Congratulations to San Francisco’s newly elected presiding judge, Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee. We wish we could have taken some credit here but nobody reads us.
Posted in: San Francisco Courts
Congratulations to Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee
Posted on June 27, 2012
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
“. . . but nobody reads us.”
Thanks for the humor, JCW.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
June 27, 2012
Oh a lot of folks read this blog. Most don’t post because they simply don’t have the time, because they are working like dogs in the trial courts.
unionman575
June 27, 2012
Flea: “Woof woof”.
🙂
JusticeCalifornia
June 27, 2012
Yes, congrats to SFs new presiding judge.
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
From today’s Capitol Accounts Twitter Feed at Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw:
And the court trailer bill, which also includes prison realignment language, passes 48-27.
Asm Charles Calderon, author of AB1208, praises court trailer bill for cutting CCMS funding and restricting trial court funding transfers .
http://twitter.com/#!/CapitalAccounts
Long live the ACJ.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
June 27, 2012
JCW, damn, you CRACK ME UP! sometimes…
(Oh, my side hurts…)
I am but one of many, lay indicator species harmed by the corrupt ones practicing in the Family Law Industry. I want to believe that when when I teach and model for my un-court-abducted daughter, “There is never a ‘Right-way’ to do a wrong thing.” it will be something they can expect our judges will be held accountable under the operation of law, and reciprocate.
We all want to believe and hold confidence in our judiciaries again someday… It is broke, it needs to be fixed: Recall Tani, gut the AOC, enact AB1208, reestablish Democracy in our judiciaries. For us isolated souls in Shasta County we can only assume that Judge Ming-mei’s mention in this remarkable thread is a good one. With that, we send our dearest congratulations and wish her strength!
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, June 27, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Legislature Enacts Strict Limits on Spending by Judicial Council
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – In a major victory for the state’s reform-minded trial judges, the California Legislature has stripped the Judicial Council of its ability to spend money on projects like a recently failed court IT system without legislative approval, and has ensured that money appropriated by the Legislature for the trial courts is spent on keeping the courts running.
The provisions enacted in a budget trailer bill Wednesday is a triumph for sponsors of AB 1208, a fiscal bill intended to keep the judiciary’s central bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, from siphoning funds for special projects from the cash-strapped trial courts.
“The plan was to make 1208 law through whatever channels we could. There are many ways around the same bush,” said the bill’s author, Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Industry) in an interview late Wednesday. “This allowed for the policy to be put in place without anybody crowing about it one way or the other. 1208 is done. It’s been enacted without the Calderon name on it.”
He added, “The issue has attracted the attention of the Legislature and it has acted. There’s an interest in the Legislature in making sure that its appropriations are being spent accordingly. I took on this issue because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also understood that it was a big task. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy to do. I also knew I had a fighting chance because the AOC would do most of the work for me,” he said.
The budget trailer bill makes explicit the Legislature’s intention to keep the judiciary’s costly and much-maligned computer project, the Court Case Management System, from being revived.
“The bill would prohibit the Judicial Council from expending funds on the Court Case Management System without consent from the Legislature, except as specified. The bill would prohibit construing any provision of law as authorizing the Judicial Council to redirect funds for any purpose other than allocation to trial courts or as otherwise appropriated,” the bill’s language states.
The budget bill also changes the government statute to prohibit raids on the Trial Court Trust Fund, money that many judges have said is only intended to keep the courts operating, for other statewide projects.
“Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute,” it says.
“The Judicial Council and the AOC are prohibited from taking any money from the TCTF for any statewide or general expenditure, if it would otherwise reduce the allocation of funds to any courts, without the express authorization of the courts or Legislature,” said a statement from the Alliance of California Judges.
“The Legislature has agreed with the Alliance that all Trial Court Trust Funds not legislatively authorized for use by the AOC should be allocated to the trial courts, and not held in reserve, or disposed of at the discretion of the Judicial Council without trial court authorization.”
Judge David Lampe of Kern County, an Alliance Director, said in an interview, “The actual budget numbers and reductions we face are disastrous. In the face of that, the Legislature has essentially built into law that the trial courts have to get the money that the Legislature appropriates for trial court operations.”
He said the reforms proposed by the Alliance-sponsored AB 1208 were enacted in basic principle through the enacted trailer bill language. “Whether its 1208 or through a different mechanism, it reaches the same principle. In practical terms they have put those measures into play,” Lampe said.
The budget trailer bill also provides some relief to the trial courts from cuts imposed by this year’s budget, by cutting $15 million from the AOC’s budget and redirecting that money to the courts. This leaves the courts with $285 million in cuts this year, rather than the expected $300 million outlined Governor Jerry Brown’s May revised budget.
Calderon said a recent, highly-critical report from the Strategic Evaluation Committee put together by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye played a major role in convincing lawmakers to change trial court funding statutes to reflect the reforms of AB 1208. The voluminous report took on the much criticized bureaucracy’s spending, hiring and mismanagement.
“It was the pivotal event,” said Calderon. “Up until their report, insiders understood what was going on, but to the greater body it’s always like a black hole out there in terms of trying to disseminate information. But when the Chief Justice’s hand picked committee validated the complaints and criticisms that were being made about the AOC, I think that was pretty much definite and incapable of the spin.”
“That was the final evidence that was needed to put the issue in perspective,” he said. “It’s going to give reformers more leverage to bring about reforms. It may take a while, but the AOC can’t hide anymore. They can’t spin, they can’t ignore and they can’t make up their own facts.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47873.htm
Long live the ACJ. Forever.
JusticeCalifornia
June 27, 2012
Wow Wendy, thanks for that news.
HOT DAMN.
Calderon said:
“1208 is done” and that he “knew he had a fighting chance because the AOC would do most of the work” for him.
Indeed.
anonymous
June 27, 2012
Calderon:
“I took on this issue because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also understood that it was a big task. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy to do. I also knew I had a fighting chance because the AOC would do most of the work for me,” he said.
Pwned?
Pwned.
Pwned!
That’s gotta sting Team George. Buttfucked without even being kissed.
It only takes a few of those 15 million dollars worth of laid off loose lips that know your non-disclosure agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on and this house of cards may finally come crumbling down.
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
“It only takes a few of those 15 million dollars worth of laid off loose lips that know your non-disclosure agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on and this house of cards may finally come crumbling down.”
Let us hope that those are prophetic words, Anonymous.
And thank you to Judge Lampe, Judge Horan, Judge Goldstein, Judge Gilliard, Judge Maino, and all of those of the Alliance. Honor, Integrity, and a dedication to public duty – a reminder, once again, of what the California Judicial Branch once was, and what it might be yet again.
The people of the State of California are forever indebted to you all.
Recall the Chief Justice.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 27, 2012
unionman575
June 27, 2012
There is your non-disclosure agreement above!
🙂
wearyant
June 27, 2012
Bless you, Charles Calderon! Thank you, SEC folks! And thank you to the members of the legislature who heard the cries from within the hurricane. The trial courts still have major budget issues, but they at least may look forward to receiving more funds than they would with the JC/AOC would allow … I sincerely hope. I’ll believe it when I see it, though. The JC/AOC/CJ still bear watching.
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
The JC/AOC/CJ still bear watching . . . now, more than ever before.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 27, 2012
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/sb%201021.pdf
wearyant
June 27, 2012
Unionman575, thanks for posting this! I was looking everywhere I could think of, to no avail, till my eyes crossed.
disgusted
June 27, 2012
Legislature Enacts Strict Limits on Spending by Judicial Council
By MARIA DINZEO
ShareThis
SACRAMENTO (CN) – In a major victory for the state’s reform-minded trial judges, the California Legislature has stripped the Judicial Council of its ability to spend money on projects like a recently failed court IT system without legislative approval, and has ensured that money appropriated by the Legislature for the trial courts is spent on keeping the courts running.
The provisions enacted in a budget trailer bill Wednesday is a triumph for sponsors of AB 1208, a fiscal bill intended to keep the judiciary’s central bureaucracy, the Administrative Office of the Courts, from siphoning funds for special projects from the cash-strapped trial courts.
“The plan was to make 1208 law through whatever channels we could. There are many ways around the same bush,” said the bill’s author, Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon (D-Industry) in an interview late Wednesday. “This allowed for the policy to be put in place without anybody crowing about it one way or the other. 1208 is done. It’s been enacted without the Calderon name on it.”
He added, “The issue has attracted the attention of the Legislature and it has acted. There’s an interest in the Legislature in making sure that its appropriations are being spent accordingly. I took on this issue because I thought it was the right thing to do. I also understood that it was a big task. But then again, anything worth doing is never easy to do. I also knew I had a fighting chance because the AOC would do most of the work for me,” he said.
The budget trailer bill makes explicit the Legislature’s intention to keep the judiciary’s costly and much-maligned computer project, the Court Case Management System, from being revived.
“The bill would prohibit the Judicial Council from expending funds on the Court Case Management System without consent from the Legislature, except as specified. The bill would prohibit construing any provision of law as authorizing the Judicial Council to redirect funds for any purpose other than allocation to trial courts or as otherwise appropriated,” the bill’s language states.
The budget bill also changes the government statute to prohibit raids on the Trial Court Trust Fund, money that many judges have said is only intended to keep the courts operating, for other statewide projects.
“Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute,” it says.
“The Judicial Council and the AOC are prohibited from taking any money from the TCTF for any statewide or general expenditure, if it would otherwise reduce the allocation of funds to any courts, without the express authorization of the courts or Legislature,” said a statement from the Alliance of California Judges.
“The Legislature has agreed with the Alliance that all Trial Court Trust Funds not legislatively authorized for use by the AOC should be allocated to the trial courts, and not held in reserve, or disposed of at the discretion of the Judicial Council without trial court authorization.”
Judge David Lampe of Kern County, an Alliance Director, said in an interview, “The actual budget numbers and reductions we face are disastrous. In the face of that, the Legislature has essentially built into law that the trial courts have to get the money that the Legislature appropriates for trial court operations.”
He said the reforms proposed by the Alliance-sponsored AB 1208 were enacted in basic principle through the enacted trailer bill language. “Whether its 1208 or through a different mechanism, it reaches the same principle. In practical terms they have put those measures into play,” Lampe said.
The budget trailer bill also provides some relief to the trial courts from cuts imposed by this year’s budget, by cutting $15 million from the AOC’s budget and redirecting that money to the courts. This leaves the courts with $285 million in cuts this year, rather than the expected $300 million outlined Governor Jerry Brown’s May revised budget.
Calderon said a recent, highly-critical report from the Strategic Evaluation Committee put together by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye played a major role in convincing lawmakers to change trial court funding statutes to reflect the reforms of AB 1208. The voluminous report took on the much criticized bureaucracy’s spending, hiring and mismanagement.
“It was the pivotal event,” said Calderon. “Up until their report, insiders understood what was going on, but to the greater body it’s always like a black hole out there in terms of trying to disseminate information. But when the Chief Justice’s hand picked committee validated the complaints and criticisms that were being made about the AOC, I think that was pretty much definite and incapable of the spin.”
“That was the final evidence that was needed to put the issue in perspective,” he said. “It’s going to give reformers more leverage to bring about reforms. It may take a while, but the AOC can’t hide anymore. They can’t spin, they can’t ignore and they can’t make up their own facts.”
unionman575
June 27, 2012
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES
Contacts: Judge David Lampe
(661) 809-1458
Judge Maryanne Gilliard
(916) 316-1420
June 27, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
Today the Legislature enacted major reforms to the trial court funding statutes long advocated by the Alliance of California Judges. We are gratified that the Legislature has heard our voice and thank legislative leaders and all who assisted in bringing about this result for recognizing the need for change and making it a reality.
The Legislature has agreed with the Alliance that all Trial Court Trust Funds not legislatively authorized for use by the AOC should be allocated to the trial courts, and not held in reserve, or disposed of at the discretion of the Judicial Council without trial court authorization.
Based upon new provisions of Government Code section 68085, the AOC may no longer spend money from the TCTF based upon the implied “consent” of the participating courts, as they did to fund the CCMS project, but must now have the “authorization” of the courts. This new provision is effective immediately. This means that the AOC must now seek the express authority of affected courts before spending any money from the Trial Court Trust Fund if the AOC proposes not to allocate it directly to the trial courts unless that money has been specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The Judicial Council and the AOC are prohibited from taking any money from the TCTF for any statewide or general expenditure, if it would otherwise reduce the allocation of funds to any courts, without the express authorization of the courts or Legislature.
Expenditures for CCMS V4 and for new deployments of any version of CCMS are expressly and immediately prohibited.
Additional beneficial changes will also soon take effect.
Beginning on January 1, 2013, a new provision of section 68085 will read as follows:
(p) Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Judicial Council to redirect funds from the Trial Court Trust Fund for any purpose other than for allocation to trial courts or as otherwise specifically appropriated by statute.
This repeals the AOC’s authority under Government Code section 68085 to reimburse itself from general trial court operating funds without authorization of all affected courts, and requires that 100% of TCTF money not expressly and legislatively authorized for other purposes be allocated to the trial courts. Any direct services by the AOC to the trial courts now requires a specific appropriation by the Legislature and the AOC must report these expenditures quarterly. The January 1, 2013 version of the statute will also retain the total ban on CCMS V4 and deployment spending.
The Legislature has also decided to severely cut the AOC budget. As a result of the AOC’s share of branch ongoing reductions, and an additional cut imposed by the Legislature, it appears that the AOC budget is being reduced over one-third. This assumes that $4.0 million in additional reductions imposed by the Legislature will likely be funded from AOC operations. Furthermore, fifteen million is being cut from the AOC budget to mitigate reductions to the trial courts.
As expected, the budget provides for an ongoing reduction from prior years of $350 million. However, rather than leave this amount unallocated and left to Judicial Council discretion, the Legislature has adopted the Alliance position that the reduction be allocated directly in the budget.
The Governor’s proposal to eliminate trial court fund balances, so called “reserves,” has been mitigated somewhat. The Legislature has taken away the Judicial Council’s discretion over trial court reserves and has now expressly granted the right of the trial courts to maintain reserves for two years. After June 30, 2014, that authority is repealed, and trial courts will only be allowed to maintain a reserve up to 1% of their total budget. A 2% reserve will be retained at the state level with 1.5% to be distributed for hardships by August 31, and .5% to be held back for emergencies until March 15. After that, any remaining amounts will be allocated to trial courts based on past allocation methodology.
The budget document is a difficult read. Our view of the final budget numbers follows.
The budget provides for past and future ongoing cuts to the Judicial Branch, as well as very significant one time cuts.
The previous reductions total approximately $650 million. Of this amount, the stated plan is to provide for ongoing mitigation of $300 million, and for $350 million to be permanently “operationalized” by the branch.
The $300 million will be mitigated as follows:
SB 1732 Construction Funds -$59.5
Terminate CCMS -46.0
Redirection from Modernization Fund -27.2
Deloitte Cash Credit -16.0
New Civil Fees (3 year sunset) -50.0
Misc. -1.3
Total -200.0
This leaves $100 million as an impact to the trial courts both for this year and ongoing.
An additional $350 million will be operationalized as reflected in the following figures, which means the trial courts will absorb an additional permanent $214 million reduction.
State Judiciary -47.1
2009 Fee Changes -6.4
2010 Fee Changes -64.0
Security Savings -17.0
Other State Trial Court Funding Programs* -1.4
Trial Court Reductions -214.1
Total -350.0
*This amount increases to $12.6 million beginning 2012- 2013 providing additional relief to trial court reductions.
As expected from the May Revise, the budget also provides for an additional $544 million of cuts to the trial courts. $240 million will be redirected from SB 1407 construction funds to mitigate this cut. The AOC will be expected to absorb or find an additional $4.0 million from sources within state operations other than trial court funding, such as their own budget, or the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Judicial Branch Facility Program, or the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. In addition, fifteen million is being redirected from the AOC budget to offset local court cuts, leaving $285 million in cuts to be absorbed this year by the trial courts, rather than the $300 million originally proposed in the May Revise.
After this fiscal year, there will be an ongoing $121 million cut to the trial courts, which will be mitigated by a permanent transfer of $50.0 million from the Immediate and Critical Needs Account (the “1407” construction funds).
With some adjustments not detailed here, the bottom line is that the trial courts will suffer a $285 million one time reduction and a $331 million ongoing reduction for FY 2012- 2013, to be followed by a permanent ongoing reduction of $496 million for FY 2013- 2014 and thereafter.
Finally, the following provisions are enacted:
• The Trial Court Improvement Fund and the Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund are consolidated into a single statewide fund to support trial court projects. This will make the accounting of this money much more transparent.
• $7 million in CCMS system evaluation funding is eliminated. This is a strong policy statement by those that control the purse strings that no more money be spent on CCMS period.
• Excess funding for assigned judges, if available, is directed to trial court operations and courts are encouraged to use sitting judges when available rather than assigned judges.
• Creates a $30 fee for court reporter services under an hour.
• Adopts a 20% increase to appellate first filing fees to offset cuts to the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.
This budget requires the judges of this state to face a new reality. Every judge must recognize that we are all called upon to exercise our independent constitutional responsibility to decide the funding priorities of the local courts and to recognize that we are independent constitutional trial courts. A new model of trial court cooperation and communication is now necessary. We cannot act as if we are dependent upon only a chosen few. The Alliance will continue to strive toward democratic governance of the judicial branch, and continue to work for additional funding changes reflecting our philosophy that judges, not bureaucrats, should determine the future direction of the judiciary.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Wendy Darling
June 27, 2012
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 27, 2012
Wow! It’ll take me a while to absorb everything said here … in the meantime —
Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
June 27, 2012
unionman575
June 27, 2012
That one is for you Tani!
anonymous
June 28, 2012
Lando
June 28, 2012
Today will go down as one of the most significant days in California judicial branch history. It is a day where the trial courts took back power from an insular and anti- democratic power structure and bureaucracy that was only serving itself. History will show many people deserve credit for this huge step forward including many here who have with courage illuminated for the public , the bloat , waste, arrogance and lack of credibility that pervade the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. Most important the public we represent will benefit from the legislative changes initiated today as the JC/AOC will never be able to waste and squander billions of taxpayer dollars again.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
As usual, very well stated, Lando.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
June 28, 2012
It really is starting to happen. The house of cards that King George built at the crystal palace is in a free fall.The Chief Justice now needs to do the right thing and implement all of the SEC’s thoughtful and well supported recommendations. That would be the first step in restoring democracy, common sense, credibility and humility to our courts.
Wendy Darling
June 28, 2012
And ethics and integrity.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 28, 2012
This one goes out to Tani & Co.
Eileen Lasher
June 28, 2012
I have requested that Jason Forge of the San Diego US Attorney’s Office and Damon Mosler of the San Diego District Attorney’s Fraud Division to expand their investigation of the most recent prosecuted Theresa Erickson, Esq within San Diego Family Law court to include the group of attorneys working in collusion with other professionals to deliberately target hard working middle class San Diegoans and structure their cases in order to create numerous excessive streams of revenue for excessive periods of time. Cases are churned, court documents are falsified and the litigants are being manipulated in order to be used as commodities with their children in toe. Racketeering has found a haven in San Diego Family Law Court and the tax payers need to know that this is the abuse of their money as well as the court is by definition a financial entity publicly funded. Eileen Lasher
Cole Day Rain
June 29, 2012
Eileen, profiteering is happening ALL 58 counties. I’m in Tulare County and it is RIFE with corruption. However, I have managed to get them to trip over their own assertions and have documents (quite a bit of them) demonstrating the profiteering. However, don’t bother hoping for it to be addressed by the U.S. Attorney’s office. Doubtful they will do anything about it. It’s old corruption after all.