JCW Commentary – On Thursday, August 9th 2012 the Executive & Planning committee of the Judicial Council, the people who make the decisions about the council agenda, what they vote upon and act upon, will meet behind closed doors to consider the SEC comments and the SEC report. It is widely believed that based on public statements and statements made to AOC managers and supervisors, that Mr. Miller intends to use his committee to either gut the report or study it to death, placing it on a long road to its demise.
It is our position and the position of our various media partners that since about 250 managers and supervisors have a really solid idea of where the bodies of impropriety are buried, the last thing the power brokers want to do is make these people unemployed. They would prefer to pay these people between 125K-205K in hush money jobs. Since the Executive & Planning committee meetings usually happen behind closed doors, Judge Marianne Gilliard has requested that this meeting be opened so that we can all learn the general direction they intend to go with this report in the interests of transparency and accountability. We agree.
At minimum, this meetings audio should be streamed out to the public with a video broadcast over the Ministry Of Truth web site.
_______________________________________________________
August 7, 2012
Dear Justice Miller,
On behalf of the well over 400 members of the Alliance of California Judges, I respectfully request that you exercise your discretion under CRC 10.10 (d) and permit your Executive and Planning Committee meeting on August 9th to be open to the public. The Alliance makes this request because you have indicated that the issue of the Chief Justice’s SEC report and its recommendations will be discussed at that meeting.
Justice Miller, well over 400 judges responded to your call for public comments. These judges did so knowing full well that they were identifying themselves with reform. We suspect that had you provided a process that would have conferred confidentiality there would have been many more responses. There is obviously great public interest in the decisions to be made on August 9, as well as those to be made by the full Council. As you have seen from the comments, there exists a huge lack of trust that the will of this state’s judges will be respected.
The Alliance has listened carefully to the many pronouncements made by Council members that transparency and accountability are goals for the branch. In fact, the Strategic Evaluation Committee highlighted these issues throughout its report. By way of example, on page six the report states: “The AOC has not been credible or transparent concerning such important matters as budgeting, staffing levels, hiring freezes and furloughs, large-scale projects, and other areas of importance.” Still on page six the SEC notes: “Moreover, the commitment to increased transparency, accountability, and efficiency — and the tone and attitude of the organization — ultimately rests with the Judicial Council.” We agree.
Justice Miller, in the interests of transparency and accountability please open up your meeting to the judges of this state, and to the public. No good reason exists to discuss in private what has been publicly posted. The days of closed door meetings must be the exception and not the rule if we are to restore the credibility of the Judicial Council.
Please know that the Alliance will distribute this request and your response to our members and other interested individuals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Maryanne Gilliard
Director, Alliance of California Judges
Related articles
- Judicial Council Slow-Tracks AOC Reforms (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- A Los Angeles Assemblyman agrees with downsizing the AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- ACJ New AOC Appointed director opposed fiscal reform (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- We wish you were here (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
_____________________________________________________
Behold! The members of the Executive and planning committee
Hon. Douglas P. Miller, Chair (long time insider crony, wants no change in the overall structure of the AOC and has stated as much)(Huffman’s clone)
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
3389 Twelfth Street
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 782-2667
Fax (951) 248-0346
douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov
Hon. Kenneth K. So, Vice-Chair (also a long time insider crony whose most notable accomplishment is what he doesn’t say)
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 450-5055
Fax (619) 450-5716
kenneth.so@sdcourt.ca.gov
Hon. Stephen H. Baker (also a long time insider crony, known for going along to get along and has had Jack Halpin assigned to his court for 19 years)(tainted voice)
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Shasta
1500 Court Street
Redding, CA 96001-1685
(530) 245-6761
Fax (530) 225-5339
sbaker@shastacourts.com
Ms. Edith R. Matthai (this attorney works for an insider crony and has been a reliable producer of inaction)
Attorney at Law
Robie & Matthai
500 South Grand Avenue, #1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2609
(213) 706-8000
Fax (213) 706-9913
ematthai@romalaw.com
Hon. David Rosenberg (A judicial council brown-nosing rising star that has carefully tried to play both sides of the fence. Due to his direct involvement in unlawful activity, he is a malleable tool and a reliable producer pushed forth as a periodic spokesperson for the death star) (tainted voice)
Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court of California,
County of Yolo
725 Court Street, Dept. 4
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 406-6741
Fax (530) 406-6962
drosenberg@yolo.courts.ca.gov
Hon. David S. Wesley ( the only clean one of the bunch)
Assistant Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Room 204
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 974-5550
Fax (213) 680-1263
DWesley@LASuperiorCourt.org
Mr. David H. Yamasaki (the highest paid court executive officer in California is a reliable producer for the cronies, thereby earning his 332K per year)
Court Executive Officer
Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 882-2714
Fax (408) 882-2296
dyamasaki@scscourt.org
AOC LIAISON
Ms. Jody Patel (canon fodder: A hysterical, irrational tyrant respected by few, loathed by many brings her pet spot with her on every promotion she gets)
Interim Administrative Director of the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
(415) 865-4235
unionman575
August 7, 2012
Nice!
Dan Dydzak
August 7, 2012
All good input. What it boils down to unionman and other sage commentators on Judicial Council Watcher, the new AOC head has to implement the SEC recommendations and call back Mr. Geneva and give an accounting to the all the people, including, most importantly, all the judges of this state. Failing implementation, same tune, same dance.
Then email Calderon and all those in the Assembly and Governor’s office in Sacramento and demand (1) statutory abolition of the AOC via the Legislature; or, in the alternative, (2) cut off funding. Can’t feed the baby without groceries, can’t run the car without gas. This might sound kind of draconian, but I know a bunch of court reporters losing their jobs in LASC while others are sitting eating caviar and golfing at Pebble Beach.
Tell the Judicial Council crowd to stay next time in SF at Best Western at Fisherman’s wharf, good rate and free breakfast buffet. No need for the Fairmont if there is seriousness about correcting the fiscal mess and cleaning up the corruption.
Wendy Darling
August 7, 2012
Long live Judge Gilliard and the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 7, 2012
I am a great fan of official records, which — as ALL judges (and all members of the state bar worth their salt) know, tell the tale. By all means, open up the 8/9/2012 proceedings to public scrutiny. Gotta love anyone who is for full disclosure.
JusticeCalifornia
August 7, 2012
Can I clarify? I do mean officially recorded records of proceedings. Not records that can be “cleansed” by officials.
courtflea
August 7, 2012
Wow Judge Gilliard and the ACJ you ROCK!!!
Heck if the JC has to be open to the public why not E&P? When decisions by the E&P are part of making policy for the judicial branch, there does need to be some transparency. Believe me, this is where the real decisions are made! That is why our arch nemisis J Huffman weilded so much power. Keep pushing this one ACJ.
courtflea
August 7, 2012
PS are you listening J Head??
JusticeCalifornia
August 7, 2012
Jahr may or may not understand the significance what is going down in the branch, and what those up, down, and all around this state — in all three branches– already know.
Guest
August 8, 2012
Lets be clear about the appointment of Mr. Jahr. He was appointed to do exactly what the cj wants. He will be 64 next month and was just sitting around bored but now he gets $250k to supplement his judges retirement (can you say double dip?) and gets paid to come to SF a few times a week. The cj found a puppet and Jahr found tax payer funded excitement. A mutually beneficial relationship. Of course the rest of us who actually care about the branch and want to improve are left out.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
I don’t think he is.
courtflea
August 7, 2012
Can someone tell me what the Financial Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch Advisory Committee is doing? Check their charge out at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/3046.htm
I thought they were the OTHER committee that supposed to look at the AOC. The Chair is J. Huffman and John Judnick the master of transparency is staff to the committee. Are they reporting their progress and what they are working on to the JC? Maybe the ACJ should call the question since they are pushing for public meetings of the E&P, this committees meetings would be very informative as well since they are here to “promote transparency, accountability and efficiency”. That itself is laughable with J Huffman as chair and Judnick as his loyal side kick.
I bet they are not being put up at the Best Western in Fishermans Wharf Dan D. Too far from the airport? Try the lovely Ramada Inn in Burlingame!
unionman575
August 7, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/finacct.pdf
Judicial Council Watcher
August 8, 2012
I think most would agree that there is only one person on this committee that is truly committed to accountability and efficiency surrounded by a bunch of henchmen. To underscore the success of this committee in underscoring its charge, if you recall it was Judge Tia Fisher that sits on this committee that received the heavily redacted Deloitte contract.
Efficiency and accountability at its finest.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
Si Senor!
😉
The OBT
August 8, 2012
There is no chance that this E and P meeting will ever be made public. A great idea but the “insiders ” at 455 Golden Gate including J Miller have no desire to have their power reduced or their true feelings about the AOC, SEC etc made known
Lando
August 8, 2012
How would the E and P committee receive the comments of Ronald George , Bill Vickrey and J Huffman in an open session for all to see or hear ? It is ironic as well that J Miller required that all people commenting on the SEC report and process identify themselves , only to have his gatekeeper committee revert to having a totally closed and private meeting to discuss those same comments. You really can’t make this stuff up.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
The movers and shakers at the Death Star love being in the shadows.
That is why WE are ALL here on JCW crowing away.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 8, 2012
Great points everyone. As time goes on, it is becoming more and more obvious that the one still calling the shots around the Crystal Palace IS STILL Ronald George. Why else is Bill V & Company still trolling the dark hallways at 455 Golden Gate Avenue? Take Huffman from public view on one committee and have him calling shots on another. Why all the utter secrecy? There will be no end to the legacy building and ensuring the retention of the legacy of Ronald George?
I hope that the Legislature understands that the JC/AOC has absolutely no intention of ever utilizing or acting upon (in any positive manner) the information contained within the SEC report. If there was ever a question about George’s involvement, that went out the window once Cantil-Sakauye announced the formation of the SEC. I think that marked the point at which her predecessor openly moved back behind the green curtain to control things. Publicly announcing the formation of the SEC was Tani’s panicked reaction to the heat she was then facing. She never dreamed that those responding to the SEC questioning would ever be candid and speak the truth regarding the management within the Crystal Palace. Likely this is true because the current CJ had no idea of what was going on because as she stated after her “selection” as CJ, she really didn’t pay attention to what was going on within the Judicial Branch for the first fifteen years of her career, that is until Ronald George plucked her from obscurity and placed her on the Judicial Council.
If anything, since the commission of the SEC report the JC/AOC have moved even more toward secrecy and away from “transparency” in their decision-making activities. Lando and The OBT make great points. The E&P have zero intention of going public with their meeting and/or discussions of the SEC report. JCW is absolutely correct regarding the Star Chamber committee and the fact that Tia Fisher is the voice of reason on it. It will be interesting to see what if anything Judge Fisher is allowed to say publicly regarding the activities of the committee. Since the CJP is has formally assumed the role of what was formerly titled the Ministry of Propaganda and National Enlightenment, I wonder what not too subtle “thoughts and suggestions” have been made to committee members about the potential pitfalls of publicly commenting on pending or impending matters within the branch…
Members of the Legislature, please, please, please, wake up. At this point you are the only hope for correcting the path of this branch of our highly dysfunctional government.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
Members of the Legislature, please, please, please, wake up NOW.
Michael Paul
August 8, 2012
I join the chorus of voices calling on the other two branches of government to act with an emergency special session.
JusticeCalifornia
August 8, 2012
Wow JCW
a. You don’t mince words about those committee members.
b. What an absolute JOKE that the very bunch directly responsible for getting the branch into this mess — and steadfastly keeping the branch in this mess (Judge Wesley excluded) is going to be assessing the scathing SEC comments and making recommendations about how and whether to implement a report that kicked their sorry backsides in no uncertain terms. The CJ/JC equivalent of a kangaroo court.
You know they have one mission: what is the least they can get away with doing, and how can they justify shelving the rest?
Dictionary.com: kangaroo court
1. a self-appointed or mob-operated tribunal that disregards or parodies existing principles of law or human rights, especially one in a frontier area or among criminals in prison.
2. any crudely or irregularly operated court, especially one so controlled as to render a fair trial impossible.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 8, 2012
We’re the keepers of the scorecard – for the benefit of all Californians including those in the legislature and the governors office who read us.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
JCW speaks loud and clear. Nice work calling it the way it is, person by person, on the E & P committee. That is a Picasso JCW.
They are truly a bunch of slumdogs on E & P EXCEPT for the one (Wesley) you mentioned JCW.
😉
courtflea
August 8, 2012
Don’t forget Judge Czuleger’s recollections of his experience on the E&P, as part of his comments on the SEC report:
“While I was on the Council, I served on the Executive and Planning Committee. During that time, much that is wrong with the AOC was done in the name of the Judicial Council. As a single example (and there are many more), I recall how staff from the AOC presented budget material for our committee’s action. The action requested was to redesignate fund balances to certain projects. I asked if that money was going to be spent on those projects but was told no it would not be. I was told it would, however, take the money off the books and make it appear encumbered when it truly was not. I half jokingly stated, “Well isn’t this what Enron did and was indicted over?” Another member of the council, quite seriously replied, “No, we’re government and don’t have to act like private industry.” My point was obviously lost on the group and the AOC staffer then turned up her nose at my comment and committee quickly proceeded to move the money off the books and into designated funds making the funds appear unavailable. It was quite apparent to me the intent was to hide the funds from the Legislature and others. This type of obfuscation was a regular pattern during my term on the Council. I am afraid it may be continuing to this day.”
That from a former member of the E&P committee. If the legislature can’t wake up and smell that coffee (especially after the Parks Department “hidden” funds scanda), they would appear to be deaf AND dumb and blind.
I would love to see J Huffman be sworn to testify at a special legislative committee about antics of the E&P.
Wendy Darling
August 8, 2012
“If the legislature can’t wake up and smell that coffee (especially after the Parks Department “hidden” funds scanda), they would appear to be deaf AND dumb and blind.”
This is blatant public finance fraud, clear as day. If the legislature can’t wake up and smell that coffee, they aren’t just deaf, dumb, and blind, they are permitting public finance fraud within the California Judicial Branch, and just plain don’t care about it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
Judge Czuleger is a “10”.
😉
Official
August 8, 2012
Regarding this call to action by the legislature, a point of discussion being tossed around is that the judicial branch is the coequal third branch of the state government and should be regarded as such by the legislative and executive branches. Although some of us here at JCW believe that the CJ, her Council, and the AOC have done little to impress the two other branches and believe that the governor and the legislature have retaliated with budget cuts, I have considered the argument that “what if” the judiciary is being underfunded by the other branches and some recourse is possible if the judiciary asserted its place as a “coequal” branch. (Somewhere I seem to recall that this coequal theory of the third branch was promulgated by CJ George, which immediately makes it suspect.)
Anyway, in other research related to court reporters, I seem to have found decisions that lead me to believe that perhaps even the justices (and, therefore, the law) would disagree that the JC and the AOC are coequal to the legislative and executive branches, and I’m wondering what everyone here thinks.
If you are interested, please read:
California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California
(1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 15
FN [4]: Preliminarily, we must determine the relative value to be assigned to the Judicial Council’s rules and the Legislature’s enactment of statutes before we turn to the merits of our inquiry. The Judicial Council argues that as it and the Legislature both derive their powers from the state Constitution, the two institutions are coequals. We find this argument to be specious. The Constitution reserves to the Legislature and the people of this state the higher right to provide rules of procedure. The Judicial Council’s right is secondary-a right to adopt rules only when the higher authority of the Legislature and the people has not been exercised. (Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 469, 476-477 [304 P.2d 7]; Lane v. Superior Court (1930) 104 Cal.App. 340, 344 [285 P. 860].) Its rulemaking power is limited by existing law as enacted by the Legislature, thus making the legislative branch an inherently higher authority than the Judicial Council itself. (See Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo, supra, at p. 476; Lane v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 344.) The challenged rules must be measured for consistency against the legislative enactments. [39 Cal. App. 4th 23]
And then read:
California Court Reporters Assn. v. Judicial Council of California
(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 959
We quote from our earlier decision: “The fact that the Legislature has by statute authorized electronic recording in some contexts suggests strongly that-unless the existing statutory scheme providing for the official record to be taken down in shorthand is amended-the Legislature does not intend that electronic recording of superior court proceedings be the method of creating an official record. Although the statutes do not expressly prohibit electronic recording of superior court proceedings, they nevertheless lead to one conclusion-that the Legislature intended that such proceedings be stenographically recorded by official shorthand reporters. [Citations.]” (CCRA I, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 31, italics added, fn. omitted.) Given this clear ruling, we are at a loss to determine why the Judicial Council continues to dispute the obvious implications of it – that it has no justification to permit electronic recording as a method of creating the official record of superior court proceedings, no authority to promulgate rules authorizing such recording and no power to spend taxpayers’ funds to do that which has been held to be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent. fn. 5 (See ibid.) The trial court correctly interpreted CCRA I to mean precisely what we held when it crafted paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of the injunction.
FN 4. The Judicial Council contends that the term “official verbatim record” as contained in the trial court’s judgment is “vague.” It makes this contention notwithstanding the following facts: (1) it was the Judicial Council that used this exact language in promulgating the rules invalidated by this court in CCRA I (39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-21, fn. 12); (2) it was the Judicial Council that used this exact language in promulgating existing California Rules of Court, rule 980.6; and (3) it was the Judicial Council that used this exact language four times in its proposed judgment submitted to the trial court in this case. Simply stated, the Judicial Council’s asserted inability to understand or comprehend the very language that it uses is, respectfully, not our problem.
Official
August 8, 2012
In reading the above case law, it seems to me that IF the judiciary is a coequal branch of government (in some yet undefined sense of the word), it is certainly not coequal to the legislature in its rule-making ability and has “no power to spend taxpayers’ funds to do that which has been held to be inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent.”
So to what extent might the judicial branch be coequal to the powers that be? Even if we adopt any definition of “coequal,” certainly the US and CA Constitutions were designed to have a checks and balance system in place for even the highest offices, departments, or offices. Someone has to put the JC in check. You’d think by now the legislature would jump at the chance, yet we’ve seen no action other than budget cuts that hurt the people of the state the most and don’t address the problem. Let me say this: If the legislature continues to let the JC run amok, they must be getting something out of the deal. What is it? What’s the payoff to them?
One Who Knows
August 8, 2012
Official – I am glad you raised this case and made these points. Very valid. Also, for everyone’s information – Assembly Member Bob Wiecowski was just appointed chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. He replaces Mike Feuer.
JusticeCalifornia
August 8, 2012
Small world.
I have high hopes for Bob.
unionman575
August 8, 2012
We should all say “hello” to Assembly Member Bob Wiecowski the newly appointed chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Here is his public legislative contact info…
Bob Wieckowski can be contacted at (916) 319-2020, (916) 319-2120 (fax), and assemblymember.wieckowski@asm.ca.gov.
Bob Wieckowski Democrat (Elected 2010), Assembly District 20 (Fremont)
Bob Wieckowski is a member of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials (Chair), the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, the Assembly Committee on Insurance, and the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
😉
Wendy Darling
August 8, 2012
“Separation of Powers” and “co-equal branch of government” is not a shield for ethical violations, fiscal irresponsibility, fraud, or corruption. The Judicial Branch’s constitutional authority is to interpret and apply the law. The public officers and administrators of the branch are not conferred with immunity for breaking or disregarding the law under the guise of “separation of powers” and “co-equal branch of government.”
Though one would never know it, given the current state of affairs at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Long live the ACJ.
Dan Dydzak
August 8, 2012
Just found out that Ronald M. George filed through Attorney General’s Office a Motion to quash service of my lawsuit, Dydzak v. Dunn, even though he was duly served. In other words, instead of answering the lawsuit on the merits, he has to play “hide and seek” and claim FALSELY that he was not served. The motion did not have a sworn declaraton from either him or the person authorized to accept service contesting the service. Stall tactic.
Moreover, he did not pay any filing fee, even though he is being sued in an individual and administrative capacity.
Stall, stall, stall
Wendy Darling
August 8, 2012
Ron George: Stall, stall, stall. Liar, liar, liar.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
August 8, 2012
here, here, here