Telecommuting Lawyers KCRA 3 – Mike Leury and a reminder from ACJ

1. 
   

   unionman575
   

   July 19, 2012

   More nice work JCW!

   😉

   Reply
2. 
   

   Wendy Darling
   

   July 19, 2012

   “KCRA 3 tried talking to the AOC about the findings, but officials declined to be interviewed on camera.”

   Sooooo not a surprise. It’s easier to lie off-camera.

   And note to Judge Lampe: the Office of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council don’t care about the law when it comes to judicial branch administration.

   Long live the ACJ.

   Reply
3. 
   

   unionman575
   

   July 19, 2012

   Hmm….

   http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ItemI_attachA.pdf

   Reply
• 
  

  Judicial Council Watcher
  

  July 20, 2012

  Further evidence of a governance train wreck. So any vote can be declared as having to have either a simple or 2/3 majority requirement but only 11 members constitute a quorum?

  Again, I might need some help from one of you lawyer-types but as I read this it appears that as little as six people can push through anything the want?

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  July 20, 2012

  I knew that would be of interest JCW.

  😉
4. 
   

   The OBT
   

   July 20, 2012

   Thanks JCW for accessing all the SEC comments. Many of the concerns raised here over the years are set forth by the vast majority of Judges who have elected to comment. Thanks also to the many bloggers here who have been ahead of the curve in terms of of bringing to light the many excesses of the JC/AOC. Ironically those that support the AOC do so in the guise of improving “access to justice “. Please tell that to the thousands of Californians who have had their cases delayed due to the shuddering of courthouses, terminations of Court Commissioners and the layoffs of court staff. I would ask that JCW set up a subject area and invite comment after July 22nd on a thread called “Where We Go From Here ” We need to now move beyond the SEC report and urge fundamental reform of the branch including democratizing the Judicial Council, recalling our weak and out of touch Chief Justice and reforming an out of control CJP.

   Reply
• 
  

  Judicial Council Watcher
  

  July 20, 2012

  We can do that The OBT.
  Good Morning, California. Another glorious day is on the horizon.

  Note: Just because the JC is cutting off public comment to the SEC report on Sunday, rest assured it is to tally the numbers and to see what kind of opposition they can muster in the days before the judicial council meeting.

  In plain english, consider the public comment cutoff non-existent, though you are still advised to get those comments in before the 22nd.

  Reply
• 
  

  Curious
  

  July 20, 2012

  JCW has hit it on the head. Remember that several Council members mumbled and fussed about when Justice Miller proposed a fixed limit on comments, and, as usual, a straightforward motion became muddled and virtually meaningless when adopted. Miller stated that it would be a “rolling” comment period, and that additional comments would be considered AS INDIVIDUAL PORTIONS OF THE SEC REPORT WERE CONSIDERED. Meaning, quite clearly, that Miller does NOT envision adopting the report wholesale, and never did, but rather laid out the beginnings of an interminable process fraught with uncertainty, unease, endless haggling, and with ample opportunity and ability of those with a vested interest in this or that program to worm their way back into the process.

  Already several of the public comments make it clear that this will be the approach of the losers in this comment period, who–within their comments–have demanded to “work with” those implementing change. If allowed, this will take place in secret, and no one will see the dirty work until it’s all over. They are simply interested in maintaining what they have. Read the comments of Justice Robie, perennial Council insider and AOC rooter.
  One commenter even demanded a total restructuring of the SEC committee along racial lines, believe it or not.

  When I was a kid, this was called “asking for a do over”. The answer must be
  “No”. The SEC report called them out. And the comment period proved that the SEC report has the support of all but a strident minority.

  This battle is not for those without endurance. Former Chief George had it right on this point (one of few) when he said the same thing: It’s a marathon.

  Have no fear, many are in for the long long haul. The key to this is to be constantly alert, because –I hate to say it–people are human and people sometimes break the rules. Dare I say cheat? And the loosey-goosey motions adopted at the Council give ample opportunity to those predisposed to that approach.

  It’s not a battle, it’s a war.
• 
  

  Res Ipsa Loquitor
  

  July 20, 2012

  I have no doubt that J Miller plans to slice and dice the SEC report until it is unrecognizable. Whether he uses a Ginzu knife or a Sledgeamatic, it is up to all keep the spotlight on him and his process.

  And with all due respect to the Hon. Brenda Harbin-Forte, please believe me when I say (based on my own personal experience) the AOC cares not an iota for diversity.
5. 
   

   Judicial Council Watcher
   

   July 20, 2012

   Oh this one is sweet.
   Judge Andrew Banks of Orange County:
   http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SP12-05_BanksAP.pdf

   The Chief assured all of us that the SEC Committee report would be ” the bible” for AOC evaluation and reform.How is it that the Council could fail to adopt even the modest proposal of Judge Wesley at the last Council meeting? Staying with the Chief’s analogy of the Report being “the bible” for reform, I ask this question: Did Moses bring down the Ten Commandments and then put them out for public comment before their adoption?

   Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  July 20, 2012

  Yes sweet!

  😉

  Reply
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  July 20, 2012

  Thank you, Judge Andrew Bank, for the good belly laugh! Very cathartic and appreciated as I watch from the sidelines in horror and consternation this long, drawn-out war over our great California judicial branch. It was a welcome break as the train wreck brought on by the JC/AOC/CJ continues down the track.

  I wonder if the Ten Commandments would be recognizable after the JC/AOC/CJ had gone over them! Funny to think about how they would fare after the parliamentary procedure. That may be subject of another post that could end up being hilarious …

  Recall Tani!

  Democratize the California Judicial Council!

  Long live the ACJ!

  PS I’ve not seen the ACJ characterized as rebel judges for a while now. Never did care for that derogation. 🙂

  Reply
• 
  

  Judicial Council Watcher
  

  July 20, 2012

  All of the various surveys, opinions and studies conducted over the years hardly places the ACJ in the camp of rebel judges. If anyone is rebel, it is the management of the AOC that needs to learn to heel like a well-trained dog. For that to be accomplished will require a complete regime change. Out with the old and in with the new.
• 
  

  JusticeCalifornia
  

  July 20, 2012

  LOL wearyant. So ironic. . . .the ACJ has become the mainstream voice of reason and catalyst for change. Meanwhile top leadership is widely viewed as an embarrassing liability. . . .

  Top leadership was warned three years ago that waste and corruption was rampant, that the branch was at the breaking point, that oppression would no longer be tolerated, and that a revolution was inevitable. Top leadership didn’t listen. Apparently they believed they could rob and rule and intimidate 2,000 judges. . .and the public. . . and court employees. . .and silence anyone who complained. We all know how that has worked out. 

  So here we are.
• 
  

  Judicial Council Watcher
  

  July 20, 2012

  Ant,
  I recall way back the judicial council DID vet the ten commandments and came up in agreement on 8 out of 10. Here was their spokesperson back then, Mr. Steve Martin.
  
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  July 20, 2012

  JCW: LOL! Where in the world did you find THAT? And if only the music on that video could be piped in as background for the next dog-and-pony act we’re all looking forward to.
• 
  

  wearyant
  

  July 20, 2012

  JCW: As you said, there should be a total regime change. All of the JC/AOC/CJ should be let go (yeah, in my dreams). But how else will the gangrene that is the AOC be rooted out? All the old guard really needs to be replaced so the branch can be reborn, clean and fresh. I wish that could be done. I would guarantee, since billV and ronO still haunt the crystal palace, they have been giving input on the SEC report to willing listeners. Thus we are hearing that a new ADOC should be sought out before implementing any of the recommendations that are clearly needed yesterday! Other dissenters to the SEC report have the rancid and rank drippings of billV and ronO. As JusticeCalifornia wisely said, so here we are.
6. 
   

   Judicial Council Watcher
   

   July 20, 2012

   Taken from the above modified post. We continue to review the comments comments coming in.

   http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SP12-05_HuntD.pdf
   “San Joaquin County Superior Court has always been one of, if not the most underfunded of the State’s 58 courts. The same duct tape still holds down the carpet in the judicial secretary’s office as it did when I arrived over 17 years ago. During that time, one of the four elevators in our main courthouse has stopped working, with no repair date projected. We still have one of the highest case loads per bench officer. There is no way to count how many times proposals to increase the number of judges here have been traded away in Sacramento or San Francisco for some other political lollipop. To some degree, I believe this is because historically, our local court hasn’t “made nice” politically with the AOC and administrative staff.”

   JCW is going to be opening up a satellite in San Joaquin County next month and give some special attention to San Joaquin because we’re concerned about the plight of San Joaquin Courts in general.

   Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  July 20, 2012

  I love the satellite office concept JCW.

  Keep up all the good work!

  😉

  Reply
7. 
   

   wearyant
   

   July 20, 2012

   The CJA under signature of Hon. Rubin presented rather than comments a well-reasoned and exhaustive report in answer to the SEC findings. My faith in the CJA is renewed cautiously. For a while it appeared they were also entangled in the AOC web of deception. (I just wish the CA judges’ education could be undertaken by the CJA rather than the AOC!) The CJA’s submission was excellent! Her Honor Zelon really embarrassed herself by downright insulting all the judges who submitted comments by suggesting many were simply stuffing the ballot box. She also said the substance of certain comments should be considered over the numbers of commenters. Really, now! Grasping for something to counter the opposition? A new low, your Honor. Remember, these judges have been surveyed to death. They don’t want to be seen as agreeing to the status quo, are taking time from their harried day’s work, and some wrote one or two lines. Does that take away from their opinions? Let’s face it, there’s an utter avalanche going on in opposition to the JC/AOC/CJ continuing business as usual. My only beef is I believe the AOC should be diminished, if not completely, down to below 300 strong — totally. They can manage with that number. Remember, look at how the SEC committee managed and what they produced in 55 weeks. Oh, I just had a wonderful idea! The SEC should take over for the AOC!! (But I doubt they would want to.) ;-D

   Reply
• 
  

  Curious
  

  July 20, 2012

  Ant, Justice Zelon’s comment was, frankly, an embarrassment. Democracy really seems to scare some folks, especially those who have had the ear of the AOC and Council for years and seem to feel entitled to keep it that way. Perhaps she objects to the fact that mere judges were actually invited to weigh in, and did so.

  Wasn’t there a bit of controversy last year reported in the Courthouse News when the Justice applied for a Council spot made available when Justice Huffman stepped down after 15 years or so? Allegations about AOC lobbying on her behalf?

  Her fiefdom is being threatened, and she is lashing out angrily. It’s sad to see this happen. It is beneath her.

  Reply
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  July 20, 2012

  So stipulated.

  😉
• 
  

  Curious
  

  July 20, 2012

  Well, Justice Zelon just got topped by a Judge named Maddock in Contra Costa.
  He opined that judges must not have read the report, because he is just amazed that anyone would support it. Yep, gotta read it to believe it.
• 
  

  unionman575
  

  July 20, 2012

  Maddock must not have reasd it or has beer googles on…

  http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi3183935513/
8. 
   

   unionman575
   

   July 20, 2012

   http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/sec072012.htm
   Metropolitan News-Enterprise
   Friday, July 20, 2012
   Page 1

   ‘Now Is Time for Reform,’ Los Angeles Superior Court Tells AOC
   By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
   The Judicial Council needs to implement reform of the Administrative Officer of the Courts, as proposed by the chief justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee, without delay, the Los Angeles Superior Court has insisted.
   “The fact that a new Administrative Director will soon be in place does not excuse or justify further Judicial Council delay in endorsing the SEC Report,” the court said in its formal comments on the report, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by the MetNews.
   “The most significant AOC failures identified by the Report are, at bottom, failures of the Judicial Council to appropriately exercise its supervisory responsibility to oversee the AOC,” the court said. “Waiting in hopes that the AOC culture will eventually change for the better with a new Administrative Director abdicates the Council’s essential leadership role.”
   Sunday is the deadline for submission of comments on the report, which was released by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye right before Memorial Day and was scathing in its criticisms of how California trial courts have been run. The chief justice has assigned the task of acting on the report to the council’s Executive and Planning Committee, chaired by Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice Douglas Miller.
   Strong Support
   Courthouse News Service reported Wednesday that more than 90 percent of respondents have urged the council to implement the bulk, if not all, of the committee’s recommendations without delay. The Alliance for California Judges sent out an email yesterday urging those judges who have not responded to do so, warning that “your silence will be construed as acquiescence to the status quo.”
   The local trial court endorsed immediate implementation of all SEC recommendations, praising the committee as having been “thorough, honest, independent and, most importantly, responsive to the legitimate criticisms of the Judicial Branch” and noting the diversity of its membership, its “comprehensive fact-gathering,” and its unanimity in reaching conclusions.
   Beyond implementing the committee’s specific recommendations, the court said, the council must “[f]ully assert its governance authority over the AOC,” “[c]hange the culture of allowing the AOC to make policy while the Council plays only a tacit, symbolic or reactive role,” and “[p]rovide across-the-board oversight to insure the SEC recommendations are carried out and ask the members of the SEC to monitor progress and report to the Council at regular intervals.”
   Rather than wait for a new director to be appointed, the court said, the council should design a process that will culminate in appointment of a director “who can be successful in meeting the goals set forth in the SEC Report” and whose performance will be evaluated based on success in achieving those goals.
   “The Judicial Council’s fundamental task now is far more than simply giving a new Administrative Director an ‘opportunity’ to make unspecified changes,” the court wrote. “Rather, the Judicial Council’s duty now is to fulfill its leadership role, as never before, to demand change from the AOC, and to require that change with sufficient specificity in writing so the new Administrative Director will know from the very beginning what is expected.”
   Lost Credibility
   The SEC, the court said, was created to restore credibility that the branch had lost, in large part due to its costly, and ultimately failed, effort to implement a statewide case management system. That effort exposed the “lack of oversight and transparency” present in other aspects of AOC decisionmaking, the court said, citing the February 2011 report of the state auditor.
   “The time for reform is now,” the court said in its concluding comment.
   The MetNews yesterday also obtained the comments of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory Dohi, who complained of “survey fatigue,” complaining:
   “I’ve been asked for my opinion about AOC governance by the Strategic Evaluation Committee, by the California Judges Association, by my own court (twice), and now by the [Executive and Planning] Committee. I wonder why I bother answering.
   “Over the past couple of years, I’ve seen survey answers critical of the AOC diluted with bogus ‘push’ questions…distorted by court leaders…or flat-out disregarded (which is what happened to the overwhelmingly negative comments about CCMS from the large-county trial court IT experts surveyed by the Bureau of State Audits in 2011),” the judge wrote.
   Dohi said he was “against the status quo” and for “the rapid adoption of every recommendation in the SEC report.”
   Centralization, he wrote, has failed to produce “the vast economies of scale its architects promised” and “has instead yoked the entire branch to a series of disastrous policies which have drained our coffers and sapped our credibility with the other branches of government.”
   The AOC, he said, has devolved into “an agency which features needless scholars in residence and lawyers telecommuting from overseas; which has a house media organ that wastes money on pro-AOC news stories and steadfastly ignores dissenting voices; which stonewalls any attempt at reform; which lobbies the Legislature against positions supported by many, if not most, of the state’s bench officers; which can’t even give us a ballpark figure as to how many people it employs.”
   Dohi acknowledged that the AOC does some things well, like judicial education.
   “But our court just laid off its juvenile traffic referees…,” he wrote. “We’ve cut back on court reporters for many civil proceedings, which means that poorer litigants are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to appealing adverse rulings. If we could have saved some of those jobs on the front lines by redirecting AOC funding, even funding for judicial education, we should have done it. Hearing cases is our business. Support functions, including judicial education, simply have to take a back seat to line operations.”
   The courts, he said, should “send a message to the Legislature and to the public that we own up to the mistakes of the past and that we commit ourselves to making drastic changes” before they find themselves “taping a giant ‘Kick Me Harder; sign to our backs and dancing directly in front of the Legislature’s shod right foot.”

   Reply

1. Telecommuting Lawyers KCRA 3 – Mike Leury and a reminder from … | worker.ly - the blog →
   July 20th, 2012 → 2:36 am

   […] View post: Telecommuting Lawyers KCRA 3 – Mike Leury and a reminder from … […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.