Just when you thought you had heard everything, Alliance director Judge Kevin McCormick flips over a rock and, lo and behold, more evidence of insular, out-of-touch decision making by the Administrative Office of the Courts is found.
We attach today’s Daily Journal article by reporter Paul Jones. In the midst of the worst budget crisis facing the Judicial Branch, the bureaucrats at the Administrative Office of the Courts are nevertheless receiving pay raises. In fact, the plan is to hand out pay raises next year. We believe that today’s revelations are only the first of many related to this issue, and that further very disturbing details about these raises will emerge in the coming weeks.
Our state’s fiscal situation grows more desperate by the day. How can we possibly afford this largess for at-will unrepresented employees? While trial courts up and down this state continue to lay off and furlough valuable front line employees, curtail hours of service for our communities and shutter courthouses, it appears to be business as usual for the bureaucrats who purport to “serve the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”
Again, our only hope to salvage our branch’s credibility is by democratizing the Judicial Council and fully and immediately implementing each and every recommendation of the SEC. In light of this latest embarrassing revelation, it is unlikely that the Governor or the Legislature will be favorably disposed towards shielding our branch from further cuts.
Finally, the Judicial Council next meets on August 30th and 31st. Alliance director Judge Steve White will speak on behalf of our organization.
We encourage all judges who are able to attend to contact Nancy Spero at Nancy.Spero@jud.ca.gov and request to speak during the public comment period.
At this point it is expected that the public comment period for SEC related matters will be on August 31, but Ms. Spero has indicated that individuals who need to address the Council on the 30th due to scheduling issues will be accommodated.
{DJ Snip}
Soderlund said the increases all came from within the AOC’s budget and that the agency hadn’t asked for an increase in its budget to pay for them. The AOC’s current budget for the fiscal year is $148 million although that number may be revised downward.
JCW – Time to revise it downward – by about 147,999,999.00
Funny, Mr Couch probably got a raise. I wonder if the people across the street got a raise? Any SEIU 1021 SF Court employees to chime in?
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 10, 2012
In prior years, even as a former Presiding Judge, I would have loved to have handed out significant raises to the hard-working people that serve the public. In reality, every Presiding Judge is required to follow the rules and limit their personal involvement in personnel issues. Staff salary negotiations are handled through the Court CEO. The Presiding Judge in each County is PERSONALLY LIABLE for improper spending that may have occurred at the local level. (This may be one reason why not every judge is willing to step up to the plate to become a PJ)
The AOC doesn’t play by the same rules. When trial court started laying staff off in 2009-2010, the AOC was handing out “raises”. Their justification was well these were contracted “step-increases” that were due staff. I don’t begrudge what was paid to the hard-working line staff at the AOC, but I do object to not having to play by the same rules. Many Presiding Judges face the frustration of not even knowing what their budgets will be when contracts are negotiated. Imagine running a business in which you are asked to negotiate employee salaries without having a clue about what your income and expenses will be during the contract period.
The AOC is exempt from this dilemma. No one seems to question their response that these were simply negotiated contracts which they are honoring. If that is the case, why can’t we at the trial level simply say our employees will receive a minimum increase each year that is at least equivalent to the COLA.
I think the Chief Justice and members of the Judicial Council should be personally liable for the monies they spend on staff and programs which they authorize. Let’s see, if I add the 9 and carry the 7, I think that Ron and Tani owe the taxpayers about $632 Million and change…
unionman575
August 10, 2012
Agreed!
😉
Wendy Darling
August 10, 2012
Understatement of the month: “The AOC doesn’t play by the same rules.” Truth be told, the AOC doesn’t play by any “rules,” except the ones they make up as they go along, to suit the purpose of the moment.
Proposed entry for Delilah’s Dictionary:
AOC “rules” =’s rules that only apply to others, usually to punish someone, or to hide AOC mismanagement or lying.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 12, 2012
Agreed.
Dan Dydzak
August 10, 2012
Pay raises for the inner sanctum when the courts are going broke and AOC/court funds have been embezzled and money-laundered and sent off to the Vatican Bank and other places. Inexplicable and arrogant. If this does not show everyone, including hard working rank and file court workers, the big F— Y— from the powers that be, I don’t know what does. The Alliance Judges should form a committee, go visit Calderon, and get emergency legislation passed to:
(a) abolish the AOC; (b) cut off their funding; (c) force an audit and accounting; and (d) create legislation forcing the Judicial Council to be democracized. One of my sources recently saw R. George near the Crystal Palace doing his thing. Does anyone still think he doesn’t still run the show when he has an economic incentive to do so and keep his AOC hangers on happy with pay increases? Cut off the AOC funding through the legislature, and there will be a change in conduct and attitude. Ultimately, it all comes down in the AOC to money, power and control. Gordon Geko must be the AOC’s hero–and even he went to prison.
courtflea
August 10, 2012
ok. this really torks me off. for years the AOC has been forbidding trial courts not give increases to staff and these are courts that HAD the funding in their budget!!! Why you may ask?? The courts were told that it would give the wrong appearance in these hard budget times!!! And since when do AOC employees have step increases much less contracts?! Think about what the SEC report said. No performance evaluations given, promoting people to give them raises. With the bashing the AOC received in the SEC report for their HR department, I can’t believe they have a structure in place for step increases.
There has gotta be some karma out there for these people. And if there is I hope I am around to see the payday, the poo poo heads. Thank you Wendy, that naughty word is so PC no references to gender or race!! Leave it ot OGC to use it exclusively!
courtflea
August 10, 2012
My comment should be for years the AOC has been forbidding trial court to give increases sorry.
CitizenJack
August 10, 2012
With all these public revelations, why don’t the Grand Jury and the Governor take interest in investigating the finances of George, Vickrey, their chronies and most specially DeLoitte during the past 10 or so years, and finally indict them?
unionman575
August 10, 2012
AOC staff receiving pay increases during fiscal crisis “Step
increases” draw rebuke from judges during time of fiscal shortfalls
By Paul Jones
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Despite budget cuts and layoffs, many Administrative Office of the
Courts staff have received pay increases in the form of “step
increases” over the past two fiscal years and in the current year.
The Alliance of California Judges recently requested information
about those pay increases from the AOC.
According to the AOC, in fiscal year 2010-11, 77.3 percent of its
full-time employees got step increases of 3.5 percent –
raises collectively worth about $1.9 million. In fiscal year 2011-
12, 72.45 percent of full-time employees received increases of 3.5
percent, worth approximately $1.59 million.
Judge Kevin J. McCormick of the Sacramento County Superior Court, a
director with the alliance, said he’d tried to get similar
information from the AOC without success. He called the step
increases “outrageous.”
“We are in the midst of cutting back services to the citizens of
our communities that rely on the courts being open,” McCormick said.
“If they’re continuing to give raises to the administrative people
that are supposed to be servicing the courts system at the same
time we’re closing those services … that is unbelievable to me.”
Public employees often receive salaries within a particular pay
range and can annually receive step increases, also known as “Merit
Salaries Adjustments,” that gradually move them up from the bottom of that
range. Step increases are different from cost of living adjustments
(COLAs) that increase the salaries of the overall population of
employees in a given position, independent of step increases.
Step increases, which up until the summer of 2009 had been 5
percent for eligible AOC employees annually, were frozen for the 2009-10
fiscal year in light of the tight budget. Just before former
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George departed in
December 2010, he reinstated step increases set at 3.5 percent,
then they were carried forward again for the 2011-12 fiscal year and the
current 2012-13 fiscal year.
Curt Soderlund, interim chief deputy director of the AOC, said the
agency isn’t doing anything different “than what you’llfind in county governments and trial courts” in California.
Soderlund said it is common practice for employees, whether union
or at-will, to get step increases. The AOC’s staff are at will
employees without a union contract.
“I know, generally speaking, that all trial courts have been given
step increases without interruption,” Soderlund said. “The
percentage varies, [but] I do believe that as a general rule it's been
around 5 percent.”
McCormick said the Sacramento court had only given step increases
to union staff.
“I don’t know what most courts are doing, but we’re not
giving step increases unless they’re contractually obligated,” he
said. “The AOC has no such contractual obligation – they’re all
at-will.”
McCormick said the pay increases weren’t justifiable and that
reviews of the AOC showed the agency needed to be reduced.
“If there is a place where money has to be cut … I think the last
place you take money from is the court system that provides the
walk-in service to the public and the communities,” he said.
The AOC has faced budget cuts along with the rest of the judicial
branch and has reduced its workforce, announcing in mid-July that
it had cut 277 employees over the previous fiscal year through a
combination of layoffs, voluntary separation and retirements. Since
2009, employees have also been furloughed one day a month, the
equivalent of approximately 4.62 percent of annual pay. Many of the
AOC’s full-time employees – currently 700 – are eligible for
step increases.
Soderlund said the increases all came from within the AOC’;s
budget and that the agency hadn’t asked for an increase in its budget
to pay for them. The AOC’s current budget for the fiscal year is
$148 million although that number may be revised downward.
paul_jones@dailyjournal.com
😉
unionman575
August 10, 2012
unionman575
August 10, 2012
unionman575
August 10, 2012
JCW you ask, “I wonder if the people across the street got a raise? ”
No they all got a hand job JCW.
😉
unionman575
August 12, 2012
Everyone that can should attend the 8-30 & 8-31 JC meeting.
I know AOC folks cannot attend as attendance = no job.