without a public posting.
In its report, the judges’ committee recommended that the administrative office cut its staff by hundreds of employees, rather than add on staff. Yet, the general counsel’s office announced a week ago that it is hiring another legal assistant.
As the judges committee pointed out, many of the staff lawyers work from home. And none of them want to set foot in an actual courtroom. They outsource that work to private firms, often expensive, top-of-the-line, business litigation firms.
Hiring During a Freeze
When retired Los Angeles judge Charles Horan asked recently how the new lawyer was hired, Chad Finke who directs the administrative office’s court services division replied, “Rebecca Kleinman worked as an associate attorney (1989-1991) at the law firm at which Mary Roberts was a partner.”
He went on to say the new lawyer was hired based on an “exemption” to the hiring freeze.
“An exemption to the AOC hiring freeze was granted in January 2012 in light of a longstanding vacant attorney position in OGC’s Labor and Employment Unit and the anticipated retirement of a senior attorney in that unit. Ms. Kleinman was hired pursuant to the authorized exemption in light of her over 24 years of law practice in employment law, traditional labor law, litigation, and litigation management.”
The AOC’s spokesman refused to provide a resume for Kleinman, directing a reporter to instead to make an official request for public information, a process that takes takes weeks or months.
He had the same response to a request to confirm the private firm where general counsel Roberts had worked, also referring that question to the process for requesting public information. Roberts herself returned a call to say she had worked at Corbett & Kane which later merged into Crosby Heafey Roach & May, a 200-lawyer Oakland firm.
Meanwhile, a trip to San Francisco’s law library — behind city hall and above a theatre, with fluorescent lighting and aging carpets — shows that while Kleinman became a lawyer 24 years ago, she moved firms frequently, dropped out of active practice on two separate occasions, and at one point worked for herself.
She first worked at Corbett & Kane from 1989-1991, a small, boutique firm of 12 lawyers based in Oakland. She worked for Seyfarth Shaw in 1992 and Arnold Laub in 1996.
A bound volume of Martindale Hubbell in the law library for 1999 shows that she worked for herself in that year. Bar records show that late in that same year, she became inactive.
She returned to active status in 2001 but there there are no records in Martindale Hubbell showing employment. Bar records show she again dropped out of active practice in 2008 only returned to active status in October 2011.
Kleinman was hired a five months later by Roberts, in February of this year, to replace Tim Emert, a “senior attorney” with a job that pays 134,000 a year. Kleinman’s pay will be about $119,000 a year.
Emert, Kleinman and Roberts all worked together from 1989 -1991 at the 12-lawyer firm of Corbett & Kane.
A staff member at the AOC, speaking not for attribution, said that Emert had only worked five years, long enough to vest in the office’s generous pension plan. The AOC’s spokesman declined to say how long Emert had worked for the AOC and refused to say whether he had received a pension, referring both questions to the public information request process.
Raising a concern among trial judges, Kleinman’s hiring earlier this year was done without a public posting. In his correspondence with retired Judge Horan, court services director Finke said the position was not posted anywhere and there were no other applicants for the job.
“No, there was no posting,” Finke conceded.
Horan said in an interview, “They swore up, down and sideways that there was a hiring freeze on and that they were downsizing, and they are hiring an attorney without the public knowing about it.”
The failure to publicly post the job opening appears to have been a way to keep the matter quiet, said Horan. “It appears this was done in such a way so as to preclude the public from becoming aware of it.”
The personnel manual for the administrative office says specifically, “Generally, job openings are announced to current AOC employees and to the public in order to reach a wide range of qualified applicants. The AOC conducts recruitment in an effort to promote a diverse pool of qualified applicants.”
Hiring the lawyer without public notice, said Horan, “appears to be in contravention of the AOC’s own policy.”
As of last Friday, the general counsel’s office is hiring for yet another legal job, in this case a legal assistant.
That position is posted on the administrative office’s hiring site, along with a message that lists a host of exemptions to the freeze.
The hirings run contrary to strong recommendations from the judges committee and from legislators, saying the number of staff needs to go down, not up.
In their report, the judges said the administrative office should reduce its staff to somewhere between 680 and 780 which would represent a cut of roughly a third from the office’s staff size of 1,100, a number extracted by the committee after a struggle with the administrators.
The head of the state Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, Mike Feuer, also said in budget hearings this week that the administrative office needs to cut more staff.
A Greased Number
As it was for the judges’ committee in trying to get a fix on the overall staff size at the AOC, so it is that the number of lawyers working for the general counsel’s office is a slippery one.
The committee of judges says the office has “over 50 lawyers.”
A spokesman for the administrative office says the office has “43 attorneys on staff.”
Matching up bar records with a personnel list for the AOC yields yet another number — 46 lawyers.
But a much larger group of lawyers work for the administrative office as a whole.
“The sheer number of attorneys in the AOC is eye-catching,” said the judges’ report. “In addition to the approximately 50 attorneys in the OGC division, there are nearly 50 employed in other divisions. Thus, the total number of attorney positions in the AOC is close to 100, or approximately one-tenth of the total AOC workforce.”
The administrative office’s spokesman argued that many of the lawyers on the staff may not work as lawyers.
“If you really wanted to know how many happen to be lawyers, we would have to survey the personnel records for all AOC employees as well as survey all AOC employees to find out how many happen to be lawyers,” wrote spokesman Philip Carrizosa. “In that instance, you should file a public records request.”
Matching up the list of all AOC employees shows a total of 91 “active” lawyers working at the administrative office. The list of employees is the most recent full list of staff made publicly available and is current as of July of last year.
The bar’s designation of “active” means a lawyer has paid the high dues required when a lawyer gives legal advice and holds him or herself out as a practicing lawyer. Members of the bar who are not currently practicing law generally designate themselves as “inactive” and pay a greatly reduced membership fee.
The judges’ committee and individual trial judges have noted that with all that firepower, the general counsel’s office is very shy about actually setting foot in a courtroom.
Among the options held by the administrative office, one is to send its own well compensated and active members of the bar to argue before a judge or jury.
A second is to refer the matter to the state attorney general.
The third and most expensive option is to hire a private litigation firm.
“We note that the AOC, which rarely if ever sends lawyers to court, prefers to contract for outside counsel,” wrote Kern County Judge David Lampe.
(In the interest of full disclosure, it should also be noted that Courthouse News filed a complaint last year against the Ventura County clerk over delayed access to public documents in that court. In the ongoing litigation, the clerk is being represented by the Los Angeles firm of Jones Day.)
In one their many recommendations for reform, the judges’ report last week recommended that either the Judicial Council and the administrative office director “should order an independent review of this office’s use, selection, and management of outside legal counsel.”
More bluntly, Judge Steve White in Sacramento said that rather than hiring more lawyers, the administrative office should be laying most of them off.
“The 100-plus lawyers should be cut by at least two-thirds,” said White. “Not next year. Now.”
The ‘Gatekeeper’
On the separate issue of the role played by the general counsel, the judges found in their report that the general counsel’s office had overstepped its bounds.
“Managers within the AOC express concerns that the General Counsel regards herself as a ‘gatekeeper’ for matters that are put before the Judicial Council and that the General Counsel has inserted herself into the policy making functions of the Judicial Council, as opposed to the more appropriate role of providing legal services and advice,” they said in their report.
The Judicial Council, made up of judges and led by the chief justice, is the top policy making body for California’s judiciary.
Not only had the general counsel overstepped her bounds, said the report, but her office was also playing politics.
“Multiple courts express concern that advice given by Office of the General Counsel is political or result-oriented in the sense that it may be colored by placing the AOC’s interests ahead of the specific interests of the trial court,” said the report.
“For this reason, and because of other issues discussed in this section, many courts simply lack trust or confidence in OGC.”
The judges also noted that the administrative office’s tendency to aggrandize job titles extended to the general counsel’s office.
“From a historical perspective, an office that was once shown in AOC organization charts as the Office of Legal Services has been elevated in status, becoming the Office of General Counsel,” said the report. “All of these developments point to the need for redefining the proper role of the AOC’s top legal adviser.”
Among the recommendations from the judges, they said the general counsel’s job should be defined so it is clear that her main job is to provide legal advice and services, and not to develop policy.
“Most fundamentally,” said the report, “this division should employ and emphasize a customer service model of operation.”
A Big Staff Slowly Writing Opinions
The traditional function of an agency’s legal counsel is to write legal opinions on issues facing the bureaucrats. But the judges on the committee found that the general counsel’s office was doing an inadequate job of handling even that traditional function.
“A significant number of courts report unnecessary delay in obtaining legal opinions or advice from OGC,” said the report. “For example, multiple courts report that requests were made for legal opinions, for which opinions were not issued for many months, or for a year or more.”
Back in 2006, the report notes, these legal delays were investigated by an independent consulting firm, which recommended that the Office of the General Counsel should better monitor its performance on issuing legal opinions and give courts better access to prior legal opinions.
“Since neither of these recommendations appear to have been implemented to any perceptible degree,” said the report, “it is appropriate to question the effectiveness of the management of OGC and its level of commitment to providing timely service to the courts.”
Some courts complained that the AOC’s liberal telecommuting policy also precluded judges from meeting with attorneys and obtaining legal advice.
The committee found that one attorney telecommuted from Switzerland, and two others from Maryland and Minnesota. Those kind of work arrangements violate administrative office policy, said the report, but they were OK’d by Roberts and the former director William Vickrey.
The report’s authors told the story of a trial court that asked for a meeting with a general counsel office lawyer over advice he had given, only to be told a meeting was not possible because he worked at home in another state.
“These types of permitted, telecommute arrangements demonstrate not only a deficient service orientation to the courts but also a seeming arrogance or lack of sensitivity in the eyes of many budget-strapped courts that cannot afford the luxury of such arrangements,” wrote the judges in their report.
Personnel policies, they added “are not enforced – or are simply ignored,” the judges found. “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.”
A list of telecommuting workers obtained by the reform group Alliance of California Judges revealed the AOC allows at least 98 workers to work from home.
In addition to the three that live and work in Switzerland, Maryland and Minnesota, there are three more stay-at-home lawyers, according to that list, earning salaries ranging from $120,000 a year to $156,000 a year.
Judge Runston Maino of San Diego made the point that attorneys working for the highest courts in the state are not allowed to work from home.
“Having at attorney telecommuting from Geneva for two years or living in Minnesota is not justified,” said Maino. “To my knowledge, no attorney assigned to the Supreme Court or to any Court of Appeal has been allowed an extended period of telecommuting from out of state. If it is not done by these courts it should not be done by the AOC.”
He added that the Judicial Council should have put its foot down long ago. “I cannot understand how the Judicial Council lets the AOC get away with what the AOC has done and is still doing.”
For months, Maino had been asking the AOC for information on its stay-at-home workers, and as the report’s authors also noted, the AOC was less than forthcoming in its answers.
“The AOC has not been forthcoming about who telecommutes and the list that they just published does not seem to be complete,” Maino said. He pointed out that the attorneys in Switzerland and Minnesota were not even on the list.
“The SEC had difficulty in obtaining timely and correct information from the AOC and I have had the same experience,” said Maino. “In my opinion, the AOC is more interested in protecting the AOC than in protecting the public.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/47289.htm
And speaking of close ties between law firms and attorneys from those law firms that now work in the AOC’s Office of General Counsel, don’t forget to inlclude the firm of Wiley, Price, and Radulovich, or, as it is commonly referred to at the AOC, “the law firm that built OGC,” and which regularly gets a big chunk of those outside contract legal fees from the AOC. Any comments, Michael Paul?
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
Judge Maino: “In my opinion, the AOC is more interested in protecting the AOC than in protecting the public.”
Bingo.
John
June 8, 2012
Aoc layoff 29 line staffs, were escort out like were fired. Left Manager/Supervisor with no staff under………… What a joke.
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
But so not a surprise.
Long live the ACJ.
Lucy Van Pelt
June 9, 2012
I’d love to see a list of positions. Given the way that leadership operates I would lay good money on the fact that the 29 employees that got the boot were seen by leadership fairly or unfairly as “problems” and since they have no consistent disiciplining procedure or any way to grade anyone’s performance(as laid out inthe SEC report) or there may have been no real problem there, they saw this as an easy out for them. Just knowing the people involved in making these decisions, my guess is that some manager was afraid that one of their employees would flip out or try and steal something, so they treated all of the employees to this behavior. They don’t think about outcomes that much at the crystal palace, they could have treated them with a little dignity and it would have gone a long way. They have now made it worse for the people left behind, talk about being paranoid that it might happen to you.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 9, 2012
We were afraid of that and we got wind that the AOC would conduct layoffs like this demonstrating how unvalued and unwelcome your service has been to them. Meanwhile they speak out of the other side of their mouth and praise those loyal public servants they laid off in press releases.
Michael Paul
June 9, 2012
I’m currently working with an entity that is laying off thousands of people. All of those people were given layoff notices and advance notice that their jobs might end on a few dates certain. The layoffs are being conduced in waves along with a buyout that extended until the first day of layoff.
As those layoff dates come up and hundreds of people at a time leave, there is lots of camaraderie and emotion around their departure. There are goodbye parties. There is the exchanging of numbers and contact information so people can stay in touch with each other.
What the AOC is attempting to do is catch people off-guard and alienate them from their coworkers by escorting them out of the building mid-day. It’s despicable and I would hope that more AOC employees scream about this practice, less they be next.
Wendy Darling
June 9, 2012
Under California law. AOC employees are entitled to 60 days notice prior to layoff, as well as other protections.
Long live the ACJ.
Metta
June 9, 2012
Sorry John but this is incorrect. MOst if not all 29 people who were laid off were all part of units that had multiple employees under a supervisor or manager. Lets not exaggerate the issues.
Metta
June 9, 2012
Wendy the WARN act does not cover federal, state or local employees. There are also other factors where 60 days notice is not required.
Wendy Darling
June 9, 2012
Government Code Section 19997.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
Speaking of interesting relationships in the AOC’s OGC, here are other dots to connect.
As I understand it (someone correct me if I am wrong):
One of the senior supervising attorneys in the OGC is named Linda Foy. Before coming to the AOC Foy was the law clerk to Judge Marilyn Patel in the Northern District Federal Court.
Foy was assigned as the senior supervising attorney to one of the AOC’s most political employee whistleblower cases, involving Paula Negley.
The original judge assigned to determine Foy’s AOC case defending against Negley’s claims was abruptly recused and the case was assigned to (surprise, surprise) . . . . Marilyn Patel. Patel then granted summary judgment to the AOC, in the face of overwhelming evidence of retaliation and truly atrocious behavior by AOC members, including but not limited to Kenneth Couch.
Foy is still at the AOC and Couch has been rewarded for his reported horrific (and I mean really, really vicious) employment behavior by being PROMOTED by Sakauye and her best bud Patel.
Team George thug Couch is presently the right-hand man to Team George thug Curt Soderlund, who is presently the right-hand man to Team George thug Jody Patel, who is presently Cantil-Sakauye’s right-hand Team George thug/AOC director-cleaner.
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/whiskey-for-my-men-beer-for-my-horses/
Need I say more? The cream ain’t rising to the top in Tani’s administration. We need formal, thorough BSA and criminal investigations of all that is being brought to light.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 8, 2012
Linda Foy. Remember. Remember. Yes I know that name! That was the former law partner of the judge that blew Mr. Paul’s case out of SFSC.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/148764
Linda Quan Foy – #148764
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
Profile Information
Bar Number: 148764
Address:
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave Ste 6530
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone Number: (415) 865-7688
Fax Number: (415) 865-4001
e-mail: linda.foy@jud.ca.gov
County: San Francisco
Michael Paul
June 9, 2012
Correct.
JusticeCalifornia
June 8, 2012
So does anyone know what happened at today’s publicly funded AOC/CCMS informercial shoot?
Judicial Council Watcher
June 8, 2012
Can you believe it? We asked for an invite but never received one.from the AOC.
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
Not invited? Really? Best laugh I’ve had all week, JCW. Thanks for the chuckle; it was needed.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
I am simply shocked JCW.
Martha Plat
June 8, 2012
Hey Wearyant. I will bite.JCWcan give you my email and I can explain what I do all day. I obviously can do it publically because I am afraid of being excused to upper managment at the AOC, and frankly, with the rhetoric I have seen on this blg of late, and just as afraid of being exposed to you all.
I can tell you that like in the trial courts (I worked in a court for 2 years before coming here), I hit the ground running the second I walk in the door. I can count on one hand the number of times I take lunch each month.And I feel like the work I do here is important to the public. I work as hard here as I did in the trial courts and far more hard than I did when I worked for the fed or in city government. I know I have more on my plate than many folks in the AOC, but I have less than others.
That being said, I had come from a large court and didn’t understand what we did at the AOC either before coming, so I understand why you are legitimately confused, ant. You seem sort of open to the info, so again I am happy to provide it offline. I know that the AOC is relevant to small and middle sized courts in a way that is difficult for the larger courts to understand.
I know I was “excused” from this post and you may not want to hear this, but I feel like many of you on this blog are reasonable, and I am reaching out to you in the hopes that I can convince you to remember that most of us that are left here are horribly upset over the lack of managment included in the lay offs. We pay our fair share of our retirement. We have been on furloughs for years, we get little encourgement internally here and we used to look to you, JCW, for some support of the working line staff. but the comments of late have been harsh. Believe me, if you are trying to demoralize line staff more than we already are, there really is no need. We are at rock bottom.
At your request, unionman,I will now excuse myself.
PS I am not a huge fan of the chief myself, Justice California, but if you honestly don’t see how calling her a barmaid or making comments about her attractiveness as Calderon did is sexist, there is likely nothing I can say to change your mind.
Also fyi, unionman, I was PISSED that Walker wasn’t recalled. I probably spent $100 sending those folks pizza when they were standing up for justice.I spent year community organizing. I come from a long line of union folk, but I really wish you could remember the folks you guys are supposed to be speaking for when AOC issues come up. Or is it only people who are lucky enough to be offered represenation that get your respect? Perhaps it is just dues paying folk.
Wendy Darling
June 8, 2012
Not all of us “excused” you, Martha, and we welcome you here at JCW. And I personally know how hard the line staff at the AOC work, and how often they are thrown under the proverbial bus for management’s incompetence and misconduct.
Long live the ACJ.
Martha Plat
June 8, 2012
JCW, you can give wearyany my personal email if he/she really wants to know what we at the AOC do all day. No need to post this.
I am sure you can tell by the hits (and possibly your past empoyment) that many of us appreciate the watcher and get a lot of info from it. I am just trying to see if people can tone down the rhetoric a little and remember to direct it to where it belongs.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 8, 2012
Hi Martha,
We hope to address most of your concerns in our own message to AOC employees that is being worked on. There are pieces of that message that we’re looking to have input from other contributors in order to complete that message to AOC employees as we’re not the experts in a host of areas.
It suffices to state that while we value hardworking AOC employees, we’re well aware that AOC management has been abusing the public trust. We regret that any judicial branch employees might lose their jobs but at the same time we would urge all AOC employees to work with us to ensure that AOC management represents the next thirty people out the door.
It also wasn’t JCW that accomplished much of what you give us credit for, though we did make a few deals with the devil here and there…what was accomplished was only accomplished because AOC and Judicial Council Management ran out of money and they were being assailed by the media, judges and legislators from across the state. This is why the pressure must be persistently applied not to AOC rank and file, but to the bumblers and idiots running that insane asylum.
fedup
June 11, 2012
What kind of message exactly? Are you looking for laid off workers to send you inside info? Unfortunately something like that won’t be likely if you are. The AOC is giving out layoff packages in return for signing nondisclosure agreements. Something to the tune of 1 weeks pay for every year worked with a max of 10k for doing so. No one is going to turn that down. Those under 40 have 7 days to decide, while those over age 40 have 45 days to decide. What’s with the age discrimination? They did this with the voluntary separation program, as well.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
Hundreds have lost trial court jobs that serve us on the bench every day. What a shame that is. It does impact our ability to dispense justice. That’s a fact.
wearyant
June 8, 2012
Martha Plat, I really do not want to leave the public area to chat privately. While I appreciate your offer to share your duties in an email to me, this was a subject I feel should be of discussion with the great minds here at JCW, not just me. I was at the courts a long time and worked in lawyers’ office prior as a sec’y, but I am lost at what the AOC is doing now. Others here are much better able to digest and perhaps elucidate on any feedback you might offer here. I really do want to know what is being done there that would keep over a hundred people so busy, employ so many managers — who are still there incidentally even without their support staff (a stupid situation!) and keep the line workers so busy they feel they must skip the lunch break. Could it be a crunching of millions of numbers from reports the AOC has demanded from the trial courts? And then, to that end, are those numbers then put in tables and reports that the judicial branch even needs? This is what I suspect is happening, having been at the receiving end of some demands for input to the upper echelon that seemed meaningless and interfered with my getting real work done for the trial courts. And, yes, to that end, prove to the public and the legislature that the AOC is really an unnecessary gas bag! But I would feel silly having you privately provide only me your input. JCW is about sharing and contributing, in my humble opinion, from different walks of court life — it’s too bad more court users aren’t on here more often.
So thank you for your offer. If your work that keeps you from taking lunch more often than not could be sanitized or very, very generalized, perhaps you could share that with us?
And I don’t mind admitting, although I’ve been retired for years, I am still leery about the powers that be “getting me.” [bawk-bawk-bawk!] I’m responsible for myself and my tiny family, and I don’t mind telling you, those creeps in management were mean and retaliatory and greedy, greedy beyond anything I’ve every seen. People that greedy are scary to me. I know they won’t think twice about ruining someone’s life if it interferes with their “stuff.”
Official
June 8, 2012
For what it’s worth, I agree with MP about the name-calling. I hear the outrage in the posts, and I understand. However, I do feel it’s distracting at times from the very serious issues discussed here. I have discussed JCW with members of the bench in my court, and some have been turned off by the harshness of the name-calling. In the end, too much of that kind of talk will hurt JCW’s credibility, IMHO.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
I have discussed it with members of my bench too and many of us agree with Judge White (see below).
unionman575
June 8, 2012
Have a blessed evening.
🙂
unionman575
June 8, 2012
And AOC the building boom continues as the Trial Court lay off the working masses..
Note to the AOC: We are aware you own a majority of the SPWB members.
It is business as usual at the Death Star.
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_20816173/public-works-board-approves-new-courthouse-plans
Public Works Board approves new courthouse plans
By staff reports
Updated: 06/08/2012 04:19:54 PM PDT
SAN FRANCISCO — The State Public Works Board (PWB) Friday approved preliminary plans for the new Lakeport courthouse.
The new facility, planned for 675 Lakeport Blvd., was designed by Mark Cavagnero and Associates and will replace the current county superior court location on the fourth floor of the Lake County Courthouse on North Forbes Street in Lakeport.
Today’s PWB approval marks completion of the preliminary plans phase, which typically authorizes the project to proceed into working drawings.
However, because of significant cuts to the California judicial branch budget proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown and currently under consideration by the legislature for fiscal year 2012-13, the working drawings phase of this project may be delayed at least one year.
The new two-story, four-courtroom Lakeport courthouse will complement the site’s unique hillside location, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The exterior use of stone veneer and architecturally exposed concrete harmonizes with the area’s natural surroundings.
The 50,000-square-foot structure will be built into the hillside so as not to obstruct the scenic view of the lake from the nearby visitors’ center. Sustainability features will include natural day-lighting in courtrooms and public areas, on-site stormwater management and an energy-efficient heating and cooling system.
The design of the new courthouse will reduce energy consumption by at least 15 percent and water-use by at least 30 percent and will qualify the project for a LEED Silver rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.
Construction was originally scheduled to begin in early 2014 and be completed in fall 2015, but that timeline is now subject to change depending on the outcome of the coming year’s state budget.
When construction proceeds, the project is expected to generate hundreds of construction jobs and thousands of dollars in indirect benefit to the local economy.
Before the project goes out to bid, the construction manager at risk, Gilbane Building Company, will perform outreach to ensure that local subcontractors and suppliers have the opportunity to participate in prequalification and bidding. All qualified subcontractors, lower-tier subcontractors and suppliers will be considered.
Construction will be conducted with mitigation measures in place for air quality, noise, erosion and stormwater control, as well as other environmental considerations as specified in the project’s environmental report under state law.
The new facility will replace the current courthouse, constructed in 1968. This overcrowded, shared-use building has substantial structural problems and significant security issues, according to the AOC.
The new courthouse will provide safe and efficient services for visitors and staff, a jury deliberation room, a secure sallyport for the transport of in-custody defendants between the jail and the courthouse and adequate space for court administration, according to the AOC.
The project was ranked as an “Immediate Need” in the judicial branch’s capital-outlay plan, making it among the branch’s highest-priority infrastructure projects.
It is funded by Senate Bill 1407, enacted in 2008 to provide up to $5 billion in funding for new and renovated courthouses using court fees, penalties and assessments rather than taxpayer revenues from the state’s General Fund. As previously noted, the timing of the next phase of this project is unknown until the state legislature resolves the budget for the coming fiscal year.
More information about the project can be found on the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-lake.htm.
Schmo
June 9, 2012
Any word on Santa Clara?
Judicial Council Watcher
June 9, 2012
I think everyone is waiting for the actual budget from the legislature at this point. If the May revise is any indication, every court as well as the AOC may be conducting substantial additional layoffs if local court funds are swept. While we agree with sweeping construction funds, they should be swept for court operations and not to the general fund. We don’t agree with sweeping local funds because it leaves the criminals managing the AOC mostly in charge of court finances.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
Click to access jc-20120517-transcript.pdf
I agree witih Sacramento Judge Steve White’s comments about the AOC and the need for a 75% reduction in the AOC budget.
Here it is from the 5-17-12 JC meeting::
>> …Judge White, one minute.
>> Thank you, Chief Justice. You still see house counsel of over 100 people and outside contracts of law firms. You still see educational divisions of over 100 people. The time has come to cut the administrative office of courts to its core essential functions whatever those are at least a 75%, at least freeing up $75 million to keep courts running, eliminate the regional offices and focus on the real courts. There will be intonations with speaking of one voice. We’ve already heard some of this from the Chief Justice today and I agree an abstract concept of speaking with one voice but that will not happen in the judiciary until that one voice is the voice of the judiciary and not the voice of the administrative office of the courts. It will not happen until we have a judicial council that represents judges rather than represents the interests of the administrative office of the courts. There’s no more money coming. We must find the best way to spend and allocate the money we have. And every dollar that goes to the AOC is a dollar that isn’t spent on running courts and keeping courts open for the people of the state of California. Thank you, Chief Justice, and members of the council.
>> Thank you, Judge White. Next we’ll hear from Mr. Michael Tozzi.
The OBT
June 8, 2012
The SEC report sure rose to the occasion exposing the abuses with the AOC Office of General Counsel “OGC”. Despite all the claims from the Chief and Ms Patel that all has been fixed, nothing has changed with OGC. Incredibly they are still hiring when the trial courts get slashed, they still haven’t revoked the telecommuting excesses of their lawyers in Europe and in the midwest and they continue to use the services of expensive law firms when they employ over a 100 within their unit of the AOC. Someone please needs to explain how any agency in this state can allow their lawyers to live half way around the world or half away across the United States. The sad part is that the public who sees all this is losing faith and confidence in our branch of government. Equally sad is the huge waste of taxpayer dollars that all AOC telecommuting employees cause to be expended.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
June 9, 2012
FWIW there are two reasons the AOC needs outside counsel. First, long story short, they do not want the paper work of their dirty deeds in house. Legal Assistants within the OGC are dedicated, hardworking and underpaid, and they do not want them to have more knowledge of what really goes on than necessary. Second, with rare exceptions, many of the attorneys within the OCG have never set foot in a courtroom, may never have worked for a law firm or agency that regularly appears in court, and thus, are not trained for trial and court work — which begs the questions, why do they need lawyers to staff these positions?
Lando
June 8, 2012
Your right OBT . The solution? Recall the CJ and democratize the Judicial Council.
unionman575
June 8, 2012
Agreed.
unionman575
June 9, 2012
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/California_Administrative_Office_of_the_Courts
AOC Priorities
The AOC is responsible for “a variety of programs and services to improve access to a fair and impartial justice system serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”.[1] A robust conversation has taken hold in California concerning whether the AOC’s stated purpose to serve “for the benefit of all Californians,” undermines the Constitutional mandate of an independent judiciary.[2]
The AOC has awarded numerous contracts with outside consultants/contractors which illuminate its stated mission of serving for the benefit of all Californians. Contracts for consulting services that have been awarded since 2001, include “Illustrators for ‘Courts in the Classroom’ Law-Related Education Website,” a “Talent Agency to provide actors to the AOC Education Division,” a web designer for the “California Peer Court DUI Prevention Strategies Project,” a consultant for the “Evaluation of 2008 California On My Honor: Civics Institute for Teachers,” a consultant for “Court Users Research and Technical Assistance Project,” a “Blue Ribbon Commission Public Education Consultant,” a consultant for “Collaborative Justice Court Recruitment, Training and Curriculum Development,” and a consultant to evaluate “Jury Service Video for Possible Reuse as an Educational Tool for Secondary Schools.”[3]
The AOC through its Center for Families, Children and the Courts, administers grants and oversees an extensive list of projects including “Caregivers and the Courts,” “Collaborative Justice Court,” the “Family Violence Project,” and the “Equal Access Project,” to name a few.[4]
unionman575
June 9, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18363.htm
New Yreka Courthouse Site Acquisition Approved
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7447
June 8, 2012
New Yreka Courthouse Site Acquisition Approved
SAN FRANCISCO—The State Public Works Board (SPWB) today approved acquisition of the site for the proposed new courthouse in downtown Yreka for the Superior Court of Siskiyou County. The 2.4-acre site is bounded by Oregon, South, Fourth, and Butte Streets, across the street from the existing Yreka court facilities and jail.
“Completion of the acquisition phase of the New Yreka Courthouse is a significant milestone for this project and for our community,” said Laura Masunaga, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County. “I am very appreciative of the hard work of judges, court staff, city and county officials, the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, and the public for their impressive efforts in making this happen.”
Site acquisition approval typically enables a courthouse project to move into architectural design. However, because of significant cuts to the judicial branch budget proposed by the Governor and under consideration by the Legislature for fiscal year 2012–2013, the preliminary plans phase of this project may be delayed for at least a year.
The state is purchasing the site from Siskiyou County and the City of Yreka. The state and the court will use equity in the current courthouse and Court Construction Funds to pay the county for purchasing several privately held parcels on behalf of the state. Escrow is expected to close around the end of June.
The historic courthouse consists of multiple structures whose functional and physical deficiencies compromise the accessibility, usability, and security of the court. This building lacks holding cells and other security features for in-custody defendants, who share the same hallways with the public and court staff. Significant overcrowding has compelled the court to lease space in a nearby annex that is also deficient, with badly deteriorated electrical and plumbing systems. Both facilities are also seismically unsafe and inaccessible to people with disabilities. The new 69,000-square-foot, five-courtroom building will replace the current courthouse and annex to bring significant improvements in access to justice and public service, security, and safety to the residents of Siskiyou County.
Once allowed to proceed, construction on the new courthouse is expected to generate hundreds of construction jobs and thousands more community jobs through its indirect benefit to the local economy. When selected, the project’s construction manager at risk will conduct local outreach to ensure that all qualified subcontractors and suppliers have the opportunity to participate in the bidding.
The new courthouse project was ranked as an “Immediate Need” in the judicial branch’s capital-outlay plan, making it among the branch’s highest-priority infrastructure projects. It is funded by Senate Bill 1407, enacted in 2008 to provide up to $5 billion for new and renovated courthouses using court fees, penalties, and assessments rather than taxpayer revenues from the state’s General Fund. As mentioned before, the timing for continuation of this project is unknown until the state Legislature resolves the budget for the coming fiscal year.
More information about the project can be found on the California Courts website at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-siskiyou.htm
###
unionman575
June 9, 2012
Build, build, build…my, my , my, this is all so wrong…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/18361.htm
New Lakeport Courthouse Preliminary Plans Approved
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7447
June 8, 2012
New Lakeport Courthouse Preliminary Plans Approved
SAN FRANCISCO— The State Public Works Board (SPWB) today approved preliminary plans for the new Lakeport Courthouse for the Superior Court of Lake County, planned for a site at 675 Lakeport Boulevard. Designed by Mark Cavagnero and Associates, the new courthouse will replace the court’s current location on the fourth floor of the Lakeport Courthouse.
Today’s SPWB approval marks completion of the preliminary plans phase, which typically authorizes the project to proceed into working drawings. However, because of significant cuts to the California judicial branch budget proposed by the Governor and currently under consideration by the Legislature for fiscal year 2012–2013, the working drawings phase of this project may be delayed at least a year.
The new two-story, four-courtroom Lakeport Courthouse will complement the site’s unique hillside location. The exterior use of stone veneer and architecturally exposed concrete harmonizes with the area’s natural surroundings. The 50,000-square-foot structure will be built into the hillside so as not to obstruct the scenic view of the lake from the nearby visitors’ center. Sustainability features will include natural day-lighting in courtrooms and public areas, on-site stormwater management, and an energy-efficient heating and cooling system. The design of the new courthouse will reduce energy consumption by at least 15 percent and water use by at least 30 percent and will qualify the project for a LEED Silver rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.
Construction was originally scheduled to begin in early 2014 and be completed in fall 2015, but that timeline is now subject to change depending on the outcome of the coming year’s state budget. When construction proceeds, the project is expected to generate hundreds of construction jobs and thousands of dollars in indirect benefit to the local economy. Before the project goes to bid, the construction manager at risk, Gilbane Building Company, will perform outreach to ensure that local subcontractors and suppliers have the opportunity to participate in prequalification and bidding. All qualified subcontractors, lower-tier subcontractors, and suppliers will be considered.
Construction will be conducted with mitigation measures in place for air quality, noise, erosion and stormwater control, and other environmental considerations, as specified in the project’s environmental report under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The new courthouse will replace the current Lakeport Courthouse, constructed in 1968. This overcrowded, shared-use building has substantial structural problems and significant security issues. The new courthouse will provide safe and efficient services for visitors and staff, a jury deliberation room, a secure sallyport for the transport of in-custody defendants between the jail and the courthouse, and adequate space for court administration.
The project was ranked as an “Immediate Need” in the judicial branch’s capital-outlay plan, making it among the branch’s highest-priority infrastructure projects. It is funded by Senate Bill 1407, enacted in 2008 to provide up to $5 billion in funding for new and renovated courthouses using court fees, penalties, and assessments rather than taxpayer revenues from the state’s General Fund. As previously noted, the timing of the next phase of this project is unknown until the state Legislature resolves the budget for the coming fiscal year.
More information about the project can be found on the California Courts website at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-lake.htm
###
Curious
June 9, 2012
Ms. Ruano was big on details and puffery, but somehow left out the one salient point:
Pricetag over $50 million for a whopping 4 courtrooms. Who is this Ms. Ruano anyway?
Anybody have any details about her job duties? Is she the Carrizosa of the building unit?
Michael Paul
June 9, 2012
~just laughs~ Yes, she is the Carrizosa of the building unit.
A 50 million dollar / 4 courtroom (12.5 million per courtroom! What a bargain!) courthouse in Lake County (the poorest per capita county in all of California) will make the courthouse the most expensive building in the whole county.
unionman575
June 9, 2012
June 20-22 Judicial Council meetings, San Francisco, California
Hopeful
June 9, 2012
Justice is now deaf, dumb and blind!
The OBT
June 10, 2012
But the new courthouse will have lots of views of beautiful Clear Lake lol. You really can’t make this stuff up. 50 million for a 4 courtroom courthouse ? Did I miss something? Is J Bruiners now in charge of courthouse construction too ?
unionman575
June 10, 2012
Yes and all the unemployed court workers can enjoy the building fgrom the OUTSIDE.
wearyant
June 10, 2012
Yes, from the outside of the building along with the public because they won’t be able to get inside! The lines to the counter will no doubt string out to half a mile at least with no front line court workers. Ahh, not to fear though. We’ll have the snooty bastards fully employed who planned the building with its great views.
Sorry about the name-calling, but I get passionate over good hearted workers whose lives are ruined by looney-tunes at the top with NO COMMON SENSE! And these idiots continue to be employed. Go figure.
Recall Tani!
Pass AB 1208!
Long live the ACJ!
Democratize the JC!
JusticeCalifornia
June 10, 2012
Before any new courthouses anywhere are built, and before any AOC position is funded, the CA county courthouse basics must be supplied: an open courthouse, good judges, good court clerks and official court reporters. Period. The rest is superfluous.
Dan Dydzak
June 10, 2012
Justice America is right. What is the use of fancy court buildings without the appropriate staff, clerks and judges to “run the show”? My late dad used to be in the theatre business. He would have said the “show must go on,” to use the famous expression in show biz. Does that not apply to the court system? For example, I have been in the San Diego Superior Court–quite a nice building–can’t the building of a new one be deferred for a number of years to ensure that the rank and file and court reporters do not lose their jobs in that county and others? The answer is obvious.