Dear Members and Others,
We attach an article by reporter Cheryl Miller of The Recorder which highlights remarks the Chief Justice made last weekend. You will see from the article a number of direct quotes from the Chief Justice. We urge you to carefully read this article, and then read it again.
Please share the article with your colleagues. If you know your State Senator or State Assembly Member, we also encourage you to forward the article to that elected official with a personal note from you.
We will comment on only one matter as the rest speaks for itself.
The Chief Justice, in an apparent reference to the Alliance, indicates that she does not understand why our message is different from that of her handpicked Judicial Council. She also indicates that she is unaware of or confused as to our message.
Please know that before the Chief Justice was sworn in, members of the Alliance board met with her and explained our support for the Trial Court Bill of Rights — the major substance of which was signed into law as a part of last year’s budget bill. In addition, the Alliance has sent a number of letters to the Chief Justice advocating for democratization of the Judicial Council, and our organization is regularly quoted in the press as to that issue. We have also communicated with her and her Council urging the cessation of CCMS, pay raises for AOC staff and the embarrassing pension perk given to the 30 highest paid central office staff. Board members regularly appear and provide comment at Council meetings. In short, the Alliance message has been consistent and clearly communicated to our branch leaders.
Finally, rest assured that the Alliance will continue to have a presence at the Capitol. We will not cease our advocacy for a democratically elected Council. And we will continue to identify wasteful spending of public dollars by branch leadership and its bureaucracy. Access to justice is meaningless when local courts are closed and business is unable to be conducted because valued court employees have lost their jobs.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
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
Michael Paul
October 19, 2012
Another reality check:
It is and has been the AOC’s longstanding policy (that goes unenforced) that no AOC employee will accept anything over $5.00 in value under the belief that appearances of bribery or undue influence might be leveled against the branch.
Yet the chief justice seems willing to horse trade with lawyers (and what does she have to trade?) to shower legislators with tablet computers and “swag bags” – but that this is not bribery or undue influence?
What’s the difference? What am I missing?
Curious
October 19, 2012
Her comments are so wrong in so many ways it’s hard to count. Calling people “her judges” suggests that judges are mere subjects of the Queen. Her comparison of legislators to teenagers waiting for “swag bags” will certainly win her no friends in the legislature. Her apparent willingness to ask trial lawyers to use their money to fund an event, while hiding her involvement as the originator of the idea, bespeaks the sort of manipulation and sneakiness she (jokingly) attributes to herself. Even asking attorneys for money should be verboten for someone in her lofty position–she’s a Chief Justice, not a Chicago alderman. Someone else will have to opine on the legality of such an approach, should it actually occur. Her revelation that she has no clue as to what branch critics really want is disturbing, but not surprising. Her odd and inappropriate comments about communications from the governor, and her mention of cases her court may have to decide, while revealing her displeasure at the legislation that may well spawn those cases, shows a remarkable insensitivity to her position. And on and on.
Wendy Darling
October 19, 2012
All correct and, sadly, true, Curious. And not a single example of ethics, integrity, or leadership, worthy of following among them.
Wendy Darling
October 19, 2012
The “new” administrative strategy is the same as the old administrative strategy: Just lie your way out it. Published today, Friday, October 19, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Old Mystery Pursues Court Leaders
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – An old mystery that has pursued California’s judicial leadership came up again at a statewide conference last weekend, when a Los Angeles judge was blocked in his pursuit of answers over a scheme to strip trial courts of the power to choose their leaders.
The controversy surrounds a provision inserted in a trailer bill, the catch-all legislation that accompanies a budget agreement, giving the central Judicial Council, and its administrative staff, the power to name local court leaders.
The gambit, which ultimately failed, would have taken that power away from trial judges who traditionally have voted to select their presiding judges, and it would have greatly increased the centralized control of the council and its bureaucracy.
But the identity of those who attempted the coup remains a mystery.
Los Angeles Judge Lance Ito has pursued the mystery, bringing it up at last year’s California Judges Association conference in Long Beach and again last weekend at the group’s conference in Monterey, trying to find out who was responsible.
“I submitted the questions in advance to the Chief and to one of the moderators, Judge Barbara Kronlund from San Joaquin,” he said in an email.
“Kronlund told me the procedure was to submit the questions much, much more in advance. This question has been pending since the CJA conference in Long Beach. Which of course begs the question why the continued cover-up?”
In the face of at times withering criticism over the administrative handling of finances and policy, judges defending the administration have argued that California’s judges should take common public positions, or “speak with one voice.”
“The Chief has adopted, for better or worse, her predecessor’s ‘One Voice’ mantra as we approach the fiscal abyss that has been looming for the past 4+ years,” Ito said.
This year, he submitted a question for Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s question- and-answer session with judges, asking once again who authorized the trailer bill language. His question was rejected before it could be asked.
While some judges say the matter has been put to rest, others continue to ask for an explanation on how a legislative proposal, largely seen as a back-door move by the Administrative Office of the Courts to shift power over court management to the central bureaucracy, came to be.
In a packed session at last year’s conference in Long Beach, judges questioned panelist Douglas Miller, an appellate justice, about who had authorized the trailer bill language and who drafted it.
“Why was it drafted in the first place?” Judge Ito yelled out, followed by Judge Timothy Fall from Yolo County, who shouted, “Why don’t you have the answer?”
Miller said he knew who was behind the draft, but could not give the name. He added that Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter, chair of the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee, generally referred to as PCLC, had withdrawn the provision, saying he had been blindsided by it.
In a recent interview, Miller expressed his wish to have the mystery cleared up.
“I wish the leadership of the council and the AOC had just come out and admitted what happened,” said Miller. “I don’t think it would have continued for this time as a controversy.”
What is known about the trailer bill language drafted during the Legislature’s 2008-2009 session is that the California’s Department of Finance asked the courts’ administrative arm for help on a budget-related trailer bill.
The administrative staff ended up suggesting a revision to government code language that would have struck the words: “The trial courts shall establish the means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court, and jury commissioners.” And replaced it with: “The Judicial Council shall adopt rules, policies, or directives which shall provide, consistent with statute . . . (c) The means of selecting presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, executive officers or court administrators, clerks of court, and jury commissioners.”
Many judges saw the draft as a treacherous attempt to wrench control over presiding judges and administrators from local courts, and their anger was heightened by what they consider a whitewash of the incident, when the court bureaucrats blamed the California Department of Finance, controlled by the governor, for the language in question.
The staff at the Department of Finance has rejected that charge.
“We did seek technical guidance from the AOC on the trailer bill,” said HD Palmer with the department. “What we did not seek was any specific language to change the rules as far as trial courts being allowed to elect their own presiding judges and assistant presiding judges.”
After coming up last year at the judges conference in Long Beach, the matter flared again in August.
Judge David Lampe of Kern County wrote to then-interim AOC director Jody Patel, asking whether administrative office lobbyist Donna Hershkowitz was involved in the revision, after an email surfaced showing that her staff had a hand in the matter.
Justice Harry Hull, a prominent member of the Judicial Council, sent a reply saying Hershkowitz had not acted inappropriately.
Ito described that reply as “non-responsive.”
At a Judicial Council meeting late in August, Judge Steve White of Sacramento urged the Judicial Council to exercise more oversight over the administrative staff.
“While a member or members of the council may have been in the loop, the council itself was not,” White said. “If the council did not authorize this duplicity, then it was perpetrated by one or more rogue employees at or near the top of the AOC.”
Around the same time, Judge David Rosenberg, on the Judicial Council, sent Ito an email in August that attempted to reconstruct and explain the trailer bill incident, calling it “an exercise that went awry.”
“It appears to me that something was initiated by the DOF, a staffer at the AOC (who I believe is Donna Hershkowitz) assigned it to another staffer who drafted some language,” wrote Rosenberg. “It went up to Donna who sent it to the Executive Office, who approved it and sent it to DOF. Hence, folks at the AOC are clearly culpable, although they may very well have believed that either (1) this is language that DOF wanted in this exercise, and/or (2) this exercise wasn’t going anywhere anyway.”
Ito says that narrative does not explain the continuing cover-up of the affair.
“I have discussed this personally with Judge Rosenberg, and while I am willing to listen to his explanation of how the trailer bill came to be, it does not explain the false cover story nor the continuing cover up, including Hull’s non-responsive letter,” said Ito.
“If one agrees the AOC’s attempt to wrest control of local court management away from the trial courts is an act of treachery, and the false cover story to be an act of deceit, then Hull’s response that such conduct is not inappropriate for AOC staff pretty much speaks for itself and is a continuation of the cover up.”
For Ito, the trailer bill controversy speaks to a larger issue of the judiciary’s credibility with the Legislature, which he says has been undermined by the AOC’s past actions, including its management of a $500 million IT system that was killed off this year.
“One of the problems is that we as a branch lack credibility with the legislature and the Governor when it comes to our ability to manage the public funds given us,” Ito said, citing the project called the Court Case Management System. “Each time I mention the funding crisis to one of my local legislators I get the CCMS debacle in my face.”
Ito said he also submitted a question about California Prison Receiver Clark Kelso, who is currently embroiled in a lawsuit accusing him of joining the AOC’s payroll to get a pension from the California Public Employees Retirement System pension.
“Again, no answer,” said Ito, who also remarked that Kelso’s salary and benefits “could have been used to keep at least five courts like mine from closure.”
Justice Miller sees the trailer bill as an issue that should have died three years ago when Justice Baxter quashed it, but remains controversial because the actors involved have not owned up to their roles in the draft.
“For me what’s a saving grace is even if the AOC had been the driving force, it never would have gotten through PCLC. Justice Baxter was furious and it would have been immediately squashed,” said Miller. “Again I wish someone would have just said here’s what happened and here’s the people who were involved and we’d be done with it.”
Miller said the atmosphere of the Judicial Council has completely changed since Cantil-Sakauye took over leadership of the California Supreme Court in 2010, and similar language would never make it through the council today.
“To be quite honest, I don’t understand how it has continued as a controversy because all of the Judicial Council leadership has changed, expect for Justice Baxter, we have all new leadership on internal committees, the AOC leadership has turned over and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty the new chief justice would not support it, and I don’t know of a Judicial Council member that would have supported it,” said Miller. “I would lobby against it strenuously. I was a presiding judge myself and I wouldn’t want the Judicial Council or the chief justice dictating who the presiding judge is.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/19/51476.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
October 19, 2012
Well, Justice Miller, I am confused by your response. New leadership? Really?
On a side note, why DOES Marvin Baxter have such staying power (for want of a better phrase) on the JC? Loyal sidekick to CJs Lucas, George and now Tani. Can someone please clarify?
courtflea
October 19, 2012
Well Justice Miller if Tani would not support such action, why does she just not come out and say that and then just blame in on Bill V, and say it will never happen under her or J Head’s leadership. Come on, Bill is gone what a great scape goat and he probably authorized it anyway. What an easy way out of this whole mess and she is too politically inept to do even that. By the way, why isn’t Baxter speaking for himself on this matter? And Judge Rosenberg: just shut up.
Another thing Justice Miller, the players may have changed but the game remains the same. No one can be so naive to believe otherwise.
Michael, I am sure if we shopped at the No Mo than a Dollar store we could do gambling dealer themed swag bags for Tani and the bar for under $5.00 each 😉
Wendy Darling
October 19, 2012
Keeping in mind that, prior to her recent elevation, the current Chief Justice was a member of the Judicial Council, neither William C. Vickrey, nor his dog Spot, never did anything at 455 Golden Gate Avenue without first having the full knowledge, consent, and blessing of the Office of the Chief Justice, both past and present. Fill in the blanks for who the current players are in that same scenario/unholy trinity.
Once again, one is left wondering what is left of the California Judicial Branch that is worth fighting for.
Long live the ACJ.
Guest
October 19, 2012
Can the Alliance submit another easy question for the AOC to answer? Is the new AOC Director, Mr Jahr, continuing to receive his judicial retirement (or any other taxpayer funded retirement) while receiving his full Director salary? Pertinent question as the legislators and public don’t look kindly to double dippers on the public’s dime? We ask because is that the “one-voice” message the branch wants to send to the gov and legislators while we are meeting about trial court funding? If Mr. Jahr did end his retirement and is not double-dipping then the branch should use that as an illustration of the branch taking this seriously and showing support and leadership towards that cause. If not, then we should expect the “avoid, ignore, delay and finally refuse” response from the AOC.
courtflea
October 19, 2012
That is a very good question Guest. I think Judges retirement is under CalPers but they can collect their retirement while being an assigned judge, which would not be permissable for anyone else under the system. Am I right on that judges? I know worker bees have to “un-retire” if they work over something like 960 hours annually if they are working in a job that offers CalPers retirement. And you have to wait for two years before you can return to similar type employment you held before retiring. Maybe someone who knows that reads this blog can clairify for us.
unionman575
October 19, 2012
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/benefits-overview/retirement/jrs-benefits.xml
Judges’ Retirement System Retirement Benefits
Administered by CalPERS, the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS) was established in 1937 and covers Supreme and Appellate Court justices, Superior Court judges, and Municipal Court judges appointed or elected prior to November 9, 1994. (Since all counties have consolidated their Municipal Courts with their Superior Courts under Proposition 220, there are no longer active Municipal Court judges.)
The JRS offers a “defined benefit” plan which provides benefits that are calculated using a defined formula, rather than contributions and earnings to a savings plan. Retirement benefits are based on a percentage of current salary of the last judicial office held. The percentage is based on the member’s years of service and age at retirement.
There are three types of retirement offered:
• Service retirement or “normal” retirement
• Deferred retirement for those members who retire before the eligible age, but do not receive benefits until eligibility age is reached
• Disability retirement for members who can no longer perform their jobs due to illness or injury.
The JRS also provides death benefits for active and retired members paid to eligible beneficiaries or survivors, and health coverage through the CalPERS Health Program.
In addition to these programs, CalPERS also administers retirement benefits for the Legislators’ Retirement System, and Judges’ Retirement System II.
You can find more detailed information on benefits in the Members or Employers area.
Dated: 04-04-2012
unionman575
October 19, 2012
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/benefits-overview/retirement/jrs2-benefits.xml
Judges’ Retirement System II Retirement Benefits
Administered by CalPERS, the Judges’ Retirement System II (JRS II) was established in 1994 to create a fully funded, actuarially-sound retirement system for Supreme and Appellate Court justices, Superior Court judges, and Municipal Court judges appointed or elected on or after November 9, 1994. (Since all counties have consolidated their Municipal Courts with their Superior Courts under Proposition 220, there are no longer active Municipal Court judges.)
The JRS II offers a unique combination of two basic types of retirement benefits: a defined benefit plan and a monetary credit plan. The defined benefit plan provides a lifetime monthly benefit of up to 75 percent of final annual salary (percentage is based on age at retirement and years of service). The monetary credit plan allows for a refund of member contributions, a portion of the employer contributions, and interest. Lifetime benefits are not provided under the monetary credit plan.
There are two types of retirement offered through the defined benefit plan:
• Service retirement or “normal” retirement
• Disability retirement for members who can no longer perform their jobs due to illness or injury.
The JRS II defined benefit plan also provides death benefits for active and retired members paid to eligible beneficiaries or survivors, and health coverage through the CalPERS Health Program.
In addition to these programs, CalPERS also administers retirement benefits for the Legislators’ Retirement System, and Judges’ Retirement System.
You can find more detailed information on benefits in the Members or Employers area.
Dated: 04-04-2012
Justice Barbra
October 19, 2012
Miller knows the name but cannot give the name? Is it privileged or something? Donna sent out a shady draft and has no basis to hide behind that. Her call. Her draft. The Chief and Justice Miller have no idea what kind of trouble and deception they are perpetuating.
Wendy Darling
October 19, 2012
“The Chief and Justice Miller have no idea what kind of trouble and deception they are perpetuating.”
They both know exactly what kind of trouble and deception they are perpetuating. They just don’t care. After all, who is going to hold them responsible? The Governor? Senator Steinberg? Maybe the Chief Justice and Steinberg can tweet each other about it.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
October 19, 2012
Amen, Wendy.
unionman575
October 19, 2012
http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_21813893/greenfield-unlikely-get-courthouse
Greenfield courthouse construction may be delayed indefinitely
Greenfield: No date for $49 million project
By JULIA REYNOLDS
Herald Staff Writer
Posted: 10/19/2012 06:45:00 PM PDT
Updated: 10/19/2012 09:13:59 PM PDT
Monterey County’s plans to build a new Salinas Valley courthouse appear all but doomed after a judges’ advisory group recommended the project be canned, along with six other court expansions around the state.
On Friday, the state Judicial Council announced that because of California budget cuts, a court facilities working group is recommending that the $49 million Greenfield courthouse — once described as one of the council’s highest priorities — be “delayed indefinitely.”
“It’s frustrating,” said outgoing Greenfield City Manager Brent Slama. “We were down the road, and when they decided to cut back, it was a little late in the game.”
The funds for the project were approved by state legislators in 2009.
Everything seemed to be moving ahead in early 2010, when a parcel at El Camino Real near Cherry Avenue was chosen as the site.
The city of Greenfield agreed to donate the lot near its new civic center, and the site was approved by the state public works board last year.
The project was “one of the highest priority capital-outlay projects,” Judicial Council officials said after funding was approved.
The reasons for the urgency included “lack of security, severe overcrowding, poor physical conditions and reduced access to court services” in the King City courthouse.
To illustrate the point, the council noted the lack of a prisoner sally port in the King City facility, where shackled defendants are taken out through an ordinary back door into an open parking lot, rather than in a protective bay like in the Salinas courthouse.
In April, as state budget cuts loomed, project backers agreed to reassess their plans, reconsidering the number of courtrooms needed. Options included renovating the existing courthouse and looking at lower-cost construction methods.
Estimated costs fell from $65 million to $49 million.
But by September, the judicial working group named Monterey County’s as one of the court projects to be eliminated.
The project was expected to create about 1,500 jobs in Greenfield.
“The recommended delay to the seven projects — in the counties of Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Placer and Plumas — is due to the cumulative and ongoing redirection of construction funding to the state’s general fund and to help fund state trial court operations,” Judicial Council spokeswoman Leanne Kozak said in an emailed statement Friday.
Seventeen other projects under way around the state are not affected by the cuts.
“The working group is recommending that other courthouse projects move forward, assuming no further redirection of construction funds,” the statement said.
Courthouse plans
The county’s courthouse in King City is a small, one-story structure built in 1968 with one courtroom and one hearing room. The building is shared with other county agencies.
The new Greenfield facility would have had three courtrooms in a 47,200-square-foot floor plan that officials said would allow the Superior Court to provide more services and expand the types of cases heard in the Salinas Valley.
Local officials were hopeful the facility would lighten court loads in Salinas, Marina, Monterey and King City.
Plans included moving South County civil suits to the building and adding a self-help center, a jury assembly room, children’s waiting room, holding cells, an alternative dispute resolution center, attorney interview rooms and witness waiting rooms.
It would also have handled cases from the two state prisons in Soledad, so inmates wouldn’t have to be driven 26 miles to Salinas.
There was even the hope of creating a new judgeship there.
“Obviously, Governor Brown chose to take monies that were specifically paid by taxpayers for court construction projects,” Slama said. The state-allocated funds to build and expand courthouses come from court user fees.
“For the city of Greenfield, which has spent significant money and infrastructure in donating the site to the state, this will continue to exacerbate access to justice issues,” Slama said. “It will require traveling significant distances to get justice.”
He said Superior Court presiding Judge Timothy Roberts made a presentation to try to save the project before the Judicial Council’s working group earlier this year.
“It was judges up against judges,” Slama said. “What we’re talking about is a three-room courthouse. When the state’s trying to cut $600 million, it’s hard to look at a branch courthouse. But it doesn’t eliminate the fact that we still have a need for facilities in the South County area.”
Slama said it’s especially frustrating that recent state cuts, including the elimination of redevelopment agencies, seem to hit cash-strapped cities like Greenfield the most.
“They don’t touch Carmel’s TOT,” he said, referring to revenues from that city’s transient occupancy tax. “They rip apart our city’s funding.”
Greenfield city officials have not given up hope that the project might be resurrected, but acknowledged it’s not likely in the near future.
“Unless there’s a change of heart in the Judicial Council, it’s hard to compete against these projects that have … the boosters and lobbyists,” Slama said.
Next week, the Judicial Council, based in San Francisco, will decide whether to accept its working group’s recommendations.
The public meeting is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 1:10 p.m. Friday in the Judicial Council Conference Center at 455 Golden Gate Ave. in San Francisco.
“It’s frustrating,” Slama said with a sigh. “But it is what it is.”
Julia Reynolds can be reached at 648-1187 or jreynolds@montereyherald.com.
unionman575
October 19, 2012
Another Friday night blue plate special brought to you by the Death Star:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19366.htm?print=1
Judicial Council to Consider “Indefinite Delay” of Seven New Courthouse Projects
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
October 19, 2012
Judicial Council to Consider “Indefinite Delay” of Seven New Courthouse Projects
Other projects are recommended to move forward assuming no further redirection of courthouse construction funds
SAN FRANCISCO—On the second day of its public meeting on October 25-26, the Judicial Council will consider recommendations from its Court Facilities Working Group to indefinitely delay seven new courthouse projects due to state budget cuts.
The recommended delay to the seven projects–in the counties of Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Placer, and Plumas–is due to the cumulative and ongoing redirection of construction funding to the state’s General Fund and to help fund state trial court operations. The working group is recommending that other new courthouse projects move forward assuming no further redirection of construction funds.
The working group first released its recommendations in September after two-and-a-half days and 26 hours of public meetings. The working group also posted its recommendations on the California Courts public website for public comment before submitting them for review by the Judicial Council next week. Once the Judicial Council reviews and either accepts or adjusts the working group’s recommendations, projects slated to move forward will be reviewed by a cost-reduction subcommittee.
The council’s public meeting is scheduled from 2:00 p.m. to 5:10 p.m. on October 25 and 8:30 a.m. to 1:10 p.m. on October 26 in the Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. A live audiocast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website and the agenda and reports are posted online.
Other items on the council meeting agenda include:
Courts Apply for 2% Reserve Fund: The council will consider requests by trial courts applying for urgent needs funding from the 2 percent reserve in the Trial Court Trust Fund due to unavoidable funding shortfalls.
Update on Judicial Council-Approved Realignment of AOC: Report on progress of the recommendations approved by the council to restructure the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); the recommendations were developed by the council’s Executive and Planning Committee (E&P) and are based on the report by the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC).
Report and Recommendations from Summit on Judicial Diversity: Cosponsored by the Judicial Council and the State Bar, the summit gathered more than 75 branch and bar leaders to develop recommendations for achieving the judicial branch’s goal of a more diverse bench.
###
unionman575
October 19, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19025.htm
Fact Check: Disposing of Closed Courthouses
Significant cuts to court operations budgets have required the consolidation of court services throughout the state. The consolidation has led some trial courts to close branch or satellite courthouses. Limited service days and temporary and permanent courtroom closures are announced here.
When a decision is made to permanently close a courthouse that was transferred from a county to the Judicial Council, California Government Code section 70391(c)(2)—which is found in the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002—requires the council to offer to sell or lease the space back to the county.
“The Judicial Council shall consult with the county concerning the disposition of the facility. Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 11011, when requested by the transferring county, a surplus facility shall be offered to that county at fair market value prior to being offered to another state agency or local government agency.”
Although the county is under no obligation to buy the building, the Judicial Council is mandated by law to offer the property to the county at fair market value. As the staff agency to the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts assists courts with the space issues that result from court closures.
unionman575
October 19, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-fresno-20121019.pdf
unionman575
October 19, 2012
Well shiver me timbers…The Death Star is hiring NOW…
HOW TO APPLY
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by October 22, 2012 at 5:00 pm.
SALARY RANGE:
Labor and Employee Relations Officer I – $7,218 – $9.601 per month
(This salary does not reflect the current 4.62% reduction for one mandatory furlough day per month.)
Labor and Employee Relations Officer II – $7,925 – $10,575 per month
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs/jobs-LABOR-AND-EMPLOYEE-3871300
LABOR AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS OFFICER (LERO) I/II
Administrative Office of the Courts- San Francisco, CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
Job Description
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES (illustrative only)
• Researches, interprets and writes contract language to achieve the goals set by the trial court; upon receipt of counterproposals, identifies possible alternative compromise solutions.
• Serves as the official spokesperson of court management, or serve as a management consultant, at the bargaining table; must be able to handle stress and intense negotiations.
• Participates in the development of labor contract costing models to accurately cost out proposals.
• Advises trial courts on interpretation/application of labor agreements.
• Assists with developing responses to grievances.
• Assists trial court management in the development of ongoing labor relations policies and strategies.
• Proposes, develops, and leads trainings in topics related to labor and employee relations.
• Researches legislation for impact on labor and employee relations programs.
• Drafts responses to sensitive or complex inquiries from the staff, the courts, and management relating to human resources matters, and resolves problems or issues arising from such inquiries.
• Serves as an investigator of formal and informal claims of employee misconduct, including allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Knowledge of:
– Basic supervisory principles and practices.
– Substantive and procedural legal principles and applications.
– Investigation techniques and procedures.
– Principles of labor law and the collective bargaining process.
– Principles of project management.
– Principles and techniques of preparing effective oral presentations.
– Principles and techniques of preparing a variety of effective written materials.
Ability to:
– Plan and review the work of others on a project or day-to-day basis.
– Initiate, design, develop, and implement employee relations investigations.
– Perform legal research, including computerized legal research; apply legal principles and precedents to particular sets of facts.
– Analyze policy issues; present statements of facts, law, policy, and argument clearly, concisely, and logically in both written and oral form.
– Exercise sound judgment and integrity consistent with representing the judicial branch.
Desired Skills & Experience
Minimum Education and Experience Requirements:
Labor and Employee Relations Officer I –
Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, preferably with major course work in personnel, public or business administration, organizational psychology, industrial relations, or public administration, and five years of professional analytical experience developing, implementing, and administering human resources programs. Two of the five years of experience must be specialized in labor and employee relations and/or negotiations. Experience in a lead role is highly desirable.
OR
Two years as a Senior Human Resources Analyst specializing in labor and /or employee relations and/or negotiations with the judicial branch or other government agency.
Additional qualifying experience may be substituted for education on a year-for-year basis. Possession of a directly related postgraduate degree may be substituted for one of the five years of required experience.
Labor and Employee Relations Officer II –
Licenses and Certificates:
Active membership in the State Bar of California
Education and Experience:
Equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, preferably with major course work in personnel, public or business administration, organizational psychology, industrial relations, or public administration and active membership in the State Bar of California and two years of relevant post-bar experience; one of the two years in a legal setting performing employee relations investigations and/or labor contract negotiations. One year of lead experience is highly desirable.
OR
Active membership in the State Bar of California and one year as a Labor and Employee Relations Officer I or as an attorney with the Judicial Branch in the Labor and Employment unit.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS (For LERO I and II)
The successful candidate will be highly motivated, and possess excellent interpersonal and communication skills. The individual will have sound judgment, unquestionable integrity, and above average decision-making skills. In addition, he or she will display strong leadership and team building abilities. Finally, the individual will be able to satisfy clients by correctly balancing trial court operational needs with the care and welfare of trial court employees.
WORKING CONDITIONS
Work occasional evening and weekend hours.
Required to travel statewide as necessary.
Company Description
The Labor and Employee Relations Services Unit (LERU) of the Human Resources Office provides support to the superior courts related to collective bargaining activities, contract interpretation and administration, grievance handling, arbitrations, and other labor relations issues. This unit also provides the judicial branch with a broad range of employee relations services related to employee performance, discipline, and complaint investigation and resolution.
The Labor and Employee Relations Unit is accepting applications for two LERO I/II positions. Due to the nature of the position assisting trial courts throughout the state, incumbents must be able to travel statewide as required by the position (up to 60% of time spent traveling).
PAY & BENEFITS
SALARY RANGE:
Labor and Employee Relations Officer I – $7,218 – $9.601 per month
(This salary does not reflect the current 4.62% reduction for one mandatory furlough day per month.)
Labor and Employee Relations Officer II – $7,925 – $10,575 per month
(This salary does not reflect the current 4.62% reduction for one mandatory furlough day per month.)
Some highlights of our benefits package include:
• Health/Dental/Vision benefits program
• 13 paid holidays per calendar year
• Choice of Annual Leave or Sick/Vacation Leave
• 1 personal holiday per year
• $120 transit pass subsidy per month
• CalPERS Retirement Plan
• 401 (k) and 457 deferred compensation plans
• Employee Assistance Program
• Basic Life and AD&D Insurance
• FlexElect Program
• Long Term Care Program (employee paid/optional)
• Group Legal Plan (employee paid/optional)
HOW TO APPLY
To ensure consideration of your application for the earliest round of interviews, please apply by October 22, 2012 at 5:00 pm. To complete an online application, please visit our website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/careers and search for Job Opening #3681. This position requires the submission of our official application and responses to the Supplemental Questionnaire.
OR
To obtain a printed application, please download a copy from our website under the Special Access and Paper Application section OR visit:
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
Supplemental Questionnaire (please see questions at http://www.court.ca.gov/careers (Job #3681)
The supplemental questionnaire must be completed and returned with your application in order for your application to be considered for review. The supplemental form is intended to provide more detailed information about your work experience and your answers will allow us to better assess your qualifications. Your response should not exceed two pages in total.
wearyant
October 20, 2012
Great choice of video, Unionman575!
unionman575
October 19, 2012
THIS AOC BINGE HIRING BULLSHIT WON’T FLY!
wearyant
October 20, 2012
You’re so right, Unionman575! I hope the AOC pig snouts are pushed in on this one.
Lando
October 20, 2012
There are so many issues all of the above identify. It is remarkable that Judge Ito and the trial judges of California can’t get an answer regarding the AOC trailer bill fiasco. The failure of the insiders at 455 Golden Gate to honestly just explain what happened here raises very significant questions about the integrity of AOC operations. It is also hard to believe that a bill with the sweeping changes it proposed regarding total JC/AOC control over the trial courts could have not been conceived at the highest levels of the crystal palace. The JC/AOC need to come clean on all this and tell us what honestly happened. Every day they don’t adds to the deepening mistrust and reasonable questions about their governance.
JusticeCalifornia
October 20, 2012
Sakauye’s remarks and actions are unbelievably inappropriate.
“her” judges?
“Whispering” in the ears of attorney organizations so they will throw a party for new legislators?
Swag bags for legislators?
Manipulating legislators?
Meanwhile she is lying about her knowledge of ACJ concerns, letting the judicial council and AOC play hide the ball with judges, relying on her law school friendship with Steinberg to keep her afloat, and crying poormouth in her best “let them eat cake” voice while the AOC is on a hiring binge?
Sakauye is in way over her head and leaders in all three branches know it.
It is pretty clear to just about everyone that the branch is NOT going to speak with one voice under current “leadership”.
No.Way.
Period.
JusticeCalifornia
October 21, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-agenda.pdf
JusticeCalifornia
October 21, 2012
Check out the 50 pages of cj appointment orders.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-appointments.pdf
Can someone tell me again why one person is being allowed this much power over the largest judiciary in the Western World?
Been There
October 21, 2012
J California, the orders appear to be the appointments to various JC advisory committees. While the Chief does appoint these members, the background work is done by the AOC Staff Liaison to each committee.
The process is much more straightforward than the selection of JC members. People apply for the vacancy slots on the committee (appellate justice, superior court judge, public member, etc), and the AOC staffer reviews all applicants and makes a recommendation to the CJ for each opening on the Committee. The CJ may or may not appoint the staffer’s first choice for the vacancy (but I have never had the CJ pass over a recommendation.)
That said, the CJ does pay particular attention to the persons recommended as a committee chair and vice chair.
What is the staffer’s criteria? Diversity within the committee — a good mix between people from large courts and those from small courts. Gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation is also considered to make the committee more diverse.
courtflea
October 21, 2012
OK now I HAVE heard everything there is a Justice Huffman award!!!! Gag me.
unionman575
October 21, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121026-item4.pdf
Get me a bucket
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 22, 2012
Bill Moyers – love him or hate him – recently characterized our Plutocratic salient,
“Deregulating the atmosphere to legalize whatever it is that they want to do.”
To de-Democratize our nation, one branch at a time, seems Machiavellian and calculated…
Naaaaaaah…