September 7, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
Yesterday’s message included an email that Alliance President Judge David Lampe sent to former acting director of the AOC, Jody Patel, requesting information about activities of the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs, along with the history of how the request was referred first to another AOC staffer and then to Justice Harry Hull, but was never answered by anyone. This practice of either delaying responses to legitimate requests for information or ignoring them altogether has been going on for some time. Perhaps time will permit us to forward some of those past requests and the AOC responses — or lack thereof — on another date, but for now we thought you should know about the most recent example of AOC foot-dragging in response to a simple request from Alliance Director Judge Maryanne Gilliard.
Judge Gilliard sent the following email September 5 to Leanne Kozak, the AOC staff person named as the contact person in the news release announcing the appointment of individuals to the three top AOC executive positions, which was summarized in a “Court News Update” which was blasted — perhaps twice — to every judge in the state:
From: Gilliard, Maryanne
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:20 PM
To: Kozak, Leanne
Subject: question
Ms. Kozak,
Can you please tell me how much the new top three AOC staff members will be paid? Also, what benefits will they receive? Will they be required to pay in to their pension plans or will the agency pay the entire amount?
Regards,
Judge Maryanne Gilliard
Rather than provide a prompt and straightforward response, Ms. Kozak placed this simple request about salary and benefits into the AOC’s favorite black hole of late, Rule 10.500 of the Rules of Court:
From: Finke, Chad [mailto:Chad.Finke@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:36 AM
To: Gilliard, Maryanne
Cc: Pubinfo; Patel, Jody
Subject: FW: question from Hon. Gilliard
Judge Gilliard,
Your request below has been referred to my office for response under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court. We will respond within the time frame established under the rule.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Finke
Director
Court Programs and Services Division
Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
415-865-8925, Fax 415-865-4329, chad.finke@jud.ca.gov
www.courts.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”
Apparently, the AOC’s promise to serve the courts “for the benefit of all Californians” excludes the 450 members of the Alliance of California Judges. Perhaps our request will escape the vortex of Rule 10.500 and we will — “within the timeline established under the rule” — get an answer to our further inquiry regarding the undoubtedly generous benefits also provided to these newly elevated bureaucrats. We will pass that information on to you as soon as we receive it.
Additionally, last week we learned that the AOC will pay appellate justices up to $300 each to reimburse them for going to the upcoming CJA conference in Monterey, and that the Chief Justice authorized this. We were told by a justice that the reimbursement would be handled through Mr. Finke’s office. We made an information request two lines long that asked Mr.Finke whether this was true, whether trial court judges would also be reimbursed, and who authorized the reimbursement of justices. That matter was immediately shunted to Justice Hull, who has yet to acknowledge the request. As we noted previously, Justice Hull refusers to answer these referrals other than by U.S. mail. We also note that Justice Hull, chair of the Rules Committee, has no prescribed duties or particular authority in this area. If we receive a response, we will share that with you as well.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
Lando
September 8, 2012
Justice Hull . The new enforcer and guardian of the crystal palace. I invite all to listen to the audio versions of the Judicial Council meetings to get a sense of just how arrogant this “insider is” . While the Chief and her propaganda machine claim that the Judicial Council is ” new” and ” transparent” the actions of Justice Hull , including those described above make it clear that it is business as always at 455 Golden Gate. Further confirmation of that includes the lavish salaries for our ” new” AOC management team and that doesn’t even include what ever other benefits like San Francisco hotels that are included in their ” new” benefit packages. It is incredible that all this just continues to go on and on. As has been said before here , is anyone in the state legislature listening ?
Wendy Darling
September 8, 2012
Let’s just start calling him Justice Hell.
unionman575
September 8, 2012
My, my, my, WHAT HAVE WE HERE???
Compensation: $11,007 – $14,950 per month
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=3702290&srchIndex=2
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Administrative Office of the Courts- Sacramento, CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
Job Description
The Director of the Office of Governmental Affairs has primary responsibility for the legislative advocacy function, including leadership of the advocacy team. The incumbent is responsible for advocacy on issues of the highest importance with legislative leadership and staff, and participates extensively in judicial branch budget advocacy with the Legislature, the Department of Finance, and the Governor’s office.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
• Develops and implements goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and work standards for the Office of Governmental Affairs, currently staffed with eleven employees;
• Designs strategies to implement the Judicial Council’s legislative and budget priorities, and responds to pending legislation;
• Routinely advises and briefs the Chief Justice, Administrative Director of the Courts, AOC executive team, justices, judges, and court representatives on high-level judicial branch budget and legislative issues;
• Maintains frequent contact with legislators and staff, budget committee staff, chief counsels of the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committee, and others to advocate the positions of the Judicial Council;
• Works with the PCLC leadership to identify Judicial Council legislative priorities to present to the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee and the Judicial Council for adoption, coordinates the development of Judicial Council-sponsored legislation, and updates the PCLC on budget issues and high-level legislative issues;
• Works with various judicial branch stakeholders to develop and deliver unified messages on the judicial branch budget and key legislation;
• Responds to media calls on judicial branch legislative and budget issues;
• Participates in Judicial Council issues, business meetings and committees, and updates members on up-to-the-minute developments in the budget and legislative arena;
• Establishes division policies for the selection, training, professional development, evaluation, and discipline of OGA staff; and
• Creates performance and development plans for employees, conducts periodic discussions about progress on performance and development plans, prepares written performance reviews, and discusses same with assigned staff.
Desired Skills & Experience
QUALIFICATIONS:
Equivalent to possession of a bachelor’s degree and eight years of increasingly responsible experience in the relevant field, including a minimum of four years of increasingly responsible management experience.
OR
One year as an Assistant Division Director or three years as a Manager or Senior Manager with the judicial branch.
In addition to the minimum education and experience noted above, the following knowledge is also required:
• Management principles and practices, including goal setting, program development, implementation and evaluation, and the management of employees through multiple levels of supervision;
• Principles and practices of developing and administering multiple, complex budgets;
• California judicial system and court operations and procedures; and
• California budgetary and legislative processes.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
At least five years of experience in legislative or public policy analysis and advocacy.
Company Description
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is the staff agency of the Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the state court system. The AOC serves the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the courts for the benefit of all Californians by advancing leadership and excellence in the administration of justice that continuously improves access to a fair and impartial judicial system.
The AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) represents and advocates for the Judicial Council on legislative, policy, and budget matters. In addition, the office reviews all legislation, identifies bills of interest to the judicial branch, and assists the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC) in formulating positions on bills on behalf of the Judicial Council. OGA staff participates in legislative proceedings to effectively advocate legislative positions.
Additional Information
Posted:
September 6, 2012
Type: Full-time
Experience: Director
Functions: Other
Industries: Government Administration
Compensation: $11,007 – $14,950 per month
Employer Job ID: 3683
Job ID: 3702290
😉
unionman575
September 8, 2012
The new AOC “Director” Math per the 9-6-12 job posting above…:
$11,007 x 12 = $132,084 Annual Salary
$14,950 x 12 = $179,400= Annual Salary
Note to the Death Star: We are onto your job postings.
😉
unionman575
September 8, 2012
I like to consider myself sort of a “good” Steve Nash Money Man type for all of you here on JCW, you are all the good folks!
Follow the money as the Death Star “reorganizes” and gives all the same old re-treads HUGE RAISES, EXPENSIVE PERKS, AND NEW TITLES….
😉
unionman575
September 8, 2012
We ALL have a shitload of work to do…Keep up the good work everyone and thank you for your contributions here.
😉
Wendy Darling
September 8, 2012
The most important qualifications were omitted from the job announcement: “Must have a demonstrated track record as a bold face liar, and be able to be knowingly untruthful to the State Legislature, as well as judges of the California Judicial Branch, without batting an eyelash. A complete lack of integrity and ethics, and unquestioned loyalty to the Chief Justice, regardless of the legality of any request, are also desired capabilities.”
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
September 8, 2012
Speaking of lavish perks, I just read the State Controller is investigating the state teachers retirement board regarding spiking of retirement benefits. The Controller deserves credit for undertaking that type of action. When he completes that review I would ask him to next look at the AOC. The pattern there is reasonably clear. Managers promoted on an ” interim” basis are then allowed to retire at the higher “interim” salary level. This of course spikes their life long retirement benefits at the expense of the strapped California taxpayer. Perhaps someone should ask J Hull about this utilizing the US Mail as he requires lol , and send a copy by email to the state Controller where there is some hope the issue will not be delayed, buried and obfuscated .
unionman575
September 8, 2012
The AOC is spiking big time.
Just one of many huge issues the Death Star has, that needs to be dealt with FORTHWITH.
😉
Michael Paul
September 8, 2012
We had some media inquiries into SCO over the 30 AOC managers that pay nothing towards their benefits packages. This is a part of their salary that should be subject to disclosure by SCO. Their attorneys took the position that these lavish perks for the elite 30 were, unbelievably enough, private information not subject to disclosure.
This is where there ought to be a law. Ones’ total compensation, including state benefit and retirement contributions should be public information.
unionman575
September 8, 2012
The Death Star will be posting more Executive Jobs on the net. We will keep you posted.
😉
Michael Paul
September 8, 2012
Transparency and accountability from the AOC are meaningless words coming from sources that have proven time and again that they’re not credible. I suggest that they are continuously evasive because they have lots to hide. In this case, it’s also a matter of giving your media pets the inside scoop by giving the ACJ and everyone else the rule 10.5 brush-off.
If you want to talk about transparency and accountability, the AOC should post every public information request and their response on their website. It would save them resources to respond to the same requests multiple times. Then again, these 10.5 requests are “make work” for the attorneys over at OGC .
DAN DYDZAK
September 8, 2012
Sometimes one gets the impression that the AOC and others around them think like those from the Third Reich of history past. Don’t respond promptly to any reasonable inquiry. Obfuscate. Play semantics. Ignore bonafide requests by judges for information.
Michael Paul
September 8, 2012
Straight from the playbook of Joseph Goebbels & his ministry of enlightenment
Lando
September 8, 2012
Thanks unionman , you are awesome. I thought there was a hiring freeze on at the AOC? So while the trial courts suffer and lay off hard working employees that serve the public day in and day out the AOC gets to hire a ” new” manager who potentially will make 14,000a a month ! It is time for s full and complete legislative investigation but remember such an investigation can only be conducted through the United States mail service lol.
Res Ipsa Loquitor
September 8, 2012
Let’s cut to the chase. The AOC is looking for a lying lobbyist and will pay $14,000 a month for this skill set? Surely, there are those out there who will lie for less.
unionman575
September 8, 2012
Res you said it well!
Wendy Darling
September 8, 2012
Lando: AOC “hiring freeze” =’s hiring like crazy.
Wendy Darling
September 8, 2012
“Additionally, last week we learned that the AOC will pay appellate justices up to $300 each to reimburse them for going to the upcoming CJA conference in Monterey, and that the Chief Justice authorized this.”
Maybe it’s just me, but why the hell is taxpayer money being used to pay a select group of appellate justices to go to a conference of a privately run conference?
Wendy Darling
September 8, 2012
Correction: Maybe it’s just me, but why the hell is taxpayer money being used to pay a select group of appellate justices to go to a conference of a privately run organization?
Curious
September 8, 2012
Because CJA never speaks out of turn, and never questions authority. CJA is apparently having money troubles–they recently moved their operation from SF to Sacramento and laid off all of their staffe but one, if I recall correctly. They need $$, because they have lost members. This is their reward for being a good little puppy, or so it appears to many of us. There is no excuse for tax money to be spent on this so that well-paid appellate justice can travel to Monterey. It is a private organization, and charges dues. They are not entitled to taxpayer support.
courtflea
September 8, 2012
Who the hell died and made J Hull god? excuse me, why are public information requests being forwarded to HIM? What is his authority to do so? If the CJ appointed him to handle PI requests, lets see it in writing.
B.S. The salaries and benefits of all public employees are public information. Like I keep saying, the Alliance needs to sue the AOC for not responding to their inquires for public information.
And what the fuck is $300 going to get the justices in Monterrey? Their green fees? A night on the town? Their bar tab??!! Plezee these folks make over $100k a year and they need a frickin 300 bucks each of taxpayer money??!! For what!! Come on! that money would be better spent sending some clerk who makes $12 an hour to a training program, rather than paying for the justices to “play”. Now that is a scandal.
Last but not least why can’t Mr. Child do “more with less” in these tough fiscal times and simply perform his current and former duties. That is what everyone else is having to do in branch. I guess hell will indeed freeze over if the AOC ever walks the talk.
Justice Barbra
September 8, 2012
Well said. I also am troubled by an AOC Director (salary over $150K) turning a simple request from a judge for salary information into a Public Records Act request (stalling, disrespectful), and not lifting the g-damn phone to ask Human Resources (a) what the answer is and (b) request that someone get back to the judge immediately (laziness, inefficiency). What is the role of an AOC Director and why are they needed? By extension, what on earth is the role of an AOC Assistant Director and why are they needed? Oh yes, I remember now, the SEC report identified these positions for elimination or salary reduction. And E&P and the council approved a vague plan in response to the SEC that thus far has resulted in higher salaries for four individuals. We can close courtrooms, but we cannot turn a battleship on a dime. Nonsense. Where is the accountability?
Lando
September 9, 2012
Let me see if I understand all this . The AOC was created to support the courts established by the California constitution. If a judge makes an inquiry about any aspect of the AOC’s operations wouldn’t the relevant AOC manager simply research the issue and answer the question? Is there something difficult or hard about that? Certainly AOC managers are paid well enough and have adequate staff to carry out this type of job responsibility. Given all that, why is Justice Hull an Appellate Justice now in charge of answering judicial inquiries related to the operations of the AOC? I wasn’t aware it was within the job description of an Appellate Justice to take over for the agency that was set up to support the trial courts to begin with. One should further ask who authorized Justice Hull to take on this responsibility since I am unaware of any Judicial Council public meeting discussion on this. Is this the new and more open and transparent Judicial Council that our Chief and J Miller claim now exists? Hardly. Is anyone in the legislature seeing the pattern of abuse caused by an insular and anti democratic system of governance ? We need to bring democracy to 455 Golden Gate so that the proper constitutional role of the AOC and Judicial Council is restored.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
It’a real real Puzzle Palace up there at the Death Star.
Wendy Darling
September 9, 2012
Question: “One should further ask who authorized Justice Hull to take on this responsibility since I am unaware of any Judicial Council public meeting discussion on this.”
Answer: The Office of the Chief Justice “authorized” it. This is how “everything” is “fully vetted” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue; there is no “public discussion” permitted.
Question: “Is anyone in the legislature seeing the pattern of abuse caused by an insular and anti democratic system of governance?”
Answer: No. Otherwise, the State Legislature would do something about it. Like, at a minimum, an investigation. Apparently, just like those in charge at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, they couldn’t care less.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circlejerk
😉
JusticeCalifornia
September 9, 2012
The branch dictatorship is going to do WHATEVER it wants to, because that is what dictatorships do.
And although our gambling barmaid is well versed at using her feminine charms to “work” the room (whether that room is a bar, a casino, or a legal event), don’t forget this gambling barmaid fancies herself to be the dictator of the largest judiciary in the Western World at the moment. She has very broad appointment powers, and she has made it clear that she intends to keep it that way. As much as some of you would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, her track record and her spit-in-the-wind, middle finger salutes to the legislature, ACJ, trial courts, and anyone else she believes is raining on her power parade speak for themselves and have done a great deal in the last two years to bring the branch down to where it is today.
So everyone can jump up and down and complain, but if she wants to court the press, while having Hull stonewall judicial requests for information, she is going to court the press, and have Hull stonewall judicial requests for information.
I googled “female dictators” and found this little gem. . . .
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Now that’s what I call raw…BUT I like it!
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Get me a bucket…Humanitarian of the year??? And a free bonus – reappointed to E & P.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_21502440/honors-and-more-work-yolo-superior-court-judge
Honors and more work for Yolo Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg
Published By Daily Democrat
Created: 09/09/2012 12:31:10 AM PDT
Yolo County’s Superior Court announced Friday that Judge David Rosenberg has been chosen to receive the 2012 California Judges Association Humanitarian of the Year Award. This award is presented annually to one California Judge who makes a difference outside of the courtroom.
In addition, Rosenberg has also been re-appointed by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to the Executive and Planning Committee; an internal committee of the Judicial Council.
Rosenberg will receive the humanitarian award at the California Judges Association membership luncheon on Friday, Oct. 12, at the Monterey Plaza Hotel as part of the CJA Annual Meeting and Conference.
The Humanitarian Award is officially named the “Alba Witkin Humanitarian Award” after the widow of noted legal scholar Bernard Witkin and is presented by CJA with support from the Witkin Foundation to a judicial officer who is making a difference outside of the courtroom. A donation of $1,000 ($500 from the California Judges Foundation and $500 from the Witkin Foundation) will be made to the charity of Judge Rosenberg’s choice.
Meanwhile, The Executive and Planning Committee is an an internal committee of the Judicial Council and directs and oversees the conduct of business and operating procedures of the council and the AOC; oversees the implementation of the council’s Long-Range Strategic Plan for the judicial branch; develops and conducts the council’s annual planning workshop, ensures that the judicial branch budget is tied to the long-range plan; and serves as the nominating committee for vacancies on the council and its advisory committees.
Rosenberg was also named to the Litigation Management Committee, which oversees litigation and claims against trial courts, the council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the employees of those bodies that seek recovery of $50,000 or more or raise important policy issues.
“These are challenging times for all Californians. Our Courts are challenged as well,” said Rosenberg. “Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has shown great vision and determination in leading the
Judicial Branch through tough times. I appreciate the confidence that the Chief has shown in appointing me to these key positions. It is my honor to work in partnership with the Chief Justice in governing this important third branch of government.”
Rosenberg was appointed to the Bench in 2003 and has subsequently been elected to office in 2006 and 2012. This month he completes over four years of service as Presiding Judge of the Yolo Superior Court.
Rosenberg carries a full criminal trial calendar, handling felony trials. In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Rosenberg, later this month, completes one year as Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (composed of all 58 California trial court Presiding Judges), as Co-Chair of the Trial Court Budget Working Group, and as an Advisory Member of the California Judicial Council and member of that Council’s Executive and Planning Committee. Recently, he was chosen by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to begin, later this month, a three-year term as a full voting member of the California Judicial Council, and will serve as a member of the Executive and Planning Committee as well as the Litigation Management Committee.
The Humanitarian Award is not awarded for judicial work. It is awarded to Judges who make a difference outside of their courtrooms. Judge Rosenberg has been active in the community and in charitable works.
“Receiving this award is a delightful surprise and I am truly honored,” said Rosenberg, “but the real benefit is that it highlights my philosophy that Judges should be part of their communities. Judges should not shy away from good charitable and community works.”
Rosenberg also commented that he is very appreciative of this award because his wife of 44 years, Lea Rosenberg, has been honored in their home town of Davis with the Citizen of the Year Award and also the Humanitarian of the Year Award.
“This Award gives me some measure of equal bragging rights at home,” quipped Rosenberg.
Lando
September 9, 2012
Well you can’t make this stuff up. Really. Humanitarian of the year? Diid I miss something ? Did he save a life? End the civil war in Syria ? Solve the foreclosure crisis? Does this stuff ever end for the “insiders” ? I guess being a judge and just doing their job wouldn’t be enough. We need for the accolades to keep on coming. I think Self promoter of the year might be a good fit or maybe most humble and modest public servant lol.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
“Self promoter of the year”.
I second your Rosenberg nomination Lando.
😉
The OBT
September 9, 2012
I am really disappointed. My money was on Justice Hull to be Humanitarian of the Year. No wonder the CJA membership is fleeing for the exits .
Res Ipsa Loquitor
September 9, 2012
Wonder if there was a little quid pro quo — the CJ pays $$ so that the appellate court justices can attend the conference of the financially strapped CJA, and coincidentally “suggests” a great choice for a CJA award?
Res Ipsa Loquitor
September 9, 2012
You know it has such a bad week for Judge Kaufman that you would have thought that he would be the recipient of some made up prize or award, but once again the man has been slammed.
Heck, Ira Kaufman has been thrown onto the tracks so many times by his good “friends and mentors” at 455 Golden Gate, his photo and a plaque are on display at that railroad museum in Portola. 🙂
unionman575
September 9, 2012
“Beached whale” comes to mind.
😉
unionman575
September 9, 2012
My money was on Hull too. Looks like we were both wrong Res.
😉
Michael Paul
September 9, 2012
Courtflea asked why doesn’t the ACJ sue the AOC/JC for information?
“Rosenberg was also named to the Litigation Management Committee”
And what do they do? Much like Rosenberg himself, they fix cases like mine, like Ryan Clifford* (who technically sued Mr. Rosenberg and his fraternity) (more on Mr. Clifford soon…) and the Jacobs case.
Tha ACJ wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in our courts on this important policy question and they know it.
This is why they and everyone else must go to the legislature for redress because those in power don’t wish to compromise or negotiate.
Why do you need a bunch of judges and justices ostensibly “managing litigation” except to fix cases? Even in this article it spells out what the litigation management committee does.
“which oversees litigation and claims against trial courts, the council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the employees of those bodies that seek recovery of $50,000 or more or raise important policy issues.”
What other organization that you know of has a litigation management committee that consists of a bunch of active judges and justices?
Try zero as a fitting number.
*JCW – edited at the request of the author
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Litigation Management Committee = your case goes away.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Agreed!
This is the only place in America that has such a committee.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
2012 California Rules of Court
Rule 10.14. Litigation Management Committee
The Litigation Management Committee oversees litigation and claims against trial court judges, appellate court justices, the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the trial and appellate courts, and the employees of those bodies in which the likely monetary exposure is $100,000 or more or that raise issues of significance to the judicial branch by:
(1)Reviewing and approving any proposed settlement, stipulated judgment, or offer of judgment; and
(2)Consulting with the Administrative Director or General Counsel, on request, regarding important strategy issues.
(Subd (a) amended effective August 14, 2009; previously amended effective January 1, 2003, January 1, 2007, and December 9, 2008.)
(b) Recommendations
The committee makes recommendations to the Judicial Council for policies governing the management of litigation involving the courts.
(Subd (b) amended effective August 14, 2009.)
(c) Strategic decisions
The committee resolves written objections described in rule 10.202(d) presented by the Office of the General Counsel.
(Subd (c) amended effective August 14, 2009; previously amended effective January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2007.)
Rule 10.14 amended effective August 14, 2009; adopted as rule 6.14 effective January 1, 2001; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2003, and December 9, 2008.
😉
unionman575
September 9, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/litman.pdf
Litigation Management Committee
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Nohting like a Sunday morning cup of coffee with friends here on JCW and some healthy criticism for our branch “leaders”.
Michael Paul
September 9, 2012
Nothing like it. 🙂
The OBT
September 9, 2012
The table got run against J Kaufman this week. No second multi million dollar waste of taxpayer money courthouse and no humanitarian of the year award. You right Res. The powers that be have moved on and J Kaufman after being thrown under the bus isn’t going to join J Hull or the new fav insider J Rosenberg on the Court of Appeal any time soon.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_under_the_bus
😉
Michael Paul
September 9, 2012
It’s amusing to note that Plumas county is not using the new courthouse in their own county and wants a new one built for them. These were the favors pledged for being a loyalist to the regime. Unfortunately for Kaufman the AOC is now turning to bigger fish in the form of former politicians like Rosenberg and Hull whom they believe to wield more influence.
courtflea
September 9, 2012
Justice CA loved the video!! did you all notice near the end of the clip the “up next” segment was “supreme court overturns judicial review”.
Res, you had me laughing out loud with your Kaufman observation! Perhaps they can give Kaufman the “road kill” award at the CJA meeting.It really is kinda sad, poor Ira wanted so badly to play with the big boys 😉
Is this “humanitarian” award new or something? I agree with Lando, just a new suck up award. I thought judges were not supposed to lend their office to any work outside of the job, charitable, political or otherwise. Besides, folks that would be considered true humanitarians we would not know about it, cause they don’t brag about it J Rosenberg. How did the CJA find out about these “good deeds”? Perhaps J Rosenberg has his own humanitarian web page.
Michael, thanks for the good points on why the ACJ won’t sue. I totally forgot about the litigation committee. Talk about total conflict. How rude.
Michael Paul
September 9, 2012
Rosenberg’s humanitarian web page: http://www.daverosenberg.net/bio.html or another one can be found here :http://www.daverosenberg.net/resume.html
You will note that he wasted no time at all updating his resume page to reflect this award.
Curious
September 9, 2012
Astounding! I have never seen anything remotely as self-aggrandizing as the website you noted, Mr. Paul. Judge Rosenberg refers to himself in the third person, almost like the Royal Family does! “Judge Rosenberg did this, Judge Rosenberg did that, Judge Rosenberg won this, Judge Rosenberg was appointed to this that or the other…”
That is some hardcore narcissism. He apparently updated his website over the weekend lest anybody miss his latest “award”! My oh my. This is one for the books. Thank your for finding that, Mr. Paul.
Curious
September 9, 2012
By the way, will Judge Rosenberg get that courthouse in Yolo? Will it be named after him? Perhaps “The Rosenberg Humanitarian of All-Time Courthouse Named After Me, Rosenberg.” Perhaps they can include the url to his website on the building’s facade, together with his cutesy little caricature.
Been There
September 9, 2012
Amused by Rosenberg’s Rules for Life and Health. I take it that he considers himself to be quite the physical specimen, but some of his “advice” is dangerous.
Jurist, parliamentarian, health guru, author of memorable memos — and humanitarian! Damn we are all so lucky to be allowed to bask in the radiance emanating from Yolo County.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Judge Rosenberg is truly a legend in his own mind.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Legend%20in%20his%20own%20mind
unionman575
September 9, 2012
A Message from Kim Turner, Court Executive Officer:
http://www.marincourt.org/data/hpnews/88.pdf
courtflea
September 9, 2012
Michael, I would not have believed it unless you had posted it here on JCW!! OMG!! But you gotta love the little caricature of him up in the top corner. Except it should be modified to show him kissing a big fat butt labled the CJ/JC. That would paint a picture eh? pardon the pun.
You can’t make this stuff up. Really. You can’t.
wearyant
September 9, 2012
CourtFlea, heehee! I needed the levity after reading all the b.s. emanating from the silos. 🙂
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Curious
September 9, 2012
I hate to beat this Rosenberg website/award thing to death, but someone just asked me:
“What did he do to deserve that award?” My response: “You are asking the wrong question. The real question is, how in the world did we ever evolve into such a sick system, where egomaniacs are rewarded for their imagined feats, where sycophancy is regarded as praiseworthy, and utter, unparalleled suckupism actually succeeds? How did we get to a position where such people are not laughed out of town and instead are called “leaders”?
It hasn’t always been thus, has it?
unionman575
September 9, 2012
It is getting worse under King George II.
😉
Curious
September 9, 2012
Yes, right you are, Union Man.
Hey, for a little fun, try this: Look at Judge Rosenberg’s photo, which appears on his website, and compare it with the magnificent portrait someone did, which appears on his OTHER website. They can be compared at:
http://www.daverosenberg.net/bio.html (real Rosenberg)
http://www.deladier.com/rosenberg.html (painted Rosenberg)
Can a statue be far off?
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Can a statue be far off? I think it’s coming soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
courtflea
September 9, 2012
Curious, that is fricking amazing that portrait! Geez! It looks like J Rosenberg has been touched by the hand of god and something akin to the Lincoln memorial should be established in his name. Christ, I am suprised there is not a halo over his fat head! Damn, that man must have an ego as big as the crack of his ass. Gawd whats next? Gold stripes on the sleeves of his robe? I am still rolling in the isles with laughter! In all of my years in the courts and seeing a lot of BIG egos, I have never seen anything like this, I am almost speachless! Which of course would be the first for the flea. Hot damn I am not sure what but we have to do something with that portrait.JCW can we put it on your masthead? Or maybe we should have it printed on toliet paper to raise money for the recall Tani efforts 🙂
One can only wonder if Judge kaufman has had a similar portrait commissioned except with tire tracks on his body from being thrown under the bus! Sorry just bein a bit silly today.
You can’t make this up really. you can’t However great for a good laugh.
By the way, we shall never forget.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
“Or maybe we should have it printed on toliet paper to raise money for the recall Tani efforts ”
Let’s do that Flea. I could use some good ass wipe!
😉
unionman575
September 9, 2012
This one is for our guest of honor, Judge Rosenberg, by way of Flea’s suggestion above…
wearyant
September 9, 2012
I suggest a statue of a huge white ass — maybe with kiss marks appropriately placed.
Yes, Flea we shall never forget.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Ant I hope you enjoy the tune!
😉
Been There
September 9, 2012
Flea, you have outdone yourself! I cannot remember the last time I laughed so much!
Your post will become a JCW classic!
Given the deserved lampooning D Rosenberg has received on this site this evening, Judge Kaufman is probably thinking tire tracks aren’t really so bad after all.
Curious
September 10, 2012
That portrait is really something. It has the style and tones of those used on portraits of various “Maximum leaders”, like tinhorn dictators and so forth, don’t you think?
I’m told it sits in his courthouse somewhere, but don’t know, never having visited Yolo. Sounds plausible, though, given that he has it plastered on the internet. Where I come from, a judge putting his own portrait up would just be shunned by his peers, and would be the laughingstock of the profession. Wait…I guess that’s happening.
Note: His website lists among his accomplishments that he has presided over “contested preliminary hearings.” This is sort of akin to having a resume entry that reads: “At my job, I routinely opened desk drawers and used paper clips and staples, all without serious injury to myself or my coworkers.”
No, truly, Rosenberg is a man to be studied.
The OBT
September 9, 2012
Hey DJ Unionman, I would like to request the O’Jay’s Back Stabbers and dedicate it to Mize, Friedman, Kaufman, Rosenberg and of course Hull for all they have done to undermine the independence of the California judiciary.
unionman575
September 9, 2012
Per the OBT’s request this number goes out to: Mize, Friedman, Kaufman, Rosenberg and of course Hull for all they have done to undermine the independence of the California judiciary.
The OBT
September 9, 2012
Thanks Unionman, your post on the J Rosenberg Humanitarian of the year award was gold Jerry, gold !
unionman575
September 10, 2012
My IQ is 10 1/2 same as my shoe size….I heard the Rosenberg thing on the grapevine… 😉
unionman575
September 10, 2012
Here are the written pleas each CEO made for their pet OCCM projects…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/15693.htm#tab15699
wearyant
September 10, 2012
JCW, I respectfully nominate Unionman575 as DJ for this weblog based on his uncanny ability to find these great, apropros tunes in nanoseconds! Catchy, snazzy tune for “kiss my ass”! Sinatra and his Rat Pack would have been jealous. 😀
JusticeCalifornia
September 10, 2012
That Ryan Clifford case is horrifying, and the fact that it involves Rosenberg’s fraternity, in my opinion, required him to have NO involvement in the case at all.
If it is ever determined that he was involved in ANY way in covering up, “fixing”, or influencing that ugly case, I daresay that humanitarian should be yanked away, but quick.
Campaign contributions are such a slippery slope, aren’t they? Are they influence? Some judges have said, absolutely yes– others deny any influence at all. They certainly create the appearance of influence.
courtflea
September 10, 2012
Wearyant, I second the motion. That kiss my ass video is a classic unionman! Perfect accompanyment to the portrait. I am still laughing this morning about that portrait! How much do you think that cost him? As I review it again, it looks like he is sitting in front a hall leading to a bank vault. And what is that book in hand? The cliff notes of his autobiography? The great works of J Rosenberg? Mein Kauf? you just gotta love it. you can’t make this stuff up. really. Ah, I love a good laugh at a jerkoff’s expense.
wearyant
September 10, 2012
CourtFlea, 😀 !!
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
Ah, “transparency.” You know it when you see it . . . and when you don’t. Published today, Monday, September 10, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang:
Alliance ‘Perplexed’ at Selection of Lobbyist to New Post at AOC
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
The Alliance of California Judges has expressed its dismay at the appointment of the top lobbyist for the Administrative Office of the Courts as the agency’s new chief operating officer.
Curtis Child was named to the newly created post, effective next month. As COO, he will be one of three division heads reporting directly to new Administrative Director of the Courts Steven Jahr, who will assume that role Oct. 9.
“While we were not surprised that current acting Executive Director Jody Patel and acting Chief Deputy Director Curt Soderland were chosen (as they would otherwise lose their jobs with the elimination of the AOC Regional Offices), we were perplexed by the selection of” Child, the alliance directors said in a missive dated Thursday and addressed to “Members and Others.”
Budget Trailer
The stated cause of the group’s displeasure is a lack of transparency with regard to whether Child or a subordinate attempted to sneak language into a 2009 budget trailer bill that would have deprived trial courts of the authority to select their own clerks and presiding and assistant presiding judges.
The language, which was never actually introduced, has been frequently cited by AOC critics as an example of stealthy behavior designed to rob trial courts of their autonomy.
The alliance recently made public what ii said was a newly discovered email, dated June 16, 2009, from Donna Hershkowitz, assistant director of the AOC Office of Governmental Affairs, passing along proposed Department of Finance judicial budget language.
“I’m forwarding the language finance sent,“ Hershkowitz wrote. “The AOC made revisions to the language to provide necessary technical assistance to make the language work.”
The revisions would have amended Government Code Section 77001 to read, “The Judicial Council shall adopt rules, policies, or directives, which shall provide, consistent with statute … means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court, and jury commissioners.”
The AOC has declined to say who authorized the draft language, and has insisted all along that it was designed to fix technical problems and not to substantively effect courts’ authority over selection of their presiding judge and administrative personnel. The Department of Finance said at the time that it did not ask for the language.
The alliance also released an Aug. 6 email from Kern Superior Court Judge David Lampe, an alliance director, to Patel, complaining about the AOC’s reluctance to respond to his and other judges’ requests for information about the trailer bill and other matters.
This Year’s Budget
One of those matters was whether AOC personnel lobbied earlier this year against alliance-backed amendments to Government Code Sec. 68085. Those amendments, adopted as part of a trailer bill to this year’s budget, restrict the Judicial Council and AOC from taking monies from the Trial Court Trust Fund without consent of the Legislature or the courts.
The alliance has questioned Child’s alleged role in opposing the amendments in light of the chief justice’s subsequent comments that she was not opposed to them.
Lampe said he had received a response from Child which “was wholly non-responsive, saying, in essence, that his advocacy was consistent with Judicial Council policy.”
Lampe vented:
“That’s the question: DID the Council, Chief, or ANYONE ELSE tell him to lobby against the changes to Government Code 68085, and did he in fact do so?
“Why do you allow your staff to stonewall simple requests such as these?”
Lampe said he did not receive a response from Patel, but was advised by email that his request had been sent to Third District Court of Appeal Justice Harry Hull, a member of the Judicial Council, for information.
Lampe complained:
“Justice Hull was given the request by AOC on August 7, 2012, and has simply ignored it. The stonewalling on this issue continues, as does the AOC practice of referring uncomfortable matters to Justice Hull, who insists on responding, if at all, by U.S. Mail only.”
The AOC, through a spokesperson, declined comment Friday.
In other news, the alliance said Friday that while it had no received a response to its request about how much the new division head would be paid, it had “learned from a member of the press…their request for this information yesterday was promptly met with this response: Jody Patel will be paid $216,000 per year, while Curt Soderlund and Curt Child will each be paid $198,000 per year.”
The alliance said it had also not received a reply to its requests for information about the benefits packages for the three “newly elevated bureaucrats” and about the AOC’s apparent plan to reimburse appellate justices up to $300 each to attend next month’s California Judges Association conference.
“We made an information request two lines long that asked [Chad Finke, director of the AOC Court Programs and Services Division] whether this was true, whether trial court judges would also be reimbursed, and who authorized the reimbursement of justices,” the alliance reported. “That matter was immediately shunted to Justice Hull, who has yet to acknowledge the request. As we noted previously, Justice Hull refuses to answer these referrals other than by U.S. mail. We also note that Justice Hull, chair of the Rules Committee, has no prescribed duties or particular authority in this area. If we receive a response, we will share that with you….”
*********************************************************************************************
Long live Judge Lampe. And long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
The current salary for the Governor of California is $165,288. Does anyone really think or believe that Patel, Soderlund, and Child deserve, or should receive, a salary higher than that of the Governor of California?
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
wearyant
September 10, 2012
“Lampe said he had received a response from Child which ‘was wholly non-responsive, saying, in essence, that his advocacy was consistent with Judicial Council policy.’”
The word “policy” seems to be a word that can ignite firestorms lately in the third branch. For instance, I still believe the JC is supposed to SUGGEST or RECOMMEND towards that end, NOT MAKE policy per the Government Code. Just because wild hares within the AOC/JC say they make policy does not make it so, no matter how many times they repeat this falsehood or how many differing ways it appears in their mastheads — repetition of this nature is a helluva way to beat down the opposition when the JC/AOC/CJ should have IQs higher than Unionman575 of 10-1/2. A cheap ploy. They’re paid huge salaries and churn out this kind of crap.
Sadly, it appears to me that every single action or inaction taken by the AOC’s JC is to benefit themselves and in the sole interest of self-preservation! I mean Every Single Thing They Do. There is Nothing they do that is purely altruistic, Nothing in the interests of California’s common man, Nothing truly helpful for the trial courts who actually serve on the front lines daily and with less and less resources and more kicks to their heads, and definitely Nothing in consideration of the California taxpayers. Oh, the beleaguered California taxpayers. The AOC’s JC/CJ must visualize them as merely meat for their rotisserie; how can they be further twisted and turned and drained, hung and dried of all their substance to be eked out so the AOC can continue their lavish lifestyles with wholly paid benefits.
“While we were not surprised that current acting Executive Director Jody Patel and acting Chief Deputy Director Curt Soderland were chosen (as they would otherwise lose their jobs with the elimination of the AOC Regional Offices), we were perplexed by the selection of Child, the alliance directors said in a missive dated Thursday and addressed to “Members and Others.”
I’ve seen the AOC smoke and mirrors act before. Jody and her dog Spot have many convinced that the world would end if they were no longer there. Oh, c’mon, let’s put our grownup pants and panties on. The world is still spinning after true hurt has been delivered to the trial courts. Dedicated line workers whose employers really want them working are being sent away and the effects on the public are devastating, real and felt monetarily. These wrongs can still be righted with the truth and correct action. The blowhards in the AOC/JC/CJ office have to be called out. It’s not the legislature who is doing the damage to the third branch. It is how the public funds are diverted and misdirected. There should be a RICO investigation. Until then, yes, the legislature will not be inclined to pour more public funds down the velvety throats of the abusive and manipulative AOC/JC/CJ office. The JC should be democratized and the AOC eliminated. If the AOC were gone tomorrow, the sun would still rise and the world would continue. Real services that are sorely needed are being done away with and we’re still here. Close down the AOC. Democratize the JC. Thank God for the ACJ.
Maybe I should have had coffee before this rant?!
wearyant
September 10, 2012
Would it have been a big deal if Jody’s and her dog Spot’s jobs were eliminated? The ACJ were too kind and understanding in this instance! Dump ’em out the door! Hordes of hard-working trial court workers were dumped unceremoniously, and THEY ARE TRULY wanted and needed to serve the public! Their employers, their coworkers and the public will assure anyone, THIS IS SO. I am so sick of watching this tragedy continue to unwind, and the courts go down the tube, drain, sewer or wherever they’re going.
unionman575
September 10, 2012
Maybe I should have had coffee before this rant?!
No..you have enough “energy” the way you are now Ant.
LOL
wearyant
September 10, 2012
If there must be another name change, it will be to RantAnt. 🙂
unionman575
September 10, 2012
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
Judical branch “policy”: No one was ever held responsible, even a smidge, in the AOC’s HR Division, for embezzling over a $100,000 of public money, with the full consent and blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice and the AOC’s Executive Office. Does anyone really think that Curt Child, or anyone else, is ever going to be held answerable for trying to pull a fast one by slipping some duplicitous language into a trailer bill, or for lobbying against legislation that the Chief Justice publicly asserted she supported?
And FYI, whether it’s stealing public money, lying to the State Legislature, doing shifty things with trailer bill language, or saying one thing while doing another, nothing happens at 455 Golden Gate Avenue without the full knowledge, consent, and blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice.
Nothing.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
unionman575
September 10, 2012
😉
unionman575
September 10, 2012
What is a word for saying one thing and doing another?
Answer: A person who says one thing but does another is called a hypocrite.
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
Exactly, Unionman.
Liars, hypocrites, and crooks: that’s the current Judicial Branch “leadership,” with the Chief Justice leading the way.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
September 10, 2012
WD, agreed. Anyone who believes the truth comes in “variations” (as the CJ apparently does) should not be serving the public. Oh, that’s right. She isn’t. She’s the ultimate placeholder so King George’s regime may continue on.
Unionman, my ears are still ringing! !! You are definitely da man!
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
It appears the Chief Justice is determined to use taxpayer money in order to pack the room for her speech to the CJA conventioneers on the last day of the CJA meeting. Published today, Monday, September 10, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Appellate Justices Will Get Taxpayer Assist for Judges’ Convention Expenses
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — The state’s appellate justices will be reimbursed up to $300 each in taxpayer money for costs associated with attending next month’s California Judges Association meeting in Monterey.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and the administrative presiding justices of the state’s appellate courts authorized the payments, Judicial Council spokeswoman Leanne Kozak confirmed. The reimbursements will not extend to trial court judges.
“Every year there are budget dollars earmarked specifically for all of the appellate justices and staff (not trial court judges) to use for statewide educational institutes, travel to conferences, etc.,” Kozak wrote in an email. “That money comes from the state’s general fund.”
Kozak said there is “no way to answer” whether the chief justice or any of the administrative presiding justices had concerns about the potential $32,100 cost of reimbursing 107 justices in the unlikely event they all chose to attend.
The three-day CJA conference at the Monterey Plaza Hotel offers sessions on ethics, criminal law, expert testimony and veterans courts, all of which qualify for continuing education credits. At least six appellate justices are scheduled to speak or lead seminars.
“It’s a great deal,” said California Judges Association President David Rubin, a San Diego County Superior Court judge. The number of and range of courses offered at the central location, plus the cost to attend — $375 for active and retired bench officers — makes the annual meeting a bargain, Rubin said.
The CJA’s 83rd annual gathering also provides plenty of socializing opportunities for judges, including a cocktail reception, a ticketed theatrical presentation on the life of Thomas Paine and a cigar-smoking event that will be held at the reception site but is not an official CJA-sponsored gathering.
The Alliance of California Judges, a sometimes-rival of the CJA, has raised questions about spending public dollars on a private foundation’s event. The same concerns have been raised before. In 2003 the Judicial Council voted to require judges to pay their own CJA dues. CJA Executive Director Stanley Bissey said he was unaware of any trial courts that still reimburse judges for the membership fees.
Kozak said appellate justices have been reimbursed in previous years for attending the CJA conference. Justice Conrad Rushing, administrative presiding justice of the Sixth District Court of Appeal, said the branch has “always paid something” for justices to attend. Rushing said he was on vacation and not part of recent discussions about payments for the CJA conference.
But Justice Thomas Hollenhorst of the Fourth District, a long-time judicial educator and an alliance director, said 2012 was “the first year in a while” when justices have been offered subsidies to attend.
“It has never been a guaranteed thing,” he said.
Kozak said the chief justice and APJs “may very well cover expenses for other learning opportunities” like the Appellate Justices Institute and the Appellate Judicial Attorneys Institute, two events put together by the Center for Judicial Education and Research, a division of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202570816251&Appellate_Justices_Will_Get_Taxpayer_Assist_for_Judges_Convention_Expenses
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 10, 2012
Hmm interesting…the first year n a while..
Justice Thomas Hollenhorst of the Fourth District, a long-time judicial educator and an alliance director, said 2012 was “the first year in a while” when justices have been offered subsidies to attend.
wearyant
September 10, 2012
How nice, the subsidy. It must be the great economic times we’re all having in California. It brings a warm, fuzzy feeling to the stomach, don’t it? 🙂 SO glad we commoners can help out, Tani.
JusticeCalifornia
September 10, 2012
Our short-on-credibility, work-that-room, throw-her-support-base-under-the-bus, gambling barmaid is perhaps hoping to fill the room with live appellate bodies for her speech? And is willing to use public funds to do it? LOL, LOL.
courtflea
September 10, 2012
Like I said, why do these justices who make over $100k a year need $300 bucks? If it was all expenses paid I could understand but, $300 bucks? is it worth the political flack? The AOC covers the justices for training, etc. when training money is non existent in the trial courts for any staff. Again a flagrant disregard for the appearance of their actions by the AOC and the JC. Not to mention, what are these justices thinking????!!!
courtflea
September 10, 2012
The appellate court justices deserve a special golden raspberry award for taking the $300 bucks! This will be awarded at the CJA meeting 🙂
wearyant
September 10, 2012
” … a ticketed theatrical presentation on the life of Thomas Paine … ” J Rubin says it’s a grrreeaatt deal! Can you hear Tony the Tiger on the cereal box, baby boomers?
JCW, can you awaken our Thomas Paine and ask him to say a few words for the folks? 😀
Justice Barbra
September 10, 2012
Reimbursing judges for taking a trip to Monterey is not advisable. If it has drawn heat here, wait until for profit media decides that it is newsworthy. If no one has already stated the obvious, people are leaving CJA because it has not helped to provide oversight and it is not leading or representing the CA judicial branch during a crisis.
crtwatchr
September 10, 2012
This is payback to Judge Rubin for the time he spent in Sacramento during budget and pension reform negotiations. CJA membership is dwindling and CJA will lose money on the conference if it doesn’t get a minimum number of attendees. I expect the numbers are down due to cuts in trial court travel budgets and the CJA’s reluctance to support reform within the branch. The extra $300 from the state general fund provides an incentive for justices to attend the conference and help to offset CJA’s losses.
At the last JC meeting Judge Rubin couldn’t stop praising Curt Child for his hard work on behalf of the branch. You have to wonder how much more praise Curt would receive if he was effective in his lobbying efforts. Ignoring the flap over the trailer bill language, Curt just doesn’t seem like a very good lobbyist. Can someone point to any lobbying success stories? Let’s see, the branch has received hundreds of millions in cuts, trial courts have been required to use fund balances to support ongoing operations, the legislature stepped in to shut down CCMS, and the DOF refuses to include branch representatives in budget discussions. Is that the type of performance that should be rewarded with a promotion?
.
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2012
And the members of the State Legislature know that Child is “less than truthful.”
Long live the ACJ.
One Who Knows
September 11, 2012
Neither Judge Rubin nor Curt Child did anything beneficial during the last few weeks of the legislative session with regard to the pension reform. Except to pathetically run around wringing their hands looking for information because by the time they showed up to the dance it was over. The deal over pensions had already been cut. They were never even in the ‘real’ negotiations. The Alliance Judges who were not running around in the capitol had information about the impact of pension reform on judges before Judge Rubin and Curt. Why? Because no one even really considers the AOC in the capitol anymore except to talk about how scandalous they are.
Is Curt a good lobbyist or not? He is not. You don’t have to ask anyone who has interacted with him during his tenure with the AOC to get that answer. Because everyone who has ever worked with him will tell you generally the same. Even the people who worked with him during his social services/child support advocacy years. They will tell you that he is not honest, he is shrill, manipulative, not clever and not very strategic or political. He lacks a certain acumen and intelligence for the type of work. People can make up for lack of some inherent skills, but those are usually individuals who have some level of self-awareness and self-honesty about their ability, as well as a little humility. Not our boy, Curt. His arrogance and over-confidence does him in. The reason why Curt has survived and has had some level of success is because he works hard. He may be working hard on the wrong thing, but you have to give him credit for his doggedness. I’ve seen him figuratively be slapped down and embarrassed but he gets right back up and persists with whatever his assignment is, as if nothing even happened. That doggedness can sometimes win out in the capitol but it also can make a person look a little crazy and out of touch. Curt looks a little crazy. Combined with his lack of integrity he has become a liability in the capitol for the Chief Justice. And often in politics, the way you get rid of a loyal liability is to promote them. Hence, Curt’s new job. The question is – will they promote Donna to be the new Curt? She has the same liabilities but is slightly more personable and smarter than Curt. I guess we’ll see how they keep moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Nathaniel Woodhull
September 11, 2012
Probably from its formation in the 1920’s, judges belonging to CJA had their annual fees and costs for attending conferences reimbursed by their counties and/or State. CJA provided the vast majority of all educational courses for judges and justices throughout the State, and it was the only organization that offered ethics opinions. Ronald George came along and before he was able to take over CJA, announced that CJA was no longer viewed as an educational arm of the branch, rather it was a social organization. As such, he disallowed any reimbursements for annual dues, then about $370, or reimbursements for attending CJA sponsored conferences. Since about 2010, most trial courts no longer reimburse judges for attending any conferences. The only qualifying educational programs for reimbursement are the few remaining CJER programs and reimbursement comes directly from the State.
CJA has claimed to represent 94% of the judges in California. Many of us know that is a phoney number, from the land of phoney numbers. Membership has in fact been dropping like a rock. Now that CJA has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the AOC, rather than the independent voice of the judiciary, Tani has figured out that she cannot let the CJA fail. If they don’t make their minimum number of attendees for the conference, CJA cannot hold a conference. Since commissioners are being fired in droves, the numbers are dwindling even further.
Tani’s (or is it Ron’s) solution: reimburse the “justices” to attend the CJA conference. Can’t have those lowly trial judges go, despite the fact that the educational programs are geared toward them. Get those numbers up just enough so that CJA can survive…and still knows who butters its bread.
Yes it is a new and improved transparent age at the Crystal Palace!
wearyant
September 11, 2012
A phoney number from the land of phoney numbers … LOL! Thanks for the laugh, General. A good respite from the sad, bad news from the third branch. How about the Thomas Paine education? Coming from the same great minds that feel a need to teach ethics? LOL! Silly me, I thought everyone learns ethics around the time you learn right from wrong as a toddler.
unionman575
September 11, 2012
You learn right from wrong after you go to federal prison.
Let’s help some folks out. Shall we?
😉
unionman575
September 11, 2012
A little bird gave me a copy of the AOC roster. If you want one here’s the place to ask:
bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
Ask and ye shall receive – it’s a 29 page pdf.
unionman575
September 11, 2012
Thomas Paine
September 12, 2012
Any historical reference to me in the context of such a meeting wouldn’t be valid without asking one simple question. WWTD or What would Thomas do?
Thomas would advise those judges and justices in attendance that monumental change is on the horizon. Those in attendance, mostly paid representatives of the “old state court system” need to brace for monumental change that strips them of their power.
Instead, the California Judges Association will probably use my name and likeness to promote their one voice branch unification project by dispatching emissary spokespersons out to detractors. Forget about the past they will tell you.
Did we forget how both King Georges taxed us without permitting us representation?
Did we forget how those in power have used gunboat diplomacy to strike out at anyone and everyone who disagreed with him?
Did we forget that we serve the public and are responsible for delivering justice and are not some software development or construction company?
Did we forget about all of the unanswered questions?
Have we forgotten that no one has been held accountable for anything?
My fellow Californians, keep up the good fight. You have taken this battle to their doorstep and now, more than ever before, it is important that this battle stays on their doorstep.
Thomas Paine
unionman575
September 12, 2012
Thanks Thomas Paine.
😉
Robert Turner
September 11, 2012
This is shameful. Spending $32,000 on subsidizing the justices of CA to go to a conference in Monterey when there are clerk’s offices with limited hours for the public all over the state and staff being laid off due to budget cuts. If access to justice is indeed is indeed the hightest priority of the Judicial Council then they sure have a strange way of showing it with their spending of CA taxpayer money.
Let me guess, there must have been hundreds of pro per letters to the Chief complaining that the panels of Justices they were facing lacked a working knowledge of the life of Thomas Paine. The Chief, ever mindful of the needs of the poor and unrepresented CA citizen, was concerned CA’s justices lacked this knowledge and felt it was critical for them to get more training. Being ever mindful of the fiscal crisis in CA she asked her interim Director where was a cheap place for this training to take place during CA’s recession? The reply back was “How about Pebble Beach in Monterey?” “Great idea! You are so smart. This is why you need to stay on even with Jahr coming in. Kudos! Oh, and as soon as I can manage it you deserve another raise.”
Good job Chief. Thanks for keeeping your eye on the ball there.
unionman575
September 11, 2012
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/091112_santa_barbara_courthouse_project_downsizes/
Scaled-Down Santa Barbara Courthouse Plan Moving Forward
Judicial Council advisory group recommends downsizing several projects to help compensate for $544 million in budget cuts
By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer | @magnoli | Published on 09.11.2012 7:09 p.m.
The Santa Barbara County Superior Court’s proposed Figueroa Street courthouse project has been scaled down since the state trimmed funding for this and other projects funded by 2009’s Senate Bill 1407.
At a meeting last week, a state Judicial Council advisory group recommended that seven projects be indefinitely delayed and more can move forward, but with their revised, lower-cost proposals.
The judicial branch is trying to compensate for its $544 million in budget cuts by reducing construction project costs.
“It’s all just in a state of flux right now; we’re just dealing with a very difficult situation,” California courts spokeswoman Leanne Kozak said, adding that most of the proposals presented at last week’s meeting were different from even a few months ago, since there is even less money available.
Santa Barbara’s original plan for a new criminal courthouse on Figueroa Street was a $151 million, 97,266-square-foot facility that would consolidate the criminal courtrooms and adds jury-deliberation rooms, a self-help center, a waiting room for children, a larger holding area for jail inmates, and a parking facility.
Courts Executive Officer Gary Blair and presiding Judge Brian Hill presented a modified, smaller proposal to the Court Facilities Working Group, which unanimously voted to green light the project.
“It’s a huge victory for us so far,” Blair said. “It is a recommendation, it’s not final until the Judicial Council acts on it (at its Oct. 26 meeting), but we have good reason to believe they will adopt it.”
They proposed a 65,000-square-foot facility would be two stories instead of three, but would still consolidate all eight courtrooms and solve some of the “horrible security problems” from escorting in-custody inmates across public hallways, sidewalks and streets, Blair said.
It would be built using the 1.3-acre Hayward Properties at 1025 Santa Barbara St., which already has been purchased for the project. The new facility would be built and connected to the existing Figueroa Court building, which would then be renovated.
“I think we salvaged the project and had some really tough competition statewide. Everyone has a problem with security, but I think ours is unique when look at the situation of having to walk in-custody prisoners on a public street past five buses unloading international tourists.”
All inmates are held in the basement holding cells in the Figueroa Street courthouse, but some have court hearings in the Anacapa Street courthouse and have to be walked across the street.
The new holding facility would be at least doubled to deal with overcrowding – it’s only certified for 60 people and sometimes holds twice that many in a day – and give more flexibility to segregating the inmates by gender, seriousness of crime, or other classifications.
The biggest difference in the revised proposal is the project would move forward without trying to purchase the Garden Street property from Santa Barbara County for parking, which would save the cost of the acquisition and parking facility.
The project lost $20 million of funding in April, and the new proposal would save another $17 million or so, Blair said.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at gmagnoli@noozhawk.com . Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
As Unionman575 might say, “my, my, my.” Poor uber-rich of Santa Barbara rubbing elbows with the imprisoned AND unwashed plebeian masses on the street outside the courthouse. J Brian Hill, you’re gonna have to do more for your Montecito neighbors! 🙂
unionman575
September 11, 2012
http://www.theunion.com/news/crime/2505604-113/court-group-courthouse-projects
Nevada City Courthouse project to proceed
After three days of reevaluating more than 30 statewide courthouse construction projects in an attempt to save around $500 million, the Nevada County Courthouse was among the projects chosen to proceed, according to a staff member of the California Office of Court Construction and Management.
Nevada County Courthouse Chief Executive Officer Sean Metroka was given about 15 minutes Wednesday to present the unified vision that the courthouse should simply be renovated using only the existing land, a plan he said would save about $40 million.
This proposal, developed by a group of Nevada City and county officials, is a departure from what was originally budgeted as a $108 million rebuild of the 148-year-old facility that sits overlooking downtown Nevada City.
Ever since the Administrative Office of the Courts determined that the courthouse is “unsafe, substandard, overcrowded and functionally deficient,” plans on how to alleviate that prognosis has shifted from completely demolishing and replacing the courthouse, perhaps elsewhere, to simply renovating it. Neither option was without its detractors.
During its meetings Wednesday through Friday, the Court Facilities Working Group heard from representatives for each of the 31 projects up for review and then voted to determine which projects can proceed, and which should be indefinitely delayed, according to an AOC spokesperson.
Which of those projects will join Nevada City in proceeding forward was not available as of press time.
Check back with http://www.TheUnion.com for more updates as they become available.
To contact Staff Writer Christopher Rosacker, email crosacker@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4236.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
Unionman575, you’re workin’ the midnight oil. As far as the words used by the AOC, “unsafe, substandard, overcrowded and functionally deficient,” I find them incredibly descriptive of the AOC’s multilayered bureaucracy! 🙂
Former AOCer
September 12, 2012
I’m really curious to know who at the AOC deemed a courthouse unsafe? If any of the buildings were so decrepit they supposedly would not have transferred. What would the AOC take on that liability? What is meant by unsafe? Threat to the public, threat to employees? Are some overcrowded, yes, definitely. If a courthouse was built in the 50s or 60s, those courthouses were not designed for the level of increase in the population in the surrounding area. Substandard, what is the definition of substandard? Substandard security? Substandard what? Functionally deficient? I don’t think that term was ever defined by OCCM.
On one hand, there was no rejection of a courthouse despite the huge amount of deferred maintenance, seismic deficiencies, fire and life safety issues that might have existed, and now, there is this claim of unsafe, functionally deficient buildings?
Disgusting.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
Very good questions, Former AOCer. Many would love to know the answers. One curiosity that comes to mind also, the insurance factor? Weren’t the great minds recently talking about that?
unionman575
September 11, 2012
“Since funding for court construction comes out of court user fees, we hope that next year the branch’s funds won’t be swept as they have been over the last two years — and that all courthouse projects, including those that have been delayed, will be able to move forward immediately and become a reality for the communities that so desperately need them,” Hill added.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=what%20are%20you%20smokin%3F
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/09/11/tahoe-courthouse-projects-delayed-placer.html
Tahoe courthouse on list of delayed court projects
Sacramento Business Journal by Kathy Robertson, Senior Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 2:02pm PDT
A proposed $27.5 million Tahoe area courthouse is one of seven development projects a court facilities working group will recommend be delayed indefinitely due to budget constraints.
A proposed $27.5 million Tahoe area courthouse is one of seven development projects a court facilities working group will recommend be delayed indefinitely due to budget constraints.
The group made the decision following a marathon budget discussion last week. Placer County Superior Court currently runs a small courthouse in Tahoe City. Efforts to locate a site for the new courthouse were suspended earlier this year after the state slashed the budget for California courts by $544 million.
In good news for the Sacramento region, the working group will recommend that three other local courthouse development projects will move ahead. They include a new criminal courthouse in Sacramento and new courthouses in Placerville and Woodland.
The recommendations will be considered by the Judicial Council of California at its Oct. 26 meeting.
“Because of the deep cuts to the judicial branch budget … our working group was left with the deeply difficult and disappointing task of delaying necessary court construction projects that would have gone ahead under a better fiscal environment,” Justice Brad Hill, chairman of the Court Facilities Working Group, said in a news release.
Yet Hill held out hope things will change.
“Since funding for court construction comes out of court user fees, we hope that next year the branch’s funds won’t be swept as they have been over the last two years — and that all courthouse projects, including those that have been delayed, will be able to move forward immediately and become a reality for the communities that so desperately need them,” Hill added.
Kathy Robertson covers health care, law, lobbying and labor and workplace issues for the Sacramento Business Journal.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
By “court user fees,” I wonder if included in that category would be my errant nephew (in law) in his 30s, hopelessly hooked on meth and heroin, never held a job in his life and has no known address AND has been dinged for thousands and thousands of dollars in his multitude of cases payable to the courts. I doubt the AOC, the courts or ANYONE could extract fifty cents from that hapless guy. Yep. He’s a “court user.” And the idiots at the AOC tabulate his fines and fees within their many useless reports. There’s many more like him. AOC, are y’all waiting in your crystal palace for their fines and fees to be paid? 🙂 Yeah, keep on keepin’ on with your construction plans AND at your overblown prices for unlicensed contractors!
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
The usual result when Judicial Branch administration “investigates” itself. Published today, Wednesday, September 12, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
‘No Inappropriate Conduct’ by AOC Lobbyists—Justice
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Court of Appeal justice and California Judicial Council member said he looked into allegations of chicanery by two Administrative Office of the Courts lobbyist and found no wrongdoing.
Third District Justice Harry Hull Jr. said there was “no inappropriate conduct” by Curtis Child or Donna Hershkowitz in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill. AOC critics, notably the directors of the Alliance of California Judges, have claimed the amendments would have deprived trial courts of the right to select their own presiding judges and clerks.
The controversy arose again recently when the alliance voiced displeasure with Child’s appointment as chief operating officer of the AOC, effective next month. In that capacity, Child will be one of three division heads reporting directly to Steven Jahr, who becomes administrative director of the courts Oct. 9.
The alliance last Friday sent out an email suggesting that Kern Superior Court Judge David Lampe, an alliance director, was being stonewalled by Hull with regard to a request for information. The email included a copy of an earlier email from Lampe to interim Administrative Director of the Courts Jody Patel.
The alliance commented:
“Justice Hull was given the request by AOC on August 7, 2012, and has simply ignored it. The stonewalling on this issue continues, as does the AOC practice of referring uncomfortable matters to Justice Hull, who insists on responding, if at all, by U.S. Mail only.”
But Peter Allen, a senior AOC executive, said in an email to the MetNews late Monday that he was “surprised” to read that comment. “Judge Lampe may have forgotten about this letter that Justice Hull sent him on August 12,” Allen wrote, attaching a copy of a letter from Hull to Lampe, reading in full:
“Dear Judge Lampe;
Your request for information addressed to Ms. Patel by e-mail on August 7 has been forwarded to me.
Specifically, your request was:
‘On July 18, I sent a straightforward email to Ms Hershkowitz, as set forth below. The only contact I have received is the automated out of office reply which follows. I am not the only one having problems getting timely and candid responses from your staff. Judge [Maryanne] Gilliard [a Sacramento Superior Court judge and alliance director] had great difficulty obtaining a response from Mr. Child regarding his lobbying efforts against the amendments to Govt. Code 68085 which the Chief Justice says she did not oppose. In fact, he didn’t respond until you apparently intervened, and then his answer was wholly non-responsive, saying, in essence, that his advocacy was consistent with Judicial Council policy.
‘That’s the question: DID the Council, Chief, or ANYONE ELSE tell him to lobby against the changes to Government Code 68085, and did he in fact do so?
‘Why do you allow your staff to stonewall simple requests such as these?;
Ms. Patel, we want truthful, candid, transparent answers to simple questions about Ms. Hershkowitz’s involvement in the drafting of the trailer bill in 2009 referenced in my email to her, and whether press reports were correct that the AOC lobbied against recent changes to Government Code Section 68085 and, if so, on whose authority? When will we get complete and truthful answers to these questions? These matters are critical to the Judicial Council’s consideration of the recommendations of the SEC.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is the staff agency to the Judicial Council and its employees are answerable to the Council. As many have suggested, the Council has needed to exercise greater oversight of the AOC and its employees and that is what the Council is now doing.
Your request for information suggests that you believe that two of those employees, Curt Child and Donna Hershkowitz, are guilty of wrongdoing or of improprieties that the Council should look into. I have done so and I have found there has been no inappropriate conduct by either of them regarding the issues that you raise.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Harry E. Hull, Jr.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2012
Report of the Investigation by Justice Hull in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill:
1. Justice Hull telephoned Curtis Child and asked Child if he did anything wrong in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill. Child stated “no.”
2. Justice Hull telephoned Donna Hershkowitz and asked Hershkowitz if she did anything wrong in connection with lobbying regarding possible changes to a 2009 budget trailer bill. Hershkowitz stated “no.”
3. Hull reviewed the proposed changes to the 2009 budget trailer bill, and found the changes consistent with judicial branch policy of hypocrisy, lying, obfuscation, marginalizing the autonomy of the trial courts, and the culture of control of the Administration Office of the Courts.
4. Hull then concluded the investigation and found no misconduct.
wearyant
September 12, 2012
Wendy Darling, 😀
“Hull then concluded the investigation and found no misconduct.”
And subsequently Hull’s letter stating that fact was lost in the U.S. Mail. Should’ve sent it by Pony Express, Hull, your fall-back way of communicating.
courtflea
September 14, 2012
Former AOCer. Actually, standards were set for unsafe courthouses believe it or not. I am sure it is posted somewhere on the AOC website.
Former AOCer
September 14, 2012
I know the standards were set, I was involved in that process. A presentation was given to the JC 2003 or 2004, not sure of the date outlining the criteria; however, no courthouses that transferred were deemed unsafe. So that’s why I wondered who is now crying about the safety of the courthouses. There was never a definition for functionally deficient.