I’m sure that by now everyone has caught on to the concept that when you have 17 members of the judicial council appointed by the chief justice and you have two appointees of the state bar, which is an administrative office of the California Supreme Court and you have voting members of the state assembly and senate that rarely, if ever show up to judicial council meetings to cast their votes that the end result would be the same as if the judicial council did not exist at all and the Chief Justice was making all of these decisions herself. If these appointees have any aspirations at all in participating in the unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab that the JC/AOC has been engaging in all of these years, you play ball just like everyone else.
Obviously, we the people need to shake things up a bit.
Submitted for your consideration: Democratizing the Judicial Council
An analysis of effective representative democracy by JCW and our media partners
- The Chief Justice has a permanent 12 year appointment to the council as its chair. One element of democratization would be for members to select their own chair for the council each calendar year with a permanent seat on the council reserved for the Chief Justice. In this manner, the Chief Justice and the AOC would not be setting the agenda but the democratically elected chair would be setting the agenda. The chair would also be responsible for appointments to: The various vacant or soon to be vacant committee chairs and even the CJP. This would serve to diffuse the current brown-nosing cronyism that permeates the council and would result in most of these old-timers like Huffman getting the boot permanently.
- Our two representatives from the legislature hardly ever and sometimes never show up to vote. A perfect example of this is Senator Ellen Corbett who has never showed up or participated in a JC meeting to our knowledge. The problem with the two representatives coming from the legislature is that they are both chairs of the judiciary committee and they are both attorneys and either aspire to being appointed as a judge (and you might know who these individuals are) or they own law firms or have bar cards and might some day return to private practice. Under these conditions, it is pretty obvious that holding a bar card and sitting on the council may not be in the best interests of the state legislature or the people of California. Maybe given the gravity of the situation, democratic reform of the council should start with the legislature ELECTING non-lawyer legislators to the council so that a real voice of the people might be heard. In essence, if you have or have ever held a bar card, you are ineligible to sit on the Judicial Council from the state assembly of the senate.
- Two representatives from the state bar should be elected by bar members and not appointed by the bar. In this manner, law firms that have an interest in the efficient operations of the council and processes has an influence in the outcome rather than, to use a modified version of a term recently used, “bobble-heads” that knows their obligation is to vote in blind allegiance.
- Much like the UN’s security council, the Los Angeles courts would have 5 permanent members that are peer elected. Why? Nearly half of the judges are in los angeles. This number is not too weighty to ensure that the LA courts run the whole show but it gives them solid representation in relative approximation to their size.
- The other 12 members of the Judicial Council would be elected amongst the judicial officers and court executives statewide, blending efficient administration with democratic oversight.
- The legislative election of a Judicial Branch Inspector General, appointed for 5 years who is charged with investigating and prosecuting judicial branch improprieties, such as processing whistleblower complaints. The limit of their power would stop at the executive and not prosecute judges. However, if they found judicial impropriety during an investigation, they would submit a complaint to the CJP who would not have the option of sidelining the complaint. They must process the complaint as if they themselves made the charge.
Since no one has really talked about this in specific terms, we outlined a proposal that looking from the outside in would lead to the greatest degree of judicial branch transparency, accountability and oversight.
Please share your thoughts about our itemized proposals or make a counter-suggestion.
Related articles
- Judicial Council Appoints Former Judge as Administrative Director of the Courts (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The lack of credibility and leadership now emanates from the office of the Chief Justice (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Win the Judicial Council vote history contest – a Black Angus dinner for two (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- ACJ New AOC Appointed director opposed fiscal reform (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Next AOC director described as “insider” by many (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Judges revolt against their own bureaucracy (allgov.com)
8/6/2012 – yes, we intentionally got our facts wrong in the first part of this article. The reason was to (at minimum) open a dialogue about the composition of the council. And most of you didn’t bite……
Judicial Council Watcher 
courtflea
August 2, 2012
Like the UN security council could the other JC members veto proposals put forth by LA?
Judicial Council Watcher
August 2, 2012
Unlike the UN security council the 5 LA members would not have veto authority. However the rest of the council, comprised of between 20-27 voting members could all vote against any proposal.
20-27 members? As we worked this out here, we figured 20 members. However, there could be another 7 voting members in an effort to be more representative and get rid of that advisory member nonsense.
Thomas Paine
August 2, 2012
Good evening, California. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any of you.
But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone’s death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way.
Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this state, isn’t there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression.
And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen?
Who’s to blame?
Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to King George. He promised you order, he promised you peace, he promised you stable court funding and new courthouses and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory.
His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.
So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me outside the gates of the Crystal Palace and together we shall give them a Monday, fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 2, 2012
That’s the kind of drive-by we enjoy reading. Thank you Mr. Paine, it’s been a long time. Come back soon!
Alan Ernesto Phillips
August 3, 2012
Hear, hear!
Good Shasta, will rally forth!
Michael Paul
August 2, 2012
In the interests of opening a real dialogue about this, There is an obvious issue with an even number of votes. Given the profound effect that judicial council action has had on court employees, they probably deserve a seat in the star chamber as well. They can talk best to the additional burdens on them that things like changing a simple form has on their customers. They’re the front line and they also have experienced the greatest loss of jobs and job security.
unionman575
August 2, 2012
Nice work JCW!
😉
courtflea
August 3, 2012
I hear ya Michael but we have to be certain it is just an employeeto bring knowledge not someone with an agenda like a union or management.
Michael Paul
August 3, 2012
An employee sitting in the star chamber (in my mind) would be an interested, non management name of a court clerk that was drawn out of a hat. There has been lots of descriptions about documents that were simple just a few years ago morphing into a dozen pages that even experienced lawyers can’t understand. In the past, these forms have been blindly approved en-block without any understanding of the forests that get wiped out by this activity or the complexity of the documents and the PHD / JD required to read them. Perhaps we need a paperwork reduction act in the JC and to dumb it down to an 8th grade level. If it does not fit on a single piece of paper, it should be reconsidered and reworked to achieve that goal.
A more representative, inclusive democracy is something that should be encouraged. I would suggest the 27 elected number be used to achieve that goal. LA has…. what? about 1/4 of the population and 2/5ths of all judges?
JAD
August 3, 2012
Yes, simple 2 page forms turned into 8 or 10 page forms, but their pitch was the changes were based on testing them on 6th graders so our customers could easier understand them. Even our Judges can’t grasp the changes in the forms, much less the changes in processes some forms have created.
courtflea
August 3, 2012
I always figured those forms were expanded to make potential litigants (i.e. pro pers) give up in sheer frustration and disgust 🙂 But having known some folks on these committees that come up with this crap, they are so anal retentive to the point they can no longer see the forrest for the trees. And excuse me? what 6th grader would like to read 8 pages of crap? Oh my, J Head forgot to put that on his resume!!