The agenda: http://courts.ca.gov/18841.htm
Comments received: http://courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20120831-comments.pdf
About the only comment we feel motivated to comment on since all four comments appear to be related to the SEC report is an observation we first brought to your attention from Brenda Harbin-Forte. Although we don’t agree that her do-over suggestion is feasible or even that the report impacts access to justice more than closing down any courthouse, Harbin-Forte also made this observation:
“In its haste to begin preliminary housecleaning, it appears that the AOC has swept out employees who are overwhelmingly ethnic and overwhelmingly female”
This act was perpetrated by the AOC while demonstrating their own commitment to access, fairness and diversity Ms. Harbin-Forte.
Welcome to the real world where these things are only hollow words on paper.
The public comment period has been moved to the end of the day today with E&P’s recommendations to stall the SEC report for a year being introduced tomorrow morning. One notable speaker: Judge Steve White of the Alliance of California Judges.
I think it is obvious to all that the crystal palace in San Francisco is dedicated to business as usual and that no meaningful reform or restructuring will occur unless those mid-year cuts (and trust us, they’re going to materialize) target the Judicial Council and the AOC’s operations directly before being pushed down on the trial courts.
We agree with curious. This bunch in todays council isn’t going to change a thing. They’re not going to change a thing today and they’ve bought themselves almost another year to contemplate how they will continue to do nothing and sell it as reform.
It is time to take all matters to state legislators if we want to see any reforms to this broken system. Here are those contacts:
Senate Judiciary Committee = 5
Evans (Chair)
Harman (Vice Chair),
Blakeslee,
Corbett
and Leno.
Chief Counsel: Saskia Kim.
Deputy Chief Counsel: Benjamin Palmer.
Counsels: Ronak Daylami, Nichole Rapier, and Tara Welch.
Assistants: Roseanne Moreno and Jennifer Galenti.
Phone (916) 651-4113. Room 2187
Assembly Judiciary Committee = 10
Wieckowski (Chair)
Wagner (Vice Chair)
Alejo
Dickinson
Feuer
Gorell
Huber
Jones
Monning
1 Democratic vacancy.
Chief Counsel: Drew Liebert.
Deputy Chief Counsel: Kevin Baker.
Counsels: Tom Clark, Leora Gershenzon, Anthony Lew.
Secretaries: Cindy Morante, Saba Hashmat.
1020 N Street, Room 104. Phone: (916) 319-2334.
Assembly Committee on Accountability & Administrative Review = 13
Block (Chair)
Garrick (Vice Chair),
Achadjian
Buchanan
Cook
Dickinson
Gorell
Hagman
Huber
Lowenthal
Mitchell
Pan
Portantino
Chief Consultant: Jennifer Galehouse.
Consultants: Nancy Chaires, Jim Sweeney.
Secretary: Elizabeth Delgado. 1020 N
Street. Room 357. Phone: (916) 319-3600.
Judicial Council Watcher 
Robert Turner
August 30, 2012
Fair enough JC Watcher. I can certainly write letters to these legislators. I’ll feel like the character Andy in the movie Shawshank Redemption. Andy wanted to get new books for the prison library so he wrote a letter a week for years till they finally sent new books just to get him to shut up and stop sending letters. He also did it to maintain his own personal sense of goodness knowing he was trying even if nobody would listen.
Curious
August 30, 2012
Worth a listen today: Judge Steve White will speak around 4:30. Last time he gave one of the best presentations ever delivered in that room. Should be very interesting today as well.
Also of interest, item 4 on today’s agenda–a brief discussion of how the Council will approach their upcoming “5 year plan”. We all know these so-called strategic plans are written by AOC, not the Council, and after a discussion led by paid “facilitators”, they are rubber stamped. They the AOC has 5 years more carte blanche to do anything that can remotely be argued to further any of the amorphous goals in the plan (“Fairness”, “access”, etc.) I.e., “The implementation of statewide computer system will further access, in that it will make communication between courts a reality, and save women and children, who otherwise would perish and thus have no access.” See?
As some of you know, these planning sessions are held yearly, and the next one is to form the 5 year plan, I believe. So confused has the Council been that the meetings have been cancelled for the past two years. This is apparently about to change.
The Council is also poised to (for the third time) totally rewrite its “governance policies” contained in the so-called “Title Ten Rules of Court.” Justice Huffman and a few other insiders handled this last time around (there was no public discussion, and no public vote) and they have proven disastrous. Again, a golden opportunity for input, inclusion, and change. It will not occur. They will stick with some bastardized “Carver model” of governance that might work with a small nonprofit corporation, but is doomed to fail when superimposed over the world’s largest judiciary, where members have independent constitutional authority. Won’t matter.
As to the planning sessions, unbelievably, judges in the state are barred from attending, though many favored “stakeholders” (i.e., those with the hooks into the AOC for services) are invited. Today, the new “open and transparent” Council will explain how this will all change.
Expect utter nonsense during this presentation. It’s all spin and window dressing.
What would be nice to hear would be: “Judges, not bureaucrats, will run these planning meetings. Every judge in the state will be asked to attend, and a video feed will be provided for those unable to be there. We will circulate the agenda weeks in advance, so that every judge can have input.” Simple. So simple that the current Council, which gets its collective underwear tied in a knot trying to deal with the simplest of matters, will not even consider this radical approach–simple fairness.
Tomorrow, of course, will be the big show. Listen very closely, if you can tune in, as Justice Miller, Justice Hull, Judge Rosenberg, the Chief and the rest of the chorus try to explain how deferring recommendation after recommendation for up to 18 months for “further study”
(by the AOC) is ACTUALLY tantamount to immediate implementation. The judges of this state are about to have their collective face smacked and their public comments ignored.
Please read Justice Miller’s E and P report, referenced on this site numerous times. Look at the “timeline” that his committee suggests, and which will be unanimously adopted tomorrow. Clearly, there is no urgency, and no real commitment. Expect the AOC to be treated not as an embarrassment to the branch, but as a pampered spoiled child. They will cut the spoiled child’s allowance by a nickel a week, and ground him for part of the weekend, and then hand back the keys to the T-bird. They will then congratulate themselves for being such wonderful parents. They are a co-dependent bunch of enablers of bad behavior, to be sure, drawing a protective blanket around junior and themselves.
It is beyond clear that these people cannot and will not act. We all know that. Nonetheless, these semi-monthly exercises in futility are helpful in the long term. They provide more and more evidence in support of drastic constitutional and statutory change. The Council has become a choke point, through which true reform cannot pass. They have circled the wagons and are in survival mode now. They have become nasty and afraid. They have no power before the legislature, and their lobbyists are simply ignored on all but the most mundane matters.
The judges of this state, and the employees of the 58 courts, are on their own. We must stop pretending that the Council, as presently selected, is useful. It is not. Imagine, though, how different things will be when judges are actually accountable for their votes, and must answer to those who put them on the Council–their fellow judges and justices, not the Chief.
Democratization is the way.
JusticeCalifornia
August 30, 2012
Robert, from personal experience I can tell you that you might be surprised. Legislators (some of them anyway) do listen.
At this point many key members of the legislature have been educated about problems in the branch– a few short years ago that was not the case.
How do you suppose education of the legislature took place? Certainly the ACJ, and many others of us on or reading this blog have walked the Sacramento legislative hallways in one capacity or another.
The legislature has already stepped up. We need to encourage the legislative members to take the next obvious steps.
Democratization of the Judicial Council, and a comprehensive BSA investigation of the JC/AOC that follows the money.
Robert Turner
August 30, 2012
I agree with most of your post Curious except one point. I agree the JC should be democratized and the judges with real votes selected by their peers. However, I do think there is a role for court administrators and they can’t just be non-voting members who are afraid they’ll be canned if they speak up on a matter of importance. The court administrator perspective is unique and valuable. It is a voice that should be heard in an unfiltered manner because judges often lose sight of the perspective of lower level staff in policy making. The court administrator must understand the world of staff and be able to help judges not lose sight of what staff face.
I have a great deal of respect for judges and their work but many do treat staff like they are nothing. Even Steve White who is a good leader of the ACJ’s was the PJ of Sacramento Superior Court when the decision was made to lay off me and several of my co-workers. I respect that decision, as my job was administrative, and administrative jobs should be cut before line staff. That same concept also applies to the AOC. I don’t want anyone to lose their job but I do feel in a fiscal crisis those admin jobs at the AOC should be cut before line staff in the trial or appellate courts who process cases for the public.
While I respect the decision to cut my job I do not respect the process. I did not receive a single word of thanks from my PJ (or any judge on the Sac bench) for my 9 and a half years of service to that court. I saw other co-workers laid off just as coldly like they were nothing. Not one court employee should be laid off because of budget cuts beyond the employees control without receiving a basic thank you for your service from the bench. It is just wrong. Judges rightly thank jurors for their service on a trial. Most of those jurors receive pay from their employer but the judge still recognized they played an important part in the justice process. How about a thanks for the service of staff person for their work for the court when they are laid off due to budget cuts? Or does the fact that a staff person received a paycheck from the court negate the need for such a basic common courtesy?
The judges of CA are right to fight the JC and seek democracry of the JC. I would simply say that they do not have a monopoly CA justice. There are many people who make it happen. There are rank and file employees who have far less income, who play by the rules, pay their dues, who have seen their pay cut, who are never considered officers of the court (like attorneys), who have seen friends laid off, who have even been laid off, whose voices deserve a seat at the table in policy making. That’s what a good court administrator brings to the JC and to any court. That is why the State Court Administrator should not be a judge. They should have every other seat on the JC but not that seat. With all due respect, they have not earned it.
Robert Turner
August 30, 2012
This post will be much shorter. I forgot to mention one other detail. My manager (not his fault) had to tell us we were let go on 12/22/2011. Merry Christmas. Classy!
Lando
August 30, 2012
Curious you nailed it. An outstanding analysis of everything wrong at the crystal palace and you are absolutely right that nothing will ever change with this group of ” insiders “. The legislature needs to act . Democratization of the Judicial Council and a complete investigation of branch finances are the only paths to necessary change and reform.
courtflea
August 30, 2012
Just listening to the muppet show. I agree with Robert that the administrative perspective needs to be a part of the council decision making process. It appears from what I am hearing regarding proposed legislation on state employee’s retirement everyone is concerned about what would effect the judges and not much concern for any court or AOC employees. Hummmm. Administrators see the big picture. There is more to running a branch than what happens in an individuals courtroom or pension.
It is also sickening to listen to everyone spending so much time thanking each other, etc. etc. gag me. Judge Ira kaufmans comments in particular should get an award for sucking up/brown nosing.
Curious
August 30, 2012
Yep, Flea, they must go home with bruised spines from all that backslapping. Re: administrators being treated respectfully, and having their views being given strong consideration, that goes without saying. Problem is, the administrators who now have the ear of the Council have, shall we say, been less than shining examples.
wearyant
August 30, 2012
A rough draft of Judge Steve White’s comments:
>> CHAIR Tani Cantil-Sakauye: On our agenda. This portion of the Judicial Council meeting is leveraged at public comment. We have several requests for public comment at this meeting including a judicial officer whom we’ll hear first.
And several of our colleagues have asked to speak to item judicial branch on tomorrow’s agenda and that’s the report and recommendation of the strategic evaluation committee report. As you also know, we generally reserve a public comment time at the beginning [Inaudible] agenda items for members that affect the administration of justice and we reserve time for public comment about specific discussion agenda times at the beginning of each item presentation. We’re doing that a little bit differently today. And written comments are also included in council member’s materials and they’re posted on the Judicial Council — on the California courts website.
>>> I would like to invite to the podium now to speak to item J, I believe, Judge White the Superior Court of California County of Sacramento. Judge White?
>> Thank you, Madam Chief Justice and members of the council. Since we last met, and commented on the Strategic Evaluation Committee report and recommendations was invited and almost a fourth of California’s judges weighed in. By July 24, some 471 comments were filed with the council and of these 407 favored total or near total implementation of the SEC recommendations. 271 called for immediate implementation. The thrust of my remarks today is focused on the responsibilities of this Council to be sure that the SEC report is implemented and to suggest that while many of the aspects and sections of the SEC report are endorsed by E and P, those which involve heavy lifting, it seems to the Alliance, to which I speak today, are [Inaudible] the AOC to look into and report back and that raises a concern such as we’ve expressed before, before this body. I will go back a little bit of on the history of the Council and suggest to you that this Council has not historically stepped up to its responsibilities. When people express concern that we’re going to foot-drag, study, and restudy the recommendations and defer to the AOC for guidance, some of you were offended and spoke out and wrote on this that anyone would predict inaction or — I want to take a few minutes to say why hundreds of judges are skeptical that the Council will see the need and find the will to [inaudible] the AOC. For years on end, the Council as a body has exhibited no interest whatsoever in controlling the AOC. Examples of this failing abound. I want to cite a couple.
Among the discrete example is CCMS, the state auditor’s report, the Pegasus report, and, of course, read the SEC report. Judges are rightly concerned about the lengthy saga of the AOC mismanaging major projects and — the fundamental blame does not fall on the AOC. If falls square on the Council. An example was the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs’ — attempt to insert an amendment — to move that authority to the Council, was essentially the AOC. If it weren’t for two judges who got word of this from capitol sources, this toxic language could easily have become law. As its proponents well knew, the budget trailer bill language often flies under the radar. This sneak play was either authorized or was not. And while a member or members of the Council may have been in the loop, the Council itself was not. If the Council did not authorize this duplicity, then it was perpetrated by one or more rogue employees at or near the top of the AOC. If the Council actually committed to judicial independence it would have got to the bottom of this, and among other actions terminated the at-will employees who were responsible. Instead, the Council did nothing. At least two of the apparent perpetrators as recently revealed in the news report received pay raises when trying to up-end the trial courts. This is evidence that the governance model is broken. One more example.
How can the council in a collapsed economy in which a week doesn’t pass without courtrooms closing and employees being laid off conceivably justify pay raises for AOC employees? Truly these must be denied until we stop triaging public access. For the AOC spokesman to characterize them as non-raises and merit salary adjustments and nothing different from what county governments and trial courts are doing is wrong on two counts. First, it’s a non sequitor. Just because they gain such raises, it’s nothing to do with the AOC.
Second, it’s not true. These are raises. Two years ago I ended such raises in the Sacramento Superior Court because our highest priority was keeping the courts open. And I think most courts have done the same, but not the AOC which continues giving raises and has more scheduled for 2013. The AOC’s highest priority is not keeping courts open. It’s time for a reality check and time for the council to actually supervise the AOC instead of the other way around.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: You have one more minute, Judge White.
>> Thank you. Trying to stay open and do justice. The SEC report identifies many of the failings, but the foundations is the Council, not elected like the courts and not representative of the courts. Because the failings are a product of a flawed governance model it’s the Council itself that must be researched, it must be democratized, nothing more, less nothing less. For once, please listen to the judges of the state and actually hear what they’re saying. Do not presume to second-guess their public comments and dismiss the hundreds calling for full or immediate implementation of the SEC recommendations. The judgment of the E&P Committee is no substitute for the collective cries of several hundred judges demanding action. Do not insult them by embarking on another study of the study because it will require for all other recommendations that involve the actual lifting —
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: JUDGE WHITE, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> Thank you, Madam Chief Justice. Thank you, members of the Council.
================================================================
Judicial Council Watcher
August 30, 2012
The Muppet show certainly didn’t disappoint in being disappointing as usual.
wearyant
August 30, 2012
A Los Angeles Superior Court Clerk’s plea to the Judicial Council today:
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you. Next we’ll hear from Cher, I believe it says Mason? Thank you. Los Angeles superior court judicial assistant.
>> Good afternoon. My comments are specifically about the effect of these budget cuts and layoffs and everything else that’s happening from a clerk’s viewpoint. I’m a court clerk in Los Angeles Superior Court. I’d like to start with saying that the relationship between the judges and the clerks has been severely affected by this whole situation because we have a very close relationship and now it has been thrown into the mix is a lot of job responsibilities that have been added to the courtrooms specifically. And even more specifically to me. My job is already overburdened. I already do not have enough time in the day to complete the tasks that have been assigned to me and now we throw into the mix further cutbacks and I’m dealing more and more with frustration and attitude from attorneys, more combative pro pers that come into the courtroom, a lot more complaints, and I’m sure you’re aware, they can’t complain to you. They try to shoot the messenger. It’s become very frustrating for us. We feel that the system is starting to implode, and we’re begging you guys to do something drastic about fixing the situation. I believe it was judge Ellsworth that said it, it really has a huge effect on the public. When I can’t keep documents moving and signed orders being processed and moving through the system, it has a huge ripple effect up there and it comes back at me in the way of frustration, for the delays, through the things not moving at all and coming to a standstill. For the first time in 16 years as a clerk, I have a significant backlog in my courtroom. I work a general jurisdiction civil courtroom and I have never had a backlog like I have now and it’s very depressing to leave work every single day at 6:00 p.m., not getting overtime — don’t tell anyone, Judge Elias, and you’re still not done. They’re still on the calendar for the next day and the next day after that. It baffles me because when the cuts happened, we lost a lot of entry level positions, student workers, people who made a lot less money than I do, but now I’m doing file reconstruction in my courtroom, I’m making Xerox copies, I’m stapling all the copies of tentative rulings, all the things you pay a judicial assistant salary to take care of instead of a student worker or an entrance worker, we call them OA1s for Los Angeles court. The other thing affecting my workload, and I am not sure if anyone is aware of this. The loss — loss of the court reporters is a huge loss in my day. We’re in trial a lot. When I don’t a have court reporter, I don’t have Live Note. I can no longer get up and walk in chambers to take an important phone call, talk a a messenger, file documents with one ear on a trial. Now I have to sit with both ears on a trial. I don’t have Live Note, I don’t have a record that I can check if somebody claims I missed an exhibit or misspelled a witness’ name or misreferenced a deposition that was read into the record. I have no record anymore. And that has actually had an effect on my workday, the loss of the court reporters, and the fact that there’s no record. And I’m baffled as to how I’m supposed to collect a $30 fee for a hearing that lasts less than an hour. 28 [Inaudible] on a calendar, we whip through it. I don’t understand how I’m supposed to stop through the hearing and convince someone to get out their credit card and wallet because I don’t have a cash register in the courtroom. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do in the courtroom when I get it. These are all things that have affected my job. One other issue. Everyone is talking budget and how to fix things, my perspective, I realize I’m much lower on the totem pole, but there’s a huge disconnect in the courtrooms between the judges and the clerks and keeping work moving and to me that’s management. My understanding, and I’m sure Judge Elias will correct me if I’m wrong, our ratio is one to 4.25 employees. When you look in the lineup for Los Angeles Superior Court, we do have some departments that have two employees and two supervisors and there’s even an employee, one employee, she’s her whole department, she has two supervisors. One of those supervisors only manages her. And if you guys want to verify somewhat — that — you’re more than welcome to do that, she’s sitting right here, Karen Norwick. She’s her own department, two managers, two supervisors paid at a much higher salary than me and her to supervise us and she’s one person in that department. For years we have not understood why there are not more cuts at management or as people retire and attrition happens, why those positions are not just cut out completely.
Seems that there are end runs around rules and they do seem to get filled. they have a different job title or housed in a different office, and I’m sure we’re not the only county experiences this.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: I’m sorry to say your time is expired. What you describe for us is heartbreaking and we’re working on it. Everyone here has — every judge here has a trial judge background, and thank you for working as hard. We just hope it won’t have to be as long. We hope to come up with a solution, Miss Mason.
>> Thank you. Keep us in your perspective.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 30, 2012
Thanks, Ant and thank you, Ms. Cher Mason.
This comment from us would be best termed “tough love”.
As previously touched on, most of us at JCW have experience working both for California’s judicial branch and other branches or entities in government. One striking contrast between California’s judicial branch and all government agencies, cities, counties and federal that we’ve all been employed by or consulted to is that we all have witnessed downsizing.
The striking contrast is unlike the judicial branch, all other entities target their middle managers and consolidate. Some of us even made the observation in our discussions about this that mid-level management was hired when times were good but were the first to go when cutbacks hit.
Given you can hire a few front-line troops for the price of one mid-level manager that is looking for someone to manage, it only makes sense to consolidate when downsizing. It also represents a public relations disaster when you don’t consolidate and you have two supervisors overseeing one grunt. (no disrespect to Ms. Norwick)
The public looks at those matters with a cynical eye and a “get your house in order before digging into my pocket” mentality. These stories are public relations disasters and they’re coming from all over the place.
As recently described by Michael Roddy, and we keep hearing the same thing from all trial courts across the state, except for the really small ones who have no choice but to run very lean, they are “structurally tearing things down in a manner that permits them to quickly be rebuilt.”
Translation: Target the grunt, preserve the management. This unusual behavior is also being exhibited by the AOC.
It’s unusual because no other government entity at any level does this.
This is an issue judges should generally be concerned about with respect to their own executive management and order some changes to their operations because if they don’t lead by example, how can they ever expect the AOC to change?
Does any court executive officer have more responsibility and deserve more pay than the governor? Really? Don’t ask me for one thin dime if you believe they do ’cause I’m not digging, nor am I voting for more taxes. And we all identify as progressive. Go figure.
unionman575
August 30, 2012
😉
wearyant
August 30, 2012
Ms. Norwood’s plea to the Judicial Council:
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. Thank you. — Karen Norwood out of [Inaudible] Court.
>> Thank you, Chief Justice. Judicial Council. This time I’m going to talk a little more on the human note. Thank you, Judge Ellsworth. I really appreciated your comment also. I’m part of Riverside County. We had layoffs on June the 15th. It was very devastating for a few people. One of — I saw one of my best friends die the night before on the docks at LA Superior Court because basically for months he was so overwhelmed and feeling anxiety and stress because he thought he was going to get laid off. This person was laid off the last time. We got his job back. So he died of a heart attack. We had several casualties on that day. There was a young lady in small claims that was driving home and she was upset, I’m assuming, and got into a car accident and was burned over 70% of her body. This is what a layoff does to court employees and other employees around this State of California. Not only that, last week, I was walking through the hallway, a client came up to me — because I had on my badge — and said, what’s going on with these courts here? Do we have to have a riot in the court to get something done. That was kind of devastating to me, so if you see me without my badge, it’s behind my back because I don’t want to answer those questions. I came to you today to just impress on you to think about and try to remember — keep the courts open. The courts are not just for the employees, they are for the public. Our public is suffering a lot, not only in your court but all the courts throughout the state. This is my plea for you today, and I thank you for listening to me.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you, Ms. Norwood. We hear you.
unionman575
August 30, 2012
‘)
wearyant
August 30, 2012
Pleas from Riverside and San Bernardino to the Judicial Council (rough drafts):
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: The President of the Riverside Bar Association is here.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon. Madam Chief Justice and your Honor, thank you so much. My name is Robyn Lewis. I’m the president of the Riverside County Bar Association. As you may recall, I appeared last month with my colleague Keira Klatchco. We spoke about the dire consequence — being the most under-resourced court, if not the most under-resourced county. We provided you with a multitude of specifics to remind you that Riverside is not receiving a fair share of the Judicial Branch resources. Our county courts have been doing everything to be fiscally responsible and to firsthand —- aid in times like these. We have worked with limited resources that we have been given. Unfortunately, with the reserves being virtually wiped away, we can no longer be silent about the inadequacies and funds. Obviously, the allocation or reallocation of resources is a complicated issue, one that needs much time and investigation, and we’re not asking you to do anything right this second, we know you have your hands full. But there are things that can be done in the short-term to help struggling counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino. We have submitted what we think is a creative way for the Judicial Council to provide relief. If adopted, it would benefit not only Riverside but other under-resourced counties such as San Bernardino and San Joaquin, just to name a few. I want to mention the proposal again. The use of the allocation of AD159. As many of you know, it authorized 50 new judgeships based on demonstrated judicial need in each county determined by court filings and workload standards by our Legislature. Based on that rubric, it was determined that Riverside and San Bernardino were in most need with each county being allocated seven judgeships.
However, every position was unfortunately never funded. And it was our understanding that the Judicial Council has a budget of proximately $26 million for AJP funding and Riverside — our county — no — no longer pay for the staff that’s necessary to pay to the assigned judges. The impact from nothing being able to utilize. — courtroom closures and consolidation of much needed departments. The proposal in a nutshell is this. We’re asking you to consider allocating AJP money to pay for retired judges with the accompanying support staff using the allocation of judges set forth in AB159. If implemented, the statewide assigned judge fund could be used to temporarily fund the temporary positions. They could cover the cost of judges and their support staff and there would still be a significant balance left in the Judicial Council AJP budget to provide assistance to those courts not identified in AB159 as most critically in need of additional resources. I’m back again today because this was discussed last time I was here because I wanted to point out one thing that was not addressed in our original comments.
Note two on page 16 provides for a limitation on funding for staffing with respect to the APJ budget. Specifically the limitation appearing to for funding for staff for no more than 3 judicial officers on assignments. The language is somewhat vague, we believe that the limitation is per county and not statewide. For your convenience, the Riverside County Bar Association submitted additional written comments which set forth the limitation in great detail. I have provided you with a cost summary with generally and by county — see that the proposal also leaves a significant balance in the APJ budget. I understand that each of you is in a difficult position and every county is requesting more funds, but our request is different. We’re optimistic that the Judicial Council will revisit to Riverside, this proposal does not just benefit our county. As also noted it benefits every other county that is under-resourced. We hope you consider our proposal to temporarily fund the AB159 judgeship to help the court in our — and other counties like it — helping to keep our heads above water. Thank you for your time and your attention.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you Ms. Lewis. Eugene Kim. County Bar Association
>> Good afternoon. My name is Eugene Kim and I’m a board member with the San Bernardino county board association. We echo the statements made by Robyn Lewis. The proposal is a practical and reasonable resolution for some of the — I’m here to provide a different county on that solution from a policy as well as a more practical side. Obviously, San Bernardino is suffering significant deficits with respect to judicial resources. And from a policy perspective, you can just take a look at the sheer numbers. The population of San Bernardino and — compared to Orange County and Los Angeles county, San Bernardino having two million roughly in its population, Orange having 3 million, and Los Angeles 10 million, if you do a straight comparison of population and judicial resources you will clearly see that San Bernardino is under funded. Now that has several practical impacts, which is why I’m here. We’ve heard from judges. Judges have expressed to us concerns that for — for I guess not simple but for child custody issues not on the ex parte basis it would take four months before he gets a hearing and that’s just — it’s an egregious amount of time and that’s been going on since November of 2011. In addition to that, we have had to reduce the budgeting and the staff members and the self-help — in the self-help center. That’s relevant because the people in the self-help center do a lot to help ex parte and make the judicial resources available. — without it, they’ll file improper forms and briefs and it delays the judicial process. Those are some practical considerations that certainly everyone should consider. Now, the other thing that San Bernardino has that that’s unique to some of the other counties is its geography. Its sheer size. The under funding of judicial resources has a disparate impact on San Bernardino because it’s so large. It’s 20,000 square miles, Los Angeles county is 4,752 square miles and Orange County is 8948 square miles. So you look at the large — you look at the large population based on how far it’s spread out, and then you look at how inadequate the staff, the judicial funding staff is in San Bernardino. The Big Bear court had to close down, the Chino court will be closed down as well. These all have significant impact, and Barstow, and Needles, they need to come over to San Bernardino to hear conservatorships, guardianships, as well as probate matters. That may not sound like a big deal to drive for attorneys but certainly for those that are representing themselves, it has a big impact. To be forced to drive down from Barstow, from Needles, all the way to San Bernardino, being [Inaudible] Without having legal representation for these significant issues obviously is a significant — has significant impact for the county of San Bernardino. In the end, we just ask that everybody seriously consider the proposal submitted by Robyn Lewis and we ask that San Bernardino county be accorded with sufficient funding in the future. Thank you.
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you, Mr. Kim. Justice Hull.
>> Thank you, Chief. Very quickly, for Mr. Kim and the other speaker, for the compelling matters, we struggle with this almost daily, not almost, daily. I only hope that you can convey your same compelling messages to your local legislators because we need their help and we’re not getting it.
Michael Paul
August 30, 2012
This would be termed an original idea. Since it has merit and was an original idea, it is dead upon arrival. Budget matters such as this are best addressed by the legislature in light of the abuses of the program elsewhere. There appears to be a whole bunch of closed courtrooms out there. Having assigned judges when other judges have nothing to do just doesn’t add up.
Michael Paul
August 30, 2012
Noms to H.O.F. for Mason and Norwood. It took guts for two court employees to address the council and say it like it is.
wearyant
August 30, 2012
Our Dog Spot’s legislative priorities report (rough draft):
>> Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Thank you. Next on our agenda we will hear item 3, Judicial Council Hamilton. This is a status report. No action. Judicial Council Legislative Priorities. Welcome, Curt.
>> Thank you, Chief. Good afternoon. As you all know, we’re zeroing in on the final hours of the legislative session. The Legislature will wrap up at midnight tomorrow night. What that means is this is the time where a lot of exciting things can or can not happen. This is the time where there are bills that are gutted and amended and new ideas pop up and old ideas pop up and it’s literally watch by the hour if there are efforts to get some provision that may ultimately impact the courts into legislation to so I will say that our crack staff is back watching every move as it’s playing out on both houses and both floors as they’re trying to go through literally hundreds and hundreds of bills in this remaining few hours. As you recall, the primary legislative priority for the council this year was the budget and you’ve all had plenty of reports now on the outcome of the —- so I won’t spend any time on that, but I did want to quickly give you a couple of updates on legislation as it’s moving by the minute off the floor. And then talk a little bit about the issue of the day on pensions. A couple of bills that I want to make sure folks understand where they’re at. AB1481, that’s the trailer bill cleanup and the provision that was included in 1481 was the jury fee provision. As recall, part of the budget package that we had worked on in putting together $50 million in new fees for trial court operations included a new approach for jury fees that essentially moved those up in time and made them nonrefundable to generate about $11 million. After a month or two of implementation, that ended up, I think, having a unforeseen impact because it was focusing on fees paid by each party. So working with the plaintiff’s bar, the defense bar, I think we came up with a proposal that really is focusing on one fee, each side, and we’re quite assured that we have a level of confidence that the revenue will be impacted. So that would still generate $11 billion. That bill has gone to the governor. AB1477 is a budget bill followup. The only particular issue of note in there for us is you’ve heard the discussion about the $29 million error in the budget bill that’s being fixed in that budget bill. That’s on the assembly floor right now and concurrent. AB2073, congratulations to Orange and the effort that they’ve been working. That’s the pilot for E-filing in the Orange court but the direction for the council to develop a ruling for statewide and it’s been sent to the governor as well. AB2442, Justice Baxter had mentioned, has been an interesting bill to work on. That’s the hope trust. It would essentially create a body that would look at all state properties, make a determination whether they are underutilized. If they are underutilized, they can be brought in, managed by the hope trust, and the revenue generated would go to higher education. So we spent a fair amount of time working with the author and with the sponsor of the bill, SCIU, to get some amendments to exclude Judicial Council facilities — although we didn’t get a blanket amendment, we’re pretty confident with the amendments that did make it in that most court facilities will not be included within that. Interestingly, that was a bill that had been dead, held up on the appropriation’s committee suspense file and that’s one of those that just popped off again. So it was moving. So fortunately we did have the amendment. That bill just went to the governor. AB1875, that’s the deposition time limits bill. That got negotiated through the course of the year. We wanted to make sure that there were minimum impacts on the courts and the hearing on those — there are several exceptions built into that. That bill has gone to the governor. AB2078, the court reporter fee, there were some exceptions and would allow to retain that fee, that one did get held on the appropriations suspense file so it’s not moving. Just a couple other issues that were hanging out there. This is one where you’ve really got to watch the issues, and that was [Inaudible] . You’ve all been reading the up ins about the interest in CEQA reform. There was discussion about big changes to CEQA, but one we were concerned about was potential amendments to AB900 from last year that essentially gave original jurisdiction in specifically defined projects to the court of appeals bypassing the trial court. There was talk about expanding that to include some additional projects. That ended up not happening and leadership announced that they were not interested in doing any CEQA reform this year, but they’re going to come back next year and take on — I think CEQA is a broader package so it could have some impact. Another bill that was moving, SB1186, that was followup from the ADA. This was the bill to curtail the lilt equation generated by the ADA. There had been some letters from U.S. senators saying that we need to get a handle on this and if the state doesn’t — so we were involved in the negotiations on that. That bill is on the assembly floor and I think we have some provisions and extensions of time for the courts. So those are some of the the major issues hanging out here in the last few days. I wanted to mention now pensions that the Chief had referred to a little earlier and the efforts that were happening on that. There were discussions that came up last year about the need to get to pension research, and then a number of bills introduced this year. The conference committee put together to look at during a major pension reform. The governor had a major 12-point proposal that he put out this year that he was hopeful that he could get the Legislature to go along with. As often happens with big packages, big issues, you don’t really get them done until there is the pressure of the timeline in the last few days and true to their practice, that’s how this one happened. There was a little murmuring that perhaps this would get done before the recess in August. There was some language that was being shared, they couldn’t reach an agreement, so it didn’t happen. There —- then after they came back to try and reach some agreement and ultimately the governor announced on Tuesday that the administration had reached an agreement with the Legislature on a pension-reform package. And Tuesday evening, 6:30, as I recall, the conference committee was pulled together, language handed out to the public — not in print language but actually just ledge counsel language — to look at. Conference committee debated that for an hour or so, and then passed it out with only democrats voting for and republicans staying off of the bill. That, because it’s a conference report, that sends it directly to the floors. There’s two — there’s a two-day period that it’s got to be sitting on the floor, so that means it’s got to be heard tomorrow before midnight and it’s essentially an up or down vote on the bill. So there’s no chance for amendments to be happening on this bill. It is a single bill. There’s some discussion whether there would be multiple bills. I think the governor was insistent that it would be a single bill, single package, that come out of conference, and that bill now is AB340. I thought I would just take a couple of minutes to talk a little bit about the impact on trial court and state Judicial Branch employees and Judge Rubin if you want to take a minute and perhaps talk a little bit about the JRS provisions. The major restructuring in the plan really only applies to new employees but there are some key provisions that do apply to current employees. The primary impact for current employees is in provisions that seek to get equal cost sharing. So 50/50 cost sharing in the normal costs for employees and employers based on which vary by formula. And there are some specific limits on these provisions that make them subject to collective bargaining, so ultimately the local level these will be collectively bargained but come January 1 — the equal sharing has to be in place in those plans. For state employees and the Judicial Branch, there’s a provision that states that it’s the standard, whatever that might mean, that state employees equally share in the costs as well that includes some language about requiring adjustments in the retirement contribution rates. But the timing and the calculation is not specified, so one of the many areas in which there is room for, I think, further clarification. Some other changes impact current and new employees include requirement that employment related felonies would lead to a forfeiture of pension benefits as well as a waiting period of 180 days before post retirement service can take over and begin. New employees would be subject to a new pension plan structure that would apply across the board to virtually all nonpublic safety employers and that would include counties that contract with CalPERS or their 337 county counties, and JRS remain in their own system and The new plan would have a formula now. This is new employees after January 1, ’13 would have a formula of 1% at 52, 2% at 62 and so a maximum at 2.5% at age 67. An incentive to try and get longer employment. The major provision that the governor had put out and had pushed for for most of the year with a hybrid plan. The legislature was never supportive of that proposal. The compromise was essentially a salary cap, that is an eligibility to receive benefits up to — or pay on benefits up to 110,000. You hit the cap you pay Social Security up to your cap after that you no longer have any contribution. So that’s 110,000, actually 110,100 dollars for employees that participate in Social Security. That gets adjusted, interestingly, by consumer price index.
>> Any income that’s above the cap wouldn’t be part of the defined benefit calculation and would not be subject to retirement contributions. There’s always provisions for new employees limiting what can be considered a base salary. This is no longer being able to build. Year-end increases on your last year benefits, so including sick leave, vacation leave, so forth. In the calculation. So let me just say that this bill is an extraordinarily complicated bill to understand. Again. It was put together really late. It is hard to know exactly how much is intended vagueness and I think there is intended vagueness built into this bill and how much might have been less than careful drafting at this point. But again, there’s not an opportunity to get the bill amended. It will go for an up or down vote. But we will continue tracking and working with the stakeholders on understanding better. I think we are getting something out to you all, and the courts on the nonjudicial employees, court employees, and we’ve got out, as mentioned, with CJA and the Council a description there. So I’ll stop and, Judge Rubin, if you want to talk about where we’re at on JRS and then I just have a quick closing comment.
>> Thank you, Curt.
courtflea
August 30, 2012
wearyant! welcome back our friend!!
wearyant
August 30, 2012
Thanks, Flea. I’ve always respected you and the path you have had to walk.
wearyant
August 30, 2012
The path you’ve walked, I mean as I’ve observed via AOCWatcher and JCW!
wearyant
August 30, 2012
The final rough draft of the JC meeting. And frankly, getting weary and don’t really know who the heck is speaking anymore!
==================================================================
>> As Curt has described this has been a very long process. I’m going to probably be necessarily vague. But I want to start with thanking Curt and his staff and Tracy Kenny for their amazing work. Dave Rosenberg, the chief, Brad Hill, who is not here, Doug Miller, for all of the long hours and difficult work. We have been working on this for over a year. Our strategy has been to educate the folks in the capital about the unique aspects of judicial retirements. Things started to percolate, I get a call to go up to the capitol. I get a call from the chief at 3:30 that things are not contained. Of course, I’m a plan and the weekend was very active. By the end of the weekend, it seems like things were contained. As Curt described it, the language comes out at 6:00 in the evening, we are there at 6:30 in the evening. We get it by the way the same moment all of the legislators got it, including the author, who in a stunning, I think for all of us in the audience, kind of a moment of candor — how can you after two years bring this to us at 6:00 when the hearing starts, and we have to go through 38 pages of language who then said, I haven’t seen it either. But forward we went, we looked through it and found that the bill was crafted kind in the wee hours of Sunday morning and on through ’til Tuesday when the department of finance kind of gave its final language. The agreements were reached for different labor groups, including judges, and we found that the bill is complex and has lots of areas of nuances and by the end of the hour hearing, it was CJ’s and I think Curt’s position as well that this was a bill that needed further study certainly as it affected judges. There were some things that seemed more clear than others. We looped back the next day with legislative staff to confirm that the intention of the parties to have the judges for very, very, very good policy reasons, judges that were judges prior to December 31 of this year, excluded from some provisions, to make sure that intention was carried out — took the position that it was a complicated bill and they need to study it, too, to make sure the administration, the legislature and everyone’s understanding was being carried out effectively. We’ve had more conversations yesterday afternoon and into this morning which were reflected in the article and daily journal with comments made by the speaker’s office and others which put me in a better mood today than I was yesterday or the day before. People who were on the conference call could hear. We have not heard the feedback on this. We of course want to get that before we make any further plan. I can say that it was anticipated — we talked to the staff, they fully anticipated — there are groups who are going in there who felt like the understandings they had reached with the administration and legislature were not reflected perhaps as clearly and starkly as they wanted to see in the language of the bill. They were anticipating to clean up some loose ends. It is open whether or not we actually have any loose ends and we are — I am very confident that no matter — to make sure we actually need any clean-up at all. Otherwise I’m confident that certainly by January this will be in place just as everybody thought it would. You should just know that you have in the Judicial Council’s staff tireless folks who are working in OGA and at CGA, I’m tireless, I’m working as hard as I can. I seem to fatigue a little earlier. Certainly at some point at 10:00 at night, I’m ready to call it and he’s just getting ready to go. So, anyway, I hope that clears it up as much as I’m prepared to do right now. But I really want — I also want to say this, I fight for judges. But I want everyone to be clear in this room that I am mindful of the very difficult and profound hit that other folks in our courthouses will be facing as a result of this pension reform. You know, one thing that is lost of course — JRS, too, was reformed 20 years ago, a lesson that doctors tell us is never be first, and we have now learned that. 20 years later they are coming back to get us again. We are mindful of what everybody else is going through. No matter what, you’re in our thoughts.
>> Any questions for me or Curt?
>> I would just add, the long and the short of that is we have a pretty firm understanding that the entire intent was that there is no equal sharing for JRS 1 or JRS 2, but for appointees after January 1, ’13, there would be equal sharing and that is not an insignificant increase by any means —
>> No. To be clear. JRS 1 judges are looking at a 36,000 dollar increase to their contribution annually, JRS 2 judges are looking at a $12,000 increase annually. I was trying not to get too — there are many kind of big ticket features in this plan. I think we’re in good shape. I did want to say that why I’m in a much better mood today. It seems like everybody is prepared to stand by all of the understandings, with that, it is clear we will get to where we need to get.
>> And one other thing, judge, I’ll just say to be clear, that the — judge’s programs is not impacted by the other changes that would affect other current employees, so the waiting periods and so forth. So that part is clear we’re pretty solid, the language takes care of any concerns we have on (Inaudible)
>> I think we’re talking about our nuances in language, I think there was perhaps other wording that would have avoided some of the concerns that we have, but really we believe the bill will do exactly what it says it is going to do for current JRS 1 and 2 judges and so we are confident in the end of the day it will be fine.
>> Thank you, Judge.
>> Two things real briefly.
>> Here we have Curt and Tracy Kenny fighting for our benefits when their benefits are being — I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that, that is just fantastic. When people say that AOC needs to be gutted and all of that. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We need these people. I know what David went through a little bit more than most people do. He’s done a great job — it demonstrates that when the Judicial Council and the CGA and the staff work together, that we can be very successful and I think that’s something we need to build on. Everybody who was involved in this AB-340. I say thank you very much.
>> It was a team effort. I have to tell you, all of the judges in this room and I think actually everybody in this room who is a branch employee owes a great branch of debt to Kenny, she is quick, boils it right down, she tells you exactly where to focus, she was wonderful.
>> Too bad we were not permitted to be at the table during the course of the drafting of this legislation, because I think any questions would have been resolved with the expertise of Tracy and Curt, and that’s the disappointing thing, and in contrast to the process that we’re going to be going through, you know, in terms of the SEC report, which will be open and deliberate and thorough.
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Judge Rosenburg.
>> My hat is off to Dave Rubin and Mike and the CJA folks as well as Curt and Tracy and all of the OJA folks who are working hard on this.
>> You had mentioned that — good work on that as well, by the way. You had mentioned that most of the court facilities are out of that loop. That implies that some court facilities might still be in the potential scope of the hope trust. Do you recall as you sit here today which court facilities might still be captured in that net?
>> I don’t recall the specific, but I think somewhere around four or five potentially could be, and the process that’s set up within the bill is before there was actually — the trust would have the authority to take the property, it has to go back to the legislature. So we would have a shot back both with the board of this newly created trust, should the governor sign this bill, and secondly would have another shot at the legislature.
>> You say four or five, you mean total?
>> Total.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Facilities, that’s right.
>> And the really — you know, facilities are neither courthouses, property that would be used for courthouses that are not parking, that would — that the state owns that would potentially be subject — (Inaudible)
>> Only four or five, but the bad news, they are all in Yolo county.
>> I forgot to mention that.
>> Both on the policy committee when the matter was initially submitted to the policy committee, the language did not pass muster, and there was concern that it should be tightened up and as a result, they, working with Tracy, did tighten it up, and so I wanted to make sure that we’re recognized for their contributions.
>> Thank you, justice. If I may, kudos to Curt and Tracy, especially on that matter. You know, at the very get-go, it was a scary prospect at the very beginning, and what it has come down to, what we were worried about is whether or not because of the closures that we’re all going to be facing and more closures in the future that those would be at risk. So we wanted to make sure that no county who had to be subject because of the budget cuts to lose their courthouses that that would be lost. Tracy really was the artful master and Kim of course, really, really, tightened that up to make it clear that if it is a court closure that that’s not subject to this. Again the properties that are possibly at risk and not guaranteed at risk — it was really a great job by OGA staff.
>> Chief, if I might, not to be in the mutual admiration society here. I do want to really recognize the efforts that Judge Rubin had made in the time that he spent over the course of the whole year and even before with this — and we actually had a little fun a few times on this, camped out in either Mike’s office or in our office, or in the hallways and again, Mike, the able representative for CJA and the work that we had and we were making our visits arm and arm on this. So it was a strong positive message that we were able to convey and I do want to point out to — thanks to you, chief, for being rushing over to the capitol for conversations and meeting there. So this truly meets, I think, all of the requirements of a group effort that I think in light of, you know, the potential scope of what was being considered in statewide for every employee, every public employee and public entity, that this, I think, was an outcome that was probably as good as we could see. We could hope that it will hang that way. And chief, if I might, as this is the end of the session for us, and has been noted, we’ve got — (Inaudible) the office of governmental affairs, who tracked the bills, who carried the legislation that sponsored by the Judicial Council and worked those through, opposed the bills and all of the sensitivities that go along with that in opposing them and trying to work out solutions. The thing you don’t see is literally daily, the hundreds of bills that are amended that our staff goes through, literally, everyone of those to look to make a determination on whether there is going to be an impact on the judicial branch, because as you might guess, there is not only complete candor in legislation on who might be impacted, and so literally they spend hours and hours just watching daily and particularly when we get down to these last few weeks when amendments are coming fast and furiously. So they really, I think, chief, do a great job for the Council and for the courts on ensuring that we are protected to the greatest extent possible on legislative outcomes. Thank you.
>>
>> CHAIR CANTIL-SAKAUYE: Thank you, Curt.
>> Next, we’ll hear from justice Miller and John Larson, on the strategic and operational planning for the branch. No action item, at least not yet.
>> So I had this nice long speech prepared and as I walked up, I had to walk over there, outside of the gauntlet, because everyone was telling me to hurry up, don’t take too long and we won’t. One of E and P’s responsibilities is to ensure that we have as a Judicial Council and a branch a strategic plan and an operational plan. As many of you know and especially as the new members know, we’re out of cycle. We were supposed to have already started the process this year for creation of our operational plan and then next year for our six year strategic plan. I think as most of you know, we, about a year ago, with the judge’s assistance, we began the process at our June meeting of coming up with the operational plan. Even that day things were a little bit hectic and we weren’t able to spend all of the time that we wanted to. In march of this last year, we had a large contingent of people in leadership positions and the Judicial Council and advisory committees in the branch scheduled to appear here in San Francisco where we would begin that process with the branch stakeholders, but as we began to look at the expense of having all of those people flown here and spend the time here, we realized it wasn’t the best way and the proper way to spend our few dollars, and so we cancelled that meeting. Then what we decided was is that we wanted to come up with a way, and John will talk about this just for a moment, I don’t know how to do it and I’m hoping he does. We wanted to come up with a way that would increase the number have the opportunity to participate in coming up with our operational plan and our strategic plan and hopefully come up with a way that was far less expensive than what we had begun before and much more expansive with the hope we could offer it every judicial officer and court individual and branchwide stakeholders, that’s the process that we’re going through right now.
>> We hope to be able to report back to you at the October meeting of what process we have come up with and then hopefully start with both, we’re thinking of doing this somewhat different and unique and doing both in operational and strategic plan at the same time.
>> I hope I didn’t take too much of what you intended to say.
>> It will just make this even shorter.
>> But as justice Miller said, the goal as he has articulated it is that to engage in a planning process this time that is broadbased highly inclusive and at minimal cost. We started on that road for the march meeting, we started to use and exploit a lot of the technology that is available through even online surveys, being able to synthesize those surveys, we have been able to develop already a limited access website so we can in a way build a community, an online community, if you will, of all of the stakeholders that can be a part of the planning process, and even in the orientation yesterday, there were some really good suggestions about how to go about making it inclusive and broad-based and bringing in different audiences and different people that have a stake in the plan. We’ve also discussed — it is a fairly broad — authority that the Council has that’s delegated to the committee as justice Miller has mentioned having a combined strategic and operational plan. There’s nothing that says those couldn’t be together and also perhaps have it on a shorter duration, it is really, at least in my experience, and I’ve been — I had occasion to reflect that I’ve been at the AOC for 13.5 years. So this is unprecedented environment for me in the planning area in this environment. But, you know, it is a cliche in a way, but it is an opportunity. The plan that we were on the road to reflecting on and developing, even a year ago, is not what will probably result from this process. So other ways that we can work for reaching audiences, again, is through exploring some of — maybe even some live interactive — the fact that we broadcast meetings now may be a way of bringing in other people. In October, we’ll be having an update on the developing process and in December the plan is to develop more significant time at the Council meeting to planning.
>> That’s our report and thank you.
>> Thank you, we look forward to doing that, we appreciate that. Thank you.
>> This concludes our agenda items that were scheduled for today. We will stand in recess and begin again tomorrow at
8:30. Judge Rubin.
>> My 60 seconds at the end
>> Not coming tomorrow.
>> Please take 90 seconds.
>> I’m not going to be here tomorrow as I go to watch AB 340. So I wanted to take a minute to say it publicly, first of all, it has been an honor and to be on the Council and working with all of you. I wish that other folks in the branch would listen in on these meetings and see what a wonderful group of people this is. What incredible work that you are doing and guiding the branch through difficult times. I want to thank the brief for our support. Miller has been wonderful in helping us. A great ambassador from the Council and all of the staff who last minute made my hotel reservations and Jody, and Curt for that are support as well. Thanks, everybody, it has been a wonderful year, I’ll see you around the branch and thank you. Actually you’re trading up really with the new president coming in from Sonoma county, so thanks everybody.
>> Great job, David.
>> Thank you.
[Applause]
the meeting is adjourned.
Michael Paul
August 30, 2012
Was that a public meeting of the judicial council….. or an orgy?
unionman575
September 2, 2012
An orgy.
1stAmendment
August 30, 2012
“In its haste to begin preliminary housecleaning, it appears that the AOC has swept out employees who are overwhelmingly ethnic and overwhelmingly female”
and OVER the age of FORTY.
What was the reason why these persons were not offered other positions within the organization?
courtflea
August 30, 2012
Wearyant, whatever or however, thank you. Many of us here on this blog, have had to “tote the weary load” (to quote Prissy in Gone with the Wind), all in the name of public service, the greater good and were damn happy to do so.
Curious: we could all agree I am sure, that no one considers anyone at the executive level at the AOC to be a court administrator. court administrators care about the branch, their judges, their staff, and the public they serve. And. they have nothing to hide.
And may I just say: fuck the AOC, the JC, the horse they rode in on, and long live the ACJ. Shucks, slap my mouth, I was not PC once again. sorry guys, I just get madder than hell sometimes and I just don’t want to take it anymore. Amen Howard Beale.
courtflea
August 30, 2012
PS back at you Wearyant!
DAN DYDZAK
August 30, 2012
I read all the comments. Very cogent, very perceptive. There can be a lot of talk at Judicial Council meetings which is important. However, much more importantly, get the legislature to REFORM the system and pass a law FORTHWITH democracizing the JC. “Representative government” in the judiciary–each judge is voted in, with a few non-judges to give a representative aspect to the JC. The power will then not be concentrated in a few people, which is THE PROBLEM. The new legislation should also provide for honest, independent audits–with a fair and impartial audit committee. Certainly, there can be an administrator and administrative people as long as they are honest and fair. And also, no Geneve-based attorneys. By the way, if anyone knows, is Mr. Thor still in Geneva? If he is, that should certainly raise a very large red flag. The people who showed up to voice their concerns are to be praised. A lot of regular people I know who live in my area are very upset at the fiscal mess of the CA government and judiciary. When I explain the problems with the AOC, they simply cannot believe the waste. And these are regular people, such as postal workers, airplane pilots, cooks, laundry people, businessmen that are outraged at the abuses.