It should come as no surprise that when a working group is formed (the Judicial Council and the AOC’s favorite sleight-of-hand gesture at addressing anything) that it would be the loyal soldiers of the Chief Justice that would be getting the nod to speak with one voice. Most of these loyalists have been in the judicial branch for less than 10 years themselves so they have an ideal point of reference to make recommendations and discuss the impact on a law that is 15 years old.
While we feel that such a group has no relevance at the discussion table because they lack a frame of reference, apparently our Chief Justice feels differently.
Of course, items that probably won’t come up for discussion are things like committing 1.8 billion dollars to one courthouse over the course of 35 years while two dozen other courthouses and well over 200 courtrooms are mothballed across the state.
Maybe they will not bring up how hundred thousand dollar embezzlements in the AOC go unprosecuted and how that might affect judicial branch efficiencies by sending a clear, unambiguous message that anything goes with the publics money.
Or maybe they will not bring up how centralization has brought us $2,000.00 light bulbs, $409.00 clock batteries and unlicensed contractors maintaining every courthouse from the Oregon border to the Mexican border. But they weren’t really unlicensed. A sham lawsuit wherein if they lose, they are innocent of the crime and if they win, they are guilty of committing numerous crimes proved that!
Or maybe they will not discuss how firing whistleblowers has brought them greater efficiencies because in getting rid of them, it gets rid of anyone pointing to the unresolved problems.
Or maybe they will not discuss the $ 26 million dollar assigned judges program that is paying Jack Halpin to sit as a twice retired, 20 year appointee to the Shasta bench while hundreds of other judges go without courtrooms and court staff across the state.
Then again, maybe they will not bring up how spending over a half a billion dollars on vaporware called CCMS under this ideally centralized management model where everyone speaks with one voice and indicated “they could not think of a better investment in the judicial branch than CCMS” led to greater courthouse efficiencies. Sacramento and San Diego are living proof examples of those greater efficiencies bought by CCMS. But V4 works! Really, it does!
We don’t know the full charge of this committee because it’s opaque to everyone but it does seem like the Guv is fulfilling a promise to form the committee to look at things. As long as his eyes are wide open to the train wreck that has been defined as centralization under undemocratic authoritative rule by a body that has usurped that authority, we trust that any report will be as meaningful as any other issued on the judicial branch and represent yet another couple hundred pages of dust in the wind. Hopefully, the legislature takes up trial court funding, bypassing the reckless judicial council that has better things to do than deliver justice.
_________________________________________________________
We include an article by reporter Cheryl Miller concerning the creation by the Governor of a working group which will evaluate the 15-year-old State Trial Court Funding Act.
The Chief Justice has selected the following justices, judges and others to represent the judicial branch on this committee: Justice Harry Hull, Los Angeles attorney Angela Davis, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley, Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg and Santa Clara Superior Court Executive Officer David Yamasaki. You should note that all of these appointees are also current hand-selected members of the Judicial Council.
Since the demise of the AOC E-News we believe it is important to keep you apprised of current events affecting the judicial branch. Please feel free to forward this along to your colleagues.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
10/15/2012Committee to Put Trial Court Funding Act Under Microscope
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has named several council members to look at how the shift to state funding 15 years ago has affected the system.
Cheryl Miller
2012-10-15 04:47:19 PM
SACRAMENTO — Following through on a pledge made in his May budget proposal, Governor Jerry Brown has joined Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in creating a 10-member committee charged with evaluating the state’s progress in complying with the landmark Trial Court Funding Act.
The panel, chaired by Justice Harry Hull Jr. of the Third District Court of Appeal and former Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg, has just six months to prepare a report analyzing what’s happened in the 15 years since lawmakers shifted primary court funding responsibility from counties to the state.
The committee’s specific charge may best be described as opaque. A one-page sheet distributed by the Administrative Office of the Courts suggests four areas the Trial Court Funding Workgroup “may” address: trial court workload metrics, staffing, efficiencies “and other relevant data”; courts’ cost drivers; methods to “enhance savings”; and funding transparency. The group’s findings are expected to go to the Judicial Council and the governor.
At the annual meetings of the State Bar and the California Judges Association in Monterey over the weekend, Cantil-Sakauye loosely compared the newly formed workgroup to the Strategic Evaluation Committee, the body whose harsh audit of the AOC resulted in dozens of proposals to downsize and reorganize the judiciary’s bureaucratic arm.
“You know what I expect? I expect to see data,” Cantil-Sakauye said after a speech that included the first public details of the group’s formation. “Data will give us an idea of how we should move forward intelligently. … This is an assessment. And we hope that the trial courts will contribute greatly toward helping us get the data that we need to make our case for additional funding, or restoration of funding.”
Cantil-Sakauye made six appointments to the group, all of them Judicial Council members: Hull; Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela Davis; L.A. County Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias; Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann O’Malley; Yolo County Superior Court Judge David Rosenberg; and Santa Clara County Superior Court Executive Officer David Yamasaki.
Brown appointed Isenberg, for whom the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act is named. He also selected Diane Cummins, his special adviser and finance veteran; Martin Hoshino, undersecretary for administration and offender services at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and Eraina Ortega, a lobbyist for the California State Association of Counties who once worked at the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs.
A Brown spokesman confirmed the names of the governor’s appointments but declined to comment further.
“I really don’t know where this is going to go,” Hull said Monday of the working group and its future report. “It’s a process of discovery.”
The justice said he and Isenberg recently met for the first time with staff to lay early ground work for the committee, which has not yet released a schedule of meetings. Isenberg was unavailable to comment on the working group Monday, his office said.
The 58-page Trial Court Funding Act may be best known for giving the state control of the judiciary’s purse strings, a move that was designed to equalize and stabilize court funding, which could vary wildly from county to county. But in the 15 years since the law was enacted, judges, lawmakers and interest groups have seized on its many different provisions to bolster their points of view.
Supporters of a strong, centralized judiciary cite the law when calling for uniform standards among the courts. Those who want more decision making power in the hands of individual trial courts point to a section that notes “a strong preference to the need for local flexibility in the management of court financial affairs.”
“We trust that this group will consider all points of view and that it will address the need to re-establish a balance between the goals of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act for statewide efficiency and also local control and flexibility,” Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe, a director of the Alliance of California Judges, said in an email. “Any discussion of branch funding should not take place in a vacuum, but rather should be tied to a discussion of branch governance, and the need for a full and fair hearing on Judicial Council democratization.”
The group’s charge to consider so-called workload metrics is also sure to make some judges antsy. Past attempts to quantitatively measure judges’ productivity have been criticized as unfair and inaccurate. Cantil-Sakauye said she understands those concerns but added that judges shouldn’t worry.
“I can assure you that this committee is not out to show anyone up or in some way embarrass the branch,” the chief justice said.
Related articles
- Dan Walters: Rebels make gains, but California’s judicial war still rages (sacbee.com)
- Cantil-Sakauye: These Handcuffs Are Great! (legalpad.typepad.com)
- Bureaucrats continue to stonewall judges with new tactics (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
From our own Courtflea:
Oh my gawd. And just what the hell is this committee supposed to acomplish? Increased funding for the judicial branch? yeah, right. If the committee digs any deeper than the top soil, an honest review of the implementation of the Act would be embarrassing to the AOC/JC and be an argument for de-centralization of power. Anything good that came from this Act occurred at the local level by utlizing the smarts of court staff and judges who figured out ways to get things done and make it work. Of course, the AOC knew this legislation was coming, but did they anticipate how it would impact the courts and create plans of action on how to deal with the changes? Nooooooo, of course not! They just sat around with their thumbs up their arses and then later took credit for the positive changes and methods developed by the trial courts, and used that as an excuse for why central control is needed. i.e. to help/provide services to the courts. Bullshit. that is what makes the creation of this commmittee even a bigger joke. Believe me, the local trial courts were doing their own payroll and A/R A/P well before CARS or Phoniex or whatever they call the central payroll and accounting system now, was around. And that is a piece of crap. most locally developed or procured systems were better, less cumbersome, required fewer staff, and cheaper. And that is just one example.
My prediction here is that this “committee” of kool-aid drinkers and lickspittles will “find” that individual trial courts need to give up any remaining local control to strengthen and make centralized control work. It is the “clowns” and “know nothing judges” that are keeping the AOC and the JC and therefore the branch, from success.
Lando, I wonder why they keep hiring lawyers too. I mean anything that smells like potenital litigation gets farmed out to private law firms. so what gives? I wonder what exactly do these people do?
PS and who died and made Yamasaki CEO god of the month?
courtflea
October 16, 2012
Hey guys, if you are not familiar with the Act check out this attachment which contains the wording of the Act and the AOC’s commentary. The handbook was produced by the AOC
http://telesource.com/communique/documentation/233.pdf
You will be amazed at what is required by the Act such as;
Acknowledge the need for strong and
independent local court financial
management. (as noted in the article above)
Encourage the Judicial Council to
adopt a Trial Courts Bill of Financial
Management Rights by January 1,
1998.
Provides that funds unencumbered at
the end of a fiscal year will be “rolled
over” (ok Gov what happened here?)
State trial court funding
expenditures may be used only for
court operations
Trial courts have input into the
Judicial Council budget process.
Trial courts have local authority and
responsibility for managing all of the
following, consistent with statutes,
rules of court, and standards of
judicial administration:
(
1. Annual funding allocations,
including the authority to move
funding between functions or line
items;
(
2. Local personnel systems, including
the adoption of personnel policies;
3.Processes and procedures to
improve court operations and
responsiveness to the public; and
commissioners.
4. Means of selecting court officers,
including presiding judges,
assistant presiding judges,
executive officers or court
administrators, court clerks, and
jury commissioners.
Sorry for the lenghty post but I urge you all to take a look at the act.
Like I said, the AOC and JC managed to take this Act and turn it into an excuse for the centralization of power.
wearyant
October 16, 2012
Excellent input, CourtFlea! It’s not lengthy! All was necessary — and thanks!
wearyant
October 16, 2012
Those sycophants handpicked by our teensy Tani on the working group? We’re all effing doomed! Geez.
Wendy Darling
October 16, 2012
The reality check bounced again. Time for a Judicial Branch Intervention, re: “family” crisis. Published today, Tuesday, October 16, from The Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Remarks of Incoming CJA President Alan D. Hardcastle
(The California Judges Association provided the following text of remarks by its new president, Sonoma Superior Court Judge Alan D. Hardcastle, at the joint swearing-in of officers of the CJA and the State Bar of California, which took place in Monterey this past Saturday.)
I take over the office of president after an outstanding year of leadership. As president, Judge David Rubin has led our organization through challenging budgetary times and has been a powerful advocate for all judges before the Governor, the legislature and the judicial Council. Some people have told me that I have big shoes to fill. Frankly, I’ve noticed that his shoes are not all that large—but that he does have many, many pairs of shoes. But, David, you have left me a tough act to follow.
President Kelly, I have read your comments about making court funding and the restoration of adequate funding, your top priority. Please know that you can call upon me at any time to help you in those efforts….
Before I begin my remarks, I must introduce someone who is quite important to me. Last month, we celebrated our 33rd wedding anniversary. She is both my lighthouse beacon and the steady hand on the tiller. She is the best thing that ever happened to me, and she is my wife Vickie. (Thanks also to the members of the Sonoma County Superior Court [who are] present. I’m really going to be a leaning on them over the next year.)
This year has been a total roller coaster for me. I cannot tell you how honored I am to have been elected president of such an outstanding organization as the California judges Association. To be standing here today, as the new president, is truly a highlight for me. However, I will not succeed without the help of our outstanding executive board and the help of our entire membership. The theme of this year’s CJA annual meeting is: “all rise, when one court rises, we all rise.” Another way of saying that we are all in this together.
This year has been a personally challenging year as well.
Worst Month
Let me speak from the heart for a moment as I talk about the worst month of my life. On March 17, my father died suddenly. My mother passed away just seven days later. Obviously, my world and my family were turned upside down.
In the next few days and weeks, I received phone calls, text messages, e-mails and cards from David Rubin and Stan Bissey, executive director of CJA. I also received e-mails, cards and an outpouring of support from my local bench and from the CJA executive board and members of CJA. It brought home to me that CJA is a family. They rallied to my support. I will never forget their kindness at a time of great despair.
If they are family—then [the] bar is our group of the cousins—so, if you’re in this room you are part of one big family and folks, we are a family in crisis.
Like a lot of families, it is a crisis caused by not having enough money to conduct our family’s business. Like a family in crisis we need to pull together, unite and work collectively to convince those who fund us, that keeping the third branch of government open, operating and accessible is necessary to prevent a constitutional crisis in this state. Without open, fully staffed courtrooms justice is delayed.
It is an old cliché that justice delayed is justice denied. And, justice denied to even one means there is no justice for all.
As the president of CJA, as a trial court judge, as a citizen of the state California—that is unacceptable. That is my message that I will be carrying all over the state and primarily to our decision-makers in Sacramento. I will pledge to work as hard as I can for our Association and our member judges, commissioners and referees. It is said that the table manners change when the pie gets smaller and we have seen that in our branch. Courts may have disparate interests depending on needs, size or location, but as individual judges there is much more that unites us. CJ a will continue to be a big tent organization that allows discussion and debate on the issues that are important to us. Most importantly, we must keep our courtrooms open and we must ensure equal access to justice to all stakeholders.
Need for Unity
My theme for this year is that we must unify as judges, as members of the bar, and as members of the public who have an interest in seeing that our branch of government survive and succeed. Like all families, we may have disagreements. Justice Carol Corrigan, in her remarks to the judicial Council at the end of August said the following regarding disagreement within the judicial branch: “that is not to say that we will always agree. Bright and insightful people of goodwill do sometimes disagree. Often the best ideas flow from their ongoing discussions about those different views.”
Her words are exactly right. We make better decisions when we debate and discuss. But we cannot lose sight of the mission or the goal. At this time, like a family coming to the Thanksgiving table, we must ensure that the front door is open and that everyone can get to a seat at the table. Once seated, we need to ensure that there is adequate food on the table to feed everyone. Once we have met that goal, then that may be the time to discuss whether, two years ago, Mama should use the stainless steel flatware instead of the sterling silver. Only when everyone is at the table and their needs are met, should we have the debate about whether the dinner fork goes on the right or the left.
Justice Corrigan closes her remarks by saying “Much work remains and new challenges will surely arise. We can meet them if all parts of the branch watch closely, share openly, discuss collegially and work together to serve the people of California from whom, we should not forget, our authority derives.”
Our Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts just concluded a valuable and critical self-assessment. We must continue to build on that assessment and work collectively and maintain vigilance to protect our branch of government. We must not forget the lessons of the past, but we must not let yesterday take up too much of today. If I have learned anything as a lawyer and as a judge it is that time spent getting even would be better spent trying to ahead. When one court rises, we all rise.
So, family, you know what must be done; it is time to go to work.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 16, 2012
Is it just me or are you guys getting sick of this theme “we all just need to get along” and “not letting yesterday take up too much of today”? I mean, they just expect us to forget the findings of the SEC report, what really goes on at the AOC and that the JC is composed of yes people and is not even close to a democratic process and then get together hold hands, and sing Kumbiya?? This guy thinks that dissent it just “getting even”? That is how you label others who disagree with you? And you know what Judge? Shit rises too. What planet is Judge Hardcastle from? (and any man that refers to his mother as “mama” over the age of 10 makes me wanna puke) Why do we all have to get along to move forward?! voices of dissent must be heard and respected if we truly want to move forward and “protect our branch”. Even if it takes a little street fighting. Judge Hardcastle forgets that all judges were trained as attorneys and attorneys are trained to work in an adverserial system, not one of sucking it up and taking it. Getting “even” had nothing to do with it. I am very offended by that statement. That trick is for kids. Hard ball needs to be played here to save our branch.
By the way Wendy thanks for posting the articles!
JusticeCalifornia
October 16, 2012
“Hard ball needs to be played here to save our branch”.
love how you say how it is, flea.
wearyant
October 16, 2012
Hardcastle says there is not enough money. When there’s not enough money, that’s when necessities should come first and the high-faluting partying stops. Well, for thinking people. What about the AOC? Why are they still hiring? Why are there still hundreds and hundreds of managers managing — what? Why aren’t there cuts made there in that opulent area? Hundreds and hundreds of judges weighed in on the SEC report. Apparently the plan is to ignore them all by the JC/AOC/CJ. Disgusting! During the Great Depression the California courts soldiered on. There wasn’t this mass layoff of hundreds of valuable frontline workers then. Doesn’t anyone notice that? Does that mean anything? Maybe how the courts managed in The Great Depression should be looked at — and not by the AOC, but by responsible, mature people. I’ll bet they didn’t have a huge AOC at that time and that’s the big difference. I’ll use an old phrase we’re all familiar with, I’m sick and tired of this crap continuing on. Will it take important and well-placed people to get sick and tired before anything changes?
Justice Barbra
October 16, 2012
The AOC is skirting a very line with federal law and putting people in authority positions that may have a significant impact. You are noticed, Judge Jahr.
JusticeCalifornia
October 16, 2012
What does your cryptic post mean, JB?
unionman575
October 17, 2012
“we trust that any report will be as meaningful as any other issued on the judicial branch and represent yet another couple hundred pages of dust in the wind”
Here ya go Tani & Co…
Justice Barbra
October 18, 2012
Oh, you know. Just casual things I hear. Like Managers who collect a large salary and don’t work and have no shame around it. Or, even worse, old WCV incompetents put back in the saddle for no good reason other than to wreak havoc on major projects.
Wendy Darling
October 18, 2012
“Or, even worse, old WCV incompetents put back in the saddle for no good reason other than to wreak havoc on major projects.”
Oh, it’s not about compentency, Justice Barbra. It’s really all about what they know, where the dirt has been swept under the rug, whose responsible for it, having a complete lack of ethics or ittegrity, and a blind obedience to “protecting the Chief.” Meet that criteria at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and you’re as good as Teflon. Judge Jahr, or no Judge Jahr.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
October 17, 2012
How can anyone take this group seriously as long as you have lightweights like Yamasaki on it? This group is supposed to review Trial Court Funding but Yamasaki has no idea what that is or where it came from. He is a Roddy robot who has been trained to repeat the same lines over and over again. Yamasaki has to call Roddy everyday to ask him what to do? And Yamasaki with his bloated salary, as in the highest paid court employer in the state is an example of the problem sitting there representing the Branch? As if the Governor doesn’t know this? As well as Mr Jahr, the Branch’s new “leader” being a living example of pension abuse as he gets his salary while double-dipping at taxpayers expense. Again, this is not lost on the Governor and legislators. The cj said she didn’t want this committee to embarrass the branch? Her appointments are the first embarrassment. The next will be when the likes of Yamasaki start speaking.
Prediction: regardless of the Gov’s tax measures passing or not, the Branch WILL be cut again. And the cj with her committee will be the reason.
courtflea
October 17, 2012
Hey, have you guys looked at your voter information guide yet for the Nov. election? In the arguments for proposition 31 on page 26, they cite “the recent effort to create a unified Court Case Management system cost taxpayers more than $500 million, more than $200 million over budget, to connect just 7 counties of 58 counties before being abandoned”. Wow, the AOC’s CCMS debacle is being used as an argument for more control over government spending, increasing transparency, and public input. I just had to high five my cat and do some Gangnam style dancing when I saw this. I am for any way the public gets told about the debacle that is the AOC. Wheather you are for or against the proposition, it is just great to see the slam in print. Take note Tani and the JC.
courtflea
October 17, 2012
JusticeCalifornia
October 17, 2012
OMG Flea, you have outdone your outrageous self. LOL.
I saw a video today that reminded me of leadership on koolaid.
Let me see if I can find it.
JusticeCalifornia
October 17, 2012
Unfortunately flea my post isn’t nearly as funny as yours.
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-video-shows-drunk-stoned-us-security-contractors-221702848–abc-news-topstories.html
“All indications from what I’ve been able to read and see so far indicate somebody missed something,” said General Chiarelli. . .
“The lawsuit by the two former employees was originally filed under seal as part of the False Claims Act, designed to give the government an opportunity to join the legal effort to see if the government was defrauded. In this case, the Department of Justice declined to become part of the fraud lawsuit and apparently did not notify the U.S. Army of the allegations.”
JusticeCalifornia
October 17, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video/ross-brian-exclusive-military-contractors-alcohol-drunk-high-drugs-us-17497479
Wendy Darling
October 17, 2012
Published today, Wednesday, October 17, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Capital Accounts: Chief Justice Seeks to Soothe an Anxious Bench
By Cheryl Miller
The cigar smoke has finally cleared and California’s jurists have returned to their benches after last weekend’s California Judges Association gathering in Monterey. Left wafting in the meeting’s aftermath, however, was a lot of anxiety about next year’s state budget and the judicial branch’s standing with the governor and Legislature.
Full article is subscription access only: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202575404532&Capital_Accounts_Chief_Justice_Seeks_to_Soothe_an_Anxious_Bench&slreturn=20120917214124
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
October 17, 2012
LOL. Like our gambling barmaid and her “top” administrative pics could soothe anyone.
Really? Sakauye, Jahr, Child, Patel and Soderlund? Leading the biggest judiciary in the Western World? ALL OF WHOM GOT THE BRANCH INTO THIS TERRIBLE MESS?
LOL.
Delilah
October 18, 2012
The Recorder
Capital Accounts: Chief Justice Seeks to Soothe an Anxious Bench
Cheryl Miller
2012-10-17 05:12:25 PM
The cigar smoke has finally cleared and California’s jurists have returned to their benches after last weekend’s California Judges Association gathering in Monterey. Left wafting in the meeting’s aftermath, however, was a lot of anxiety about next year’s state budget and the judicial branch’s standing with the governor and Legislature.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye addressed those concerns in a far-reaching — well, not far-reaching enough for one judge, but more on that later — Q&A with CJA members on Sunday. Here are some excerpts:
On the need for judges to “speak with one voice” on the budget:
“I felt in the first year-and-a-half that before I even got to the message about what the branch needed in terms of a budget, I had to explain, no, I wasn’t this, no, I wasn’t that, no that I don’t disagree with my judges, no I can’t tell you why we’re here and they’re here differently from me, no I can’t tell you why their message is different from Judicial Council’s. By the way, what is their message?
Before I could even get to the point of saying trial courts need their fund balances because we are dynamic and we plan and we’ve been in three years of cuts before I came along. So you need to give us our fund balances so that we can have the flexibility to respond. But I didn’t even really get to that argument because the buzzer goes off and the next interest group is there ready to advocate their position and what they want is part of our budget.”
On her relationship with the governor:
“He calls on the phone himself. And he calls at odd hours. He calls at home. But that’s part of his style, I believe. And I think he’s on 24/7. So he doesn’t think that today is Christmas or Sunday or whatever day of the week it may be. And I appreciate that about him because his informality makes me feel comfortable with calling him.”
On her relationship with the Legislature:
“I probably have a better relationship with [Senate President Pro Tem] Darrell Steinberg because he’s a neighbor and a former classmate. And he texts, and so we text back and forth and have coffee and meet off radar and discuss where things are. And you know, [legislative leaders] are honest. They don’t say yes. They say I don’t know. They say it doesn’t look good, this is what the problem is. But when they see something percolating, they also call and say, this is coming, you may want to weigh in ….”
On whether strained relationships with the Legislature made this year’s budget cuts worse:
“This is a sign of strain in California. Period …. Are we cut deeper? I say yes, we are cut deeper. We’re cut deeper because we need to communicate and speak with one voice that we are a branch that serves all Californians. The people they provide laws for are the same people we provide justice for. That’s a message that we haven’t really been able to get out there because we have so many other diversions that we’re dealing with.”
On recent pension legislation that left current judges untouched but will require higher contributions from new judges:
“So I guess the silver lining is that the governor’s office knows that [JRSII] needs reform because he said to me, ‘Well why would you be afraid of pension reform when we could do some good things with JRSII?’ And I said it’s not been my experience to have good things happen in the Legislature. I mean, it was just a natural reaction. There was no diplomatic way to say it otherwise.
And so what do I think about [the pension system for new judges]? I think I worry greatly that it will undermine the candidate pool to the bench. And I am a little bit appalled that the governor’s office, who largely appoints most judges, doesn’t see that. But I also think there was a little bit of political flavor to this pension reform that happened over night that was across the board, and I frankly, sitting at the Supreme Court, would not be surprised if litigation comes our way on this package of change.”
On the wave of new legislators expected after the Nov. 6 election:
“We want to meet those 40 legislators as soon as possible. We want a reception of some sort. And so I’m not sure honestly whether the Judicial Council or CJA can do it, so I’ve kind of whispered in the ears of a few attorney organizations that, gee, wouldn’t it be nice if we paid for a reception and invited the Judicial Council and all the judges to be there ….
So we want to jump in in December or January, as soon as they’re elected, we want to make ourselves known. I said to the attorneys, you know there’s nothing like getting a person to a meeting like having a swag bag. You talk to teenagers, if there’s a swag bag with goodies in it, people will come. You know, so I’m not above any kind of manipulation,” she said jokingly.
The questions answered by the chief justice were screened by CJA leaders. They did not include one from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, submitted in advance, about a 2009 draft piece of legislation that appeared aimed at giving the Judicial Council power to select trial court presiding judges and executive officers. Ito displayed an email he had submitted in advance of the Q-and-A session, asking the chief justice who authorized the bill that was never introduced. No branch leader has ever publicly named names.
Ito, sporting a white shirt emblazoned with an Alliance of California Judges logo, said before Cantil-Sakauye took the stage that he didn’t expect his question would get an answer that day either. It didn’t. “Oh well,” he said afterward, shrugging
wearyant
October 18, 2012
I’ll say this in the same vernacular that the cj used above: what a skanky broad. And I don’t mean Delilah or Cheryl Miller. Ito is brave to wear that white shirt.
Wendy Darling
October 18, 2012
It’s not rocket science, or even basic math, to read Miller’s article and see who is wearing the white hats at this point (or, the white shirts, as the case may be), . . . and who isn’t.
Anyone see anything in the Chief Justice’s remarks that sets an example worthy of following? [crickets chirping].
At this point, one wonders what is left of the California Judicial Branch that is worth fighting for.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 17, 2012
Justice CA it seems the kool aid drinkers are really drinking the grey goose!!
Wendy Darling
October 17, 2012
Hmmmm . . . Grey Goose and Kool Aid. Sounds like a co-dependency problem.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
October 18, 2012
All know this evaluation of trial court funding is a significant and important step for the future of the court system. The Governor treated it as such by bringing back one of the original authors of trial court funding legislation , ex senator Phil Isenberg who was respected for his contributions to the public decades ago. In contrast our Chief Justice has taken little time or care in identifying a representative body of judges and court officials for this assignment claiming she did not have time to reach beyond the usual suspects. That explanation itself is suspect as she picked the most insular and hardline of the current 455 Golden Gate keepers J Hull to co chair this process. Talk about messing over the process from the start. The Governor’s great idea to take a fresh look at trial court funding will be a process doomed to fail with J Hull involved. He has demonstrated bias and strong antipathy to any change in branch governance. Despite claims of transparency and openness our Chief has let all of us down again. The insular rule of the Chief, J Hull and J Miler are dooming the trial courts and they have intentionally chosen to fail all of us again to maintain and secure their power. Pretty sad. Pretty sad indeed.
The OBT
October 18, 2012
Hey DJ Unionman, Lando is right about the CJ and Hull failing us all again. As they said in Crosby Stills and Nash’s great song Southern Cross, ” So we cheated and we lied and we tested. And we never failed to fail, It was the easiest thing to do ” We certainly have failed and it is only getting worse for the trial courts. Please send that great song out to the Chief, Beth Jay and the arrogant guardian of 455 Golden Gate, Justice Harry Hull .
unionman575
October 18, 2012
This great song goes out to the Chief, Beth Jay and the arrogant guardian of 455 Golden Gate, Justice Harry Hull…
courtflea
October 18, 2012
Lando, it will be interesting to hear what Isenberg has to say throughout the process and what comes from this committee that is doomed from the start. Maybe he will be the voice of reason that points out to the gov that the JC has strayed very far from most of the original intent of the Act and has become a bloated organization that thinks it is the branch, in part because of it. I don’t think that was Isenberg’s intention, surely. My hope is that he does not drink the kool aid.I certainly respect what the gov was trying to do but like everything else these people touch, it all will come to naught.Hence my dissing the idea. But maybe this time we will all be wrong and the gov will use this process with Isenberg leading the charge to expose the corruption in the branch no wait, excuse me: at the AOC and in the JC, for what it is and make it an example of what he plans to do in the future to clean house in all areas of California government.Yeah, when hell freezes over….but I hope one day to ice skate in Sacramento.
carol
October 18, 2012
Dydak v Schwarzeneggar was transferred back to the Central District and assigned to Judge Manny Real who today has ordered a hearing on October 29, 2012 to dismiss said case based upon Dydzak being ruled to be a vexatious litigant in September by Judge Coughner. Dydyzak also voluntarily dismissed Dydzak v Dunn after several of the Def’s filed motions to have him declared a vexie in the state court but if I’m not mistaken the federal vexie determination will be given full faith and credit by the state court automatically.
courtflea
October 18, 2012
Delilah, thanks for posting the article. Man the chief sounds like she can’t put a sentence together. No wonder I could not find her speech on the AOC’s website.
Delilah
October 18, 2012
Yup, flea, I noticed that a loooong time ago. Her comments usually strike me as meaningless drivel that doesn’t even rise to the level of mediocrity.