August 13, 2012
Dear Members and Others:
We include today’s Dan Walters column from the Sacramento Bee and a Daily Journal news piece on last Thursday’s meeting of the Executive and Planning Committee. Both highlight, in different ways, the difficulty in reconciling various recent statements of our leaders.
Mr. Walters refers to one that confused us as well, having to do with the Chief Justice stating her “pleasure” at the adoption of a recent trailer bill containing the funding elements of AB 1208, although she had consistently disseminated comments indicating her unwavering opposition to the bill. Our confusion was heightened by the fact that the AOC vigorously lobbied against those changes up until the moment of their enactment. After numerous written attempts to have those involved clarify things, and only after intervention by the latest interim Director of the AOC, did we receive this less than helpful response from Mr. Curtis Child:
“In answer to your question, the positions that my staff and I have advocated and continue to advocate regarding the judicial branch budget have been and continue to be consistent with Judicial Council policy. I do not have any additional information that would assist you with what was described in your email as a ‘puzzling turn of events.’”
Today’s Daily Journal article raises similar questions. Last week, we asked Justice Miller to exercise his discretion and open the E and P meeting to judges and the public. Judge Charles Wachob, Chair of the Strategic Evaluation Committee, made the same request.
Justice Miller never communicated either his decision, or his reasoning, to us and the meeting remained closed. Justice Miller did explain his reluctance to open the meeting to the press, however, and downplayed the importance of the meeting. As reported in last Friday’s Daily Journal:
“Miller said he doesn’t think it was important to make the meeting public because it won’t include any action, rather review of the recommendations and of public comment and the development of input to the council on how the recommendations might be adopted. ‘We’re not the determinative body, we’re not making any decisions,’ Miller said.”
We pointed out to you on Friday that in fact E and P does make decisions and would do so at the meeting, and that those decisions would carry great weight. Today’s Daily Journal again quoted Justice Miller:
“’Some of the SEC’s recommendations will be adopted verbatim,‘” Miller said. ‘Some were tweaked a little to fit with the organization, some were broadened, some we further defined, and some have largely been accomplished.’ “
Since we were barred from the meeting, we are left to wonder how it is that Justice Miller and other members of the E and P Committee who have proclaimed that the report will be implemented–one even chastising judges who have expressed doubts in their public comments and elsewhere–can do so with such confidence? How can Justice Miller possibly know which recommendations will be implemented “verbatim” and which will require “tweaking,” if in fact Justice Miller’s quote from last week is accurate? We will not attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
We are also concerned that Justice Miller confidently states that certain recommendations have already been implemented by the AOC. Because the meeting was closed, we can only surmise that on this point Justice Miller is simply repeating representations made by the AOC to his E and P Committee. We have learned, as has the State Auditor and the Legislature, that accepting AOC representations at face value is not a wise course of action. We strongly urge the Council to seek independent verification of any AOC claim that they have already complied in part with the recommendations in the SEC report. We believe that the Strategic Evaluation Committee should be put in charge of this verification, not the E and P Committee, which appears far too willing to uncritically accept these representations.
As to the E and P member who today publicly decried “rumors” that the SEC report would be “buried” by the Council, we point out that the best way to avoid such “rumors” is to join with the Alliance of California Judges and SEC Chair Judge Wachob and urge opening to the public any and all future E and P meetings dealing with the report.
Thank you for your continued support.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
_____________________________________
State’s long judicial battle still raging
By Dan Walters – The Sacramento Bee
Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012 | 08:11 PM
For years, hundreds of Superior Court judges have waged a political rebellion against what they considered to be an oppressive and bloated state judicial bureaucracy based in San Francisco.
The rebels, gathered under the banner of the Alliance of California Judges, alleged that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), an arm of the State Judicial Council, was wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on itself, on an unworkable computer system, and on a grandiose courthouse construction program while starving local courts.
The rebellion, stemming from a state takeover of local court financing in the 1990s, erupted during former Chief Justice Ron George’s reign, and Tani Cantil-Sakauye inherited it when she succeeded George in 2010.
Cantil-Sakauye tried to steer a center course, pledging to enact reforms while opposing legislation that would reduce the AOC’s authority over local court budgets. She denounced the measure, backed by rebel judges and unions representing court employees, as an intrusion on judicial independence.
In the last few months, however, the rebels scored a series of stunning victories. The Judicial Council abandoned the controversial computer system, a “Strategic Evaluation Committee” appointed by Cantil-Sakauye issued a massive report that agreed with much of what the Alliance of California Judges had been alleging about the AOC’s high-handedness, and a budget “trailer bill” enacted in June included restrictions on the AOC’s financial power that the rebels had sought.
The critical report and pressure from the Service Employees International Union clearly played central roles in getting the legislation passed, overcoming reportedly heavy opposition from AOC lobbyists.
Cantil-Sakauye declared herself to be “pleased.”
Does that mean the civil war that has ripped apart the state’s judiciary is settled? Hardly.
The trailer bill that so pleased the rebels is an adjunct to a new state budget that slashes judicial support again.
Meanwhile, conflicts over the Strategic Evaluation Committee’s reform recommendations are emerging.
Hundreds of judges have posted comments on the Judicial Council’s website, most demanding that the reforms be activated. But the Alliance of California Judges fears they will be buried.
_______________________________________
Daily Journal excerpt – Cen$ored by corporate greed.
Plans to reform court administrative office remain under wraps
Judges review most of the recommendations and plan to meet later for further discussion.
By Paul Jones
Few details have emerged about a closed meeting of a state Judicial Council committee to vet recommendations for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Those who attended the all-day meeting Thursday offered nonspecific information about their discussion, while others couldn’t be reached for comment.
Members of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, the president of the California Judges Association and members of the Strategic Evaluation Committee created by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye met in a closed meeting to analyze the recommendations, which focus on how to reform the Administrative Office of the Courts. The recommendations were included in a May report on the agency by the Strategic Evaluation Committee.
According to judges present at the meeting, attendants reviewed all but 19 of the report’s nearly 151 recommendations, and they are set to meet again on Aug. 21 to discuss the remaining recommendations in advance of the Judicial Council’s Aug. 31 meeting, at which many of the recommendations are scheduled to be considered.
The report was highly critical of the AOC, recommending significant layoffs and urging greater oversight of the agency by the Judicial Council.
Justice Douglas P. Miller of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Executive and Planning Committee chair, said the meeting was “tremendously productive and successful” but that the committee ran out of time to finish discussing all of the recommendations. He provided no specifics about the committee’s position on how the council should consider the report’s recommendations.
“Some of the SEC’s recommendations will be adopted verbatim,” Miller said. “Some were tweaked a little to fit with the organization, some were broadened, some we further defined, and some have largely been accomplished.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Related articles
- Dan Walters: Rebels make gains, but California’s judicial war still rages (sacbee.com)
- There will be no sunshine in the Crystal Palace today… (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Judicial Council Watcher
August 14, 2012
There might be one suitable explanation of non-disclosure regarding this meeting. There might have been a come to jesus talk involving personnel decisions like firing Mary “The Lizard” Roberts and other items that were sensitive issues surrounding AOC’s inept management.
Personnel discussions relating to those SEC recommendations probably shouldn’t leave the room until they’re implemented. It would also make sense also for the full council to consider such decisions in private and make those terminations immediately afterwards. It’s a positive note that “all but 19” will apparently be implemented wholesale or with tweaks.
JusticeCalifornia
August 14, 2012
Gotta love the ACJ, and how they stay on topic in such an intelligent, cool, and collected manner.
I don’t think they are “rebels” anymore. They are presently branch leadership. The cj/jc/aoc are the overthrown regime hiding behind the palace walls. It is only a matter of time.
Wendy Darling
August 14, 2012
Once again, the ACJ nails it.
And it is not an act of rebellion to tell the truth, or to be a rebel to do so.
Long live the ACJ.
Robert Turner
August 15, 2012
I like your sentiment Justice California and hope you are right that the ACJ is in fact the real leadership force of the future. This rebellion is completely appropriate to rise up and speak out. But there has not been an overthrow yet. George left on his own before the scandals broke for his own personal reasons. Vickrey would never have left on his own and was forced to retire by the legislature (though he pretends he chose to retire), Overholt was his successor but was too tied Vickrey and the failed roll out of CCMS to get the job, Patel has been a loyal Vickrey officer who has played her cards as best she can, pretending she did not want the top job, when she really did. She simply knew she had no hope of the job due to her political connections with Vickrey given the rise of the ACJ’s voices. Now the Chief has hired a retired judge for the director job to give the appearance that judges, not administrators, are in control and it was just those unethical administrators that forgot the proper place of the AOC relative to the JC.
I am a complete skeptic. I do not believe there is a desire on the Chiefs part to have a true democratic council of judges from the trial and appellate courts that could potentially out vote the chief on a policy issue. That would be a huge step backwards from the centralized house she inherited from George. This is why Curt Child is right to say he is following JC policy in lobbying against AB 1208. That is the Chief’s view to date, She wants to have Chief selected judicial council where she appoints the members. This was George’s view too and he called thoughts otherwise “war”. This is all about one thing and it is not justice. It is about POWER.
The Governor and the Legislature should see this internal fight within the branch and be very concerned about the Judicial Branch which has grown in cost, failed in administration (CCMS, expansion of the AOC, courthouse construction over processing of cases/staff,), and appears to now be failing the public with closing courthouses around the state and reducing hours in clerks offices over reducing administration.
The branch needs internal democracy to remain just. Even U.S. Presidents can have their veto’s overriden by a 2/3rds vote of Congress. What the Chief should respect is the need for judges from the two lower courts to be able to elect their own members to the council and respect that a majority of them could potentially override her position on policy issues. It would be rare for them to do so, just as Congress rarely overrides a President, but that is a just process. In light of the failures of George’s chief controlled judicial council the Legislature and the Governor should force reform on the Judicial Branch for the people’s sake. I say this with the greatest respect for CA courts and hope that the current Chief will see the full errors of the past decade of consolidation of power into the Chief’s hands. That road is a path for tyrants and dictators not for chief justices. She needs to change course and do so dramatically. Fight on my friends!
courtflea
August 17, 2012
rock on Rob.