It’s time to hear some blues from those boys from Texas because this contest is going to leave you singing the blues.
.
Admittedly, we didn’t come up with the idea. The company sponsoring the contest didn’t come up with the idea either. We took someones idea, bounced it off the management of Yen Interactive Media and they agreed to sponsor the contest and fund the prize, a Black Angus gift certificate with a face value of up to $100.00. Plus 100.00 cash! For those whom are concerned about appearances, there is an option to donate an equivalent amount to your favorite judges association or alliance in leiu of accepting the Black Angus gift certificate – or the charity of your choice.
This contest will also serve to highlight the seriousness of a lack of effective governance in the Judicial Council itself and more importantly, why the Judicial Council needs to be democratized.
There are 21 voting members of the Judicial Council. To win the prize, you must identify two things:
1. Be the first person to clearly identify any judicial council vote where there were more than two dissenters by posting in the thread below.
To contrast this result……
2. You must also identify how many times the 7 member California Supreme court had more than two dissenting votes in the last 12 months.
Good Luck!
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
July 31, 2012
I am going to go with a double ZERO.
😉
unionman575
July 31, 2012
Millions of dollars may lie dormant in California’s special funds
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-funds-20120731,0,3266390.story
The Judicial Branch special funds did NOT appear in the article.
We have more work to do.
Curious
July 31, 2012
Well, I know they had only 6 non-unanimous votes in over 10 years in George’s last decade, out of hundreds of votes. Sadly, most stuff didn’t even make it to the voting agenda, they just shoved it onto the consent agenda. They still do that, by the way and rarely if ever has a Council member exercised the prerogative of moving it to the discussion agenda.
I digress: I’ll say 1. The only votes I can recall not being unanimous lately (last two years, say) are one voters where the LA judge tried to get them to pull back on some folly, or actually move forward with SEC, for example. It’s such a stacked deck that most of those motions don’t even get a second. There are “friendly amendments” and such, I can not remember two judges dissenting, but so you have somebody saying “1”, rather than the obvious “zero”, I’ll bite.
Re: Cal. Supreme Court, it happens quite a bit more often. Dissenting is fine on the Supreme Court (Justice Kennard has traditionally had the most dissenting votes, I believe) but verboten on the Council. Even the new “George-lite” bunch.
Of course, if all of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Chief, rather than being independent constitutional officers, things would be more like the Council, right? Lock step with the trappings of actual democracy.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 31, 2012
I think Curious is trying to help y’all win a prize. 🙂
Wendy Darling
July 31, 2012
Published today, Tuesday, July 31, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Jahr Says He Looks Forward to ‘Healthy Self-Assessment’ of AOC
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The newly named director of the Administrative Office of the Courts said yesterday he is looking forward to participating in a “healthy self-assessment” of the agency.
Retired Shasta Superior Court Judge Stephen Jahr, who was named at a closed-door meeting of the Judicial Council Friday and will assume the post Oct. 8, said that he expects to offer suggestions regarding implementation of the Strategic Evaluation Committee report. While he anticipates that “a pretty significant restructuring” of the agency will result, he said, it is ultimately for the chief justice and the Judicial Council to determine the direction of the branch.
Jahr spoke on a conference call with reporters set up by the AOC.
In introductory remarks, he said he was to “bring my trial court judging experience to some very challenging times,” referring to both the state financial crisis and the long-simmering issues laid bare by the SEC report, which called for major changes in how the AOC does business.
Change of Plans
Jahr—who retired in 2009 after 22 years as a justice court, municipal court, and superior court judge, and has since continued to assist both his local court and the Judicial Council as a volunteer—said that returning to work was “not in our long term plans.” But when some of the judges and others he had worked with on branch issues asked him “to give it some very very serious consideration,” he thought about it and “offered my name to the search committee.”
The 63-year-old ex-jurist grew up in Southern California and practiced in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara before moving to Redding in the early 1980s. That combination will be helpful in his new post, he predicted.
“My perspective is one that embraces the experiences of judges in large and small and medium size jurisdictions and the administrators in those jurisdictions,” he said.
His impression, he said, is that “the council has an open minded attitude about the self-assessment process.” Nothing that came up in the interview process suggested that the council is going to place “any restrictions or limitations” on his ability to offer input into the restructuring.
Jahr’s selection was greeted Friday with a statement by the Alliance of California Judges, which said it had “concerns” regarding his opposition to AB 1208, the branch decentralization bill that the alliance championed, but which never made it to the floor of the Assembly.
Alliance Concerns
The alliance amplified those concerns yesterday, distributing copies of letters Jahr wrote that were critical of the alliance position and accused its members of unfairly maligning the chief justice. The alliance said Jahr had spoken out without knowing all the facts, and expressed hope that he “has now carefully read the SEC report as well as the report on CCMS which was done by the respected State Auditor.”
The alliance added:
“Any objective reader of these two reports would necessarily conclude that the ‘assertions’ and ‘allegations’ made by ‘these judges’ have been verified and confirmed.”
Jahr said he had indeed read the SEC report, and said he opposed AB 1208 “as a private citizen.” Having chaired the Trial Court Budget Commission during the transition from county to state funding, he said, he realizes the importance of “building and maintaining trust” between the AOC and the judges, and respecting the “very significant differences of opinion” that exist.
“I’d like to think that those who worked with me [on budget issues] will tell you that I offered an open forum” for the expression of all views. And as director, he said, he will not publicly state his own views but will “take my guidance from the chief and from the council.”
‘Open-Ended Commitment’
He noted there is no fixed term for the position, and said he does not see himself as a short-term or transitional director. He will serve “at the pleasure of the chief and the council,” and has given them “an open-ended commitment,” he said.
Jahr, a skiing, hiking and backpacking enthusiast, added that while “Redding is home” and he and his wife love their life there, he has “no intention of being a part-time director” and expects to acquire a second residence near the AOC’s San Francisco headquarters.
He took the position, he said, because “I love the branch.”
He said he “gave it everything I had for 22 years” and now has “an opportunity to further that under the direction of the chief justice, who in my judgment has really stood out in these tough times.“
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 31, 2012
Oh yeah we will give the AOC a very “healthy assessment” right here on JCW.
Let’s do it folks!
Wendy Darling
July 31, 2012
Nothing has changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. A Senior Manager in the AOC’s HR Division has been using line staff to copy documents for her personal bankruptcy, and another HR employee that filed an internal complaint for workplace violence after being assulted was, of course, fired.
“Love the branch,” Mr. Jahr? It needs a serious cleaning, not more “self-assessment.”
Long live the ACJ.
Gee Whiz
August 1, 2012
Geez, that’s sounds like a court I know. I remember two female research attorneys held hostage in an office by a big male research attorney. One of the females was an acting supervisor. She was written up along with the male attorney. They blamed them both so the females couldn’t sue. Not that they were but really, should that have been allowed?
It’s too bad that workers are left to assume that because you work in the judicial system that you have rights and will be treated fairly. Complaining only paints a bullseye on your forehead and you get done execution style. Put that in the Working in Government 101 Handbook Rule #1.
It’s been my experience that court/judicial system employees have the least amount of protection. Pro pers and prisoners get treated better than employees. In all my years I’ve seen the carnage of people who thought they could righteously complain when the boss was wrong. Some of the stuff was actionable in a court of law or criminal in nature. That is, if you were private sector. You can’t sue the fox in charge of the hen house and expect justice to result. Rule #2.
It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t complain, you just have to pick your battles and have your ducks in a row when you do.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
IGee Whiz: “You can’t sue the fox in charge of the hen house and expect justice to result. Rule #2. ”
I love that!
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hit+the+nail+on+the+head
Emma Peal
August 1, 2012
Gee Whiz
If I didn’t know better that incident reminds me of Santa Clara Superior Court when Kiri ran the operation. Unfortunately the female attorney passed away from a brain tumor several years ago. All I can say to that is (Kiri) Karma’s a bitch !
unionman575
July 31, 2012
It is all the same..
Judicial Council Watcher
July 31, 2012
Unionman, research king….. I would have thought you would have earned this prize already. You must be vegetarian. 🙂 (or it is waaaaaay too much research for such a tiny prize? heh..)
unionman575
July 31, 2012
No interes in that one…besides I want someone to win the meal deal here…
😉
Michael Paul
July 31, 2012
Make it $200.00. A gift certificate and a hundred dollars cash. I want to know if there is an answer to question number one. 🙂
unionman575
July 31, 2012
Feed a laid off AOC employee for me. They need it more than I do. I feel bad for everyone that loses a job (except management).
😉
unionman575
July 31, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose_step
unionman575
August 1, 2012
See my goose step reference above.
😉
unionman575
July 31, 2012
Question #1: None. Zero.
unionman575
July 31, 2012
LASC Judge Wesley voted “no” once on one single vote.
There was no other dissenting vote on the JC in the last 12 months.
Wendy Darling
July 31, 2012
I’m with Unionman. Zero.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 1, 2012
1. Be the first person to clearly identify any judicial council vote where there were more than two dissenters by posting in the thread below.(not any in the last 12 months but any since the dawn of time)
To contrast this result:
2. You must also identify how many times the 7 member California Supreme court had more than two dissenting votes in the last 12 months.
unionman575
August 1, 2012
I don’t follow #2 – others can help you out there JCW.
courtflea
August 3, 2012
1. A total wild ass guess: 2 dissenters over the RAZ allocations/model
2. once
courtflea
August 8, 2012
hey, who won?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 8, 2012
No one yet. Maybe we should up the ante again and place a deadline of the end of the month and one-in thread reply/guess? (Someone around the wire suggested upping the ante with the caveat of one entry and the end of August 2012 to answer) We haven’t made a decision on that yet but are going to by Aug 15th if no one has won by that time.