October 22, 2012
Dear Members and Others,
We attach an article by Courthouse News reporter Maria Dinzeo concerning the continued refusal of branch leadership to provide a complete explanation of who was responsible for the last minute attempted power grab by AOC staff which would have gutted the authority of local courts to manage their own affairs.
It is apparent that at least two high ranking members of the Judicial Council are not speaking with one voice. One member is apparently in favor of disclosure while another seeks to deflect the issue with non-responsive declarations. The article reveals that a recently appointed third Council member has offered an explanation that appears to identify the staff involved. So now we have at least three members of the Council handling this matter, in three different ways, when the judicial branch should be promoting honesty, clarity, consistency and transparency.
The Alliance again calls on branch leadership to provide a complete explanation as to who was involved, what instructions were given and by whom, why all Council members were not briefed on this attempted behind the scenes maneuver, and whether any AOC staff were disciplined or rewarded for this scheme. More directly, was one of the newly installed “chiefs” at the central office a party to this attempted power grab?
We applaud the courage and tenacity of Judge Lance Ito in his attempt to get to the truth. This issue will not go away and will continue to be a source of conflict and distrust as new facts emerge and Council members offer their unique take on this matter. How much simpler would it be just to tell the truth?
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
____________________________________
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.”
Related articles
- Chief Justice unveils new legislative strategy (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The AOC’s Mausoleums to justice campaign (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- 2009 Email Surfaces in AOC Trailer Bill Ploy (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
Been There
October 23, 2012
If Justice Baxter was “furious” then the “moving party” could not have been CJ George. That leaves Vickrey (after consulting with Beth Jay?) as the most likely person who approved it on the Exec Office.
It really sounds as if an ambitious OGA staffer saw an opening, wrote the language, Hershkowitz was favorably impressed with the staffer’s work, forwarded it on to the Executive Office where it was green-lighted.
It is the cover up that is hard to fathom. If it was Vickrey, why cover it up? The truth may be that the AOC is as stupid as you think it is.
courtflea
October 23, 2012
Nothing went anywhere without Bill V’s approval. I cannot believe wait! I KNOW that some lowly staffer would not have dared draft this up without a directive. Bill and the Cheif wanted it and almost got it if it had not come to light accidentially. Yes the AOC is as stupid as we think they are Been There because their gut reaction when caught red handed was to blame it on the Department of Finance. I remember when this happened and hearing Jody Patel in front of a group explain it as such. No one believed her then or now. yeah right, the DOF, a state bean counting department that knows fucking nothing about the judicial branch just decided to ask an AOC staffer to write this up! And it just happens to be something the Chief would have loved to see codified! These people really think that Judges and CEOS are that stupid. Hence the cover up that exists today, they just keep stalling hoping to wear the judges down until they glom onto another issue, and all this will all blow over. It sure worked when this was exposed the first time!
It was a favored tactic during the reign of King George to alert the executive/legislative branch to issues within the courts and then convienently the legislature wanted more information on those issues. These just happened to be issues that the King wanted to change. Like reserves being swept, information of costs of trial court’s budget areas like interpreters and security so the AOC could control more and more line items in courts budgets to take away any local control of their budgets, needing a state wide computer system etc. etc. It was so blatantly obvious. There were many attempts to slip legislation/policy through without the knowledge or consensus of CEOs or Judges with the AOC mantra being that there was no time to do so. What has been going on for years with the JC and the AOC is nothing short of disgusting and dispicable. Keep hammering them ACJ. It is great to see Judge Ito come out and take this on.
You know this is so bizarre you just can’t make this stuff up. I must say when I attempt to explain what has been going on in the branch to people that are not familiar with it I end up hearing what I am saying and realize they must think I am some conspiracy theorist or something. Really, when you say it out loud it does sound that way. But you just can’t make this stuff up. Truth is stranger than fiction.
JusticeCalifornia
October 23, 2012
I agree with your take, courtflea, that this was a power grab by top leadership, not a lowly staffer. I have worked on legislation– including that involving Donna Hershkowitz– and it literally is a work in progress, with drafts passed back and forth and those involved trying to figure out what will fly and how, and what will not. The AOC loves, loves LOVES legislative word games.
It would be a full time job for someone to monitor, analyze, and report regarding all the tricky legislation the cj/jc/aoc cooks up and tries to get passed. I often think red herrings are used to divert attention away from the legislation begin crafted, pushed and quietly passed.
Been There
October 23, 2012
I agree Flea, except I am not entirely sure CJ George was behind it, only because I am taking J Baxter’s alleged reaction at face value. Unless Baxter is lying to provide cover for George, the guilty party is definitely Vickrey. And the conundrum is, Why the cover up? It’s not as if anyone ever confused Vickrey with Mother Teresa!
Wendy Darling
October 23, 2012
“And the conundrum is, Why the cover up? ”
What a good question, Been There. Why?, indeed. Why would the “new” administration, which purports to be all about transparency and accountability, be the willing gatekeepers of the secrets of the “old” administration? Hmmmmm . .
And, in the “new” administration, just as with the “old” administration, nothing ever happens at 455 Golden Gate Avenue without the full knowledge, consent, and approval of the Office of the Chief Justice.
Nothing.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
October 23, 2012
The AOC is as stupid, and arrogant, as we KNOW they are.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
October 23, 2012
Been There, my friend. Justice Baxter has been on the JC forever. If he had wanted to stop the madness by sticking his neck out there and disagreeing with the Chief Justice, I think he would have done so by now comprende? He is not lying, someone is saying he kabashed this proposed language, Justice Baxter has not responed in public either way. It is not really a conundrum, it is just the AOC style, do whatever the heck you want and never never admit anything. Loosely based on J. Edgar Hoover of course. For the very young , J. Edgar Hoover was the former head of the FBI from like the 1920’s to the early 1970’s.
Been There
October 23, 2012
Flea, you may be right. I have always seen Baxter as the ultimate yes man, loyal sidekick to CJs Lucas, George and Tani. He knows where the bodies are buried and may have interred a few himself.
Justice Barbra
October 23, 2012
Isn’t Curt Child an obvious player in the denial dance? The hands on the dole and padding each other’s retirement benefits are filthy.
Been There
October 23, 2012
Justice Barbara, Curt Child’s involvement can be inferred but only Vickrey could have green lighted it,
It was not a rogue staffer acting on his or her own, Rogues get fired and no one covers up their missteps. This was a colossal F***up and the easiest thing would have been to name the miscreant, fire him or her, and send him or her away with bad references.
Delilah
October 23, 2012
My money is on Bill VIckrey, HANDS-DOWN!
Justice Barbra
October 23, 2012
You may know more than me if you were there, There. My involvement is through the courts and committees. I can tell you that I heard something today that really disturbed me. Sometimes you have to throw out all of the trash, and I mean all of it.
Been There
October 23, 2012
Sadly, J Barbra anything disturbing you may have heard about the AOC may indeed be true.
One Who Knows
October 24, 2012
Justice Barbra-
Can you share with us what the disturbing matter is that you heard recently heard? Inquiring minds would like to know….
Lando
October 23, 2012
Justice Baxter is man of intelligence and common sense. I am not surprised that he would have objected to the language of the trailer bill. The trailer bill was the ultimate attempt to gain total management control over the trial courts. Only two people would have had the motive and ability to drive this train and that is former CJ George and Bill Vickrey. Vickrey’s attempt to lay blame on the Department of Finance is strong circumstantial evidence of his involvement. As Wendy has correctly pointed out nothing of this magnitude would have moved anywhere without the knowledge and support of the Office of the Chief Justice. Does anyone really think that Vickrey would have tried to pull off such a huge change in branch management without former CJ George’s knowledge and consent ? Once these pieces of the puzzle fall into place one can see why the current ” transparent” Judicial Council and AOC administration will never admit to the truth of all this. Thanks Judge Ito , ACJ and to every judge in California who has sought the truth on this.The current Judicial Council and AOC leadership will never be viewed as transparent or open to real change as they continue to obfuscate and ignore the truth on this most blatant effort to take away power properly vested in the trial courts .
Wendy Darling
October 23, 2012
There is nothing quite like knowing that the California Judicial Branch has been, and is currently, run by a bunch of unethical liars and manipulators. What a stellar reputation for Judicial Branch administration.
Once again, one is left wondering what remains of the California Judicial Branch that is worth fighting for.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
October 24, 2012
Honestly what a disgrace the CJA leadership didn’t have the courage to ask the Chief Justice about this trailer bill fiasco. Equally troubling is Justice Hull’s refusal to answer the simple and direct question about who is responsible for all this. I wonder why Justice Hull is allowed to play games like this in the face of legitimate and fair inquiries from the trial courts. Hull’s actions just suggest all the more that these people have something to hide. I guess the Chief Justice and Justice Hull never learned the simple lesson of Watergate. The cover up is far worse than the initial crime. Given all the above, the Chief Justice should honestly explain and tell us who authorized and supported the trailer bill and she should ask for Justice Hull’s resignation from the Judicial Council.
Delilah
October 24, 2012
“…the Chief Justice should honestly explain and tell us who authorized and supported the trailer bill and she should ask for Justice Hull’s resignation from the Judicial Council.”
From your lips to god’s ears. But, as Wendy has pointed out, there’s a better chance of pigs flying and hell freezing over. I’d rather waste my hope on that anymore. It’s more realistic.
unionman575
October 24, 2012
Nothing like some good customer service for our citizens:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-invitationstocomment.htm
Proposals Open for Public Comment by Topic
Special Cycle
Trial Courts: Authorization for Remote Video Trial Pilot Projects in Proceedings for Violations of Traffic and Compulsory Education Laws (PDF, 447 KB)
Item Number: SP12-10
Deadline for Comments: November 2, 2012 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov
This proposal would authorize trial courts to establish pilot projects permitting remote video trials in cases involving traffic infraction violations and violations of the law on compulsory school attendance. The proposed rules, forms, and legislation will enable courts to provide the public with continuing access to court proceedings at a time when court resources are being substantially reduced. If a court establishes a remote video proceeding pilot project, defendants in eligible cases would be able to elect to appear at trial by two-way video from remote locations designated by the court. The suggestion for remote video trial pilot projects originates from the Superior Court of Fresno County, which has recently been compelled to close several court facilities because of budget reductions.
wearyant
October 24, 2012
Remote viewing? No need for more courthouses, No? Two-way video from remote locations. No need for ANY courthouses. I can hear the sobbing from OCCM.
These asinine bureaucrats will soon replace the judges with a kiosk. Oh, how happy they will be. No more pesky questions from thinking, educated people. Administrative utopia!
unionman575
October 24, 2012
http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Are-Government-Kiosks-Making-a-Comeback.html
unionman575
October 24, 2012
1st you close them:
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/Lemoore%20Closure/Lemoore.asp
Then…you sell the furniture:
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/Main_Page_Docs/surplus-sale.pdf
unionman575
October 24, 2012
Hot Rod wants to sell you some furniture too.
What is it about selling old furniture?
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/SDCOURT/GENERALINFORMATION/NEWS/RFPS/RFPANNOUNCEMENTS/ADDENDUM%20%234%20UPDATE%20TO%20RFP%20TIME%20LINE%20%20KEY%20EVENTS%20102312.PDF
wearyant
October 25, 2012
A used car salesman AND a used furniture salesman. Wow. The courts are so lucky to have this versatile guy working for them!
unionman575
October 24, 2012
And San Joaquin continues its long slide…while they kick it up at the Death Star…
http://www.stocktoncourt.org/news/IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20LIMITED%20OPERATION%20DAYS%20IN%20DECEMBER%202012%20%20102412.pdf
Wendy Darling
October 26, 2012
Isn’t this a bit of interesting news. Published today, Friday, October 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Council Cuts Think Tank Dues
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) -California’s judiciary slashed the half-million-dollar fee it pays to the National Center for State Courts, a move approved unanimously by the Judicial Council Thursday.
“Given the level of cumulative budget reductions that we have faced and the need to ensure that we have the ability to staff continuing activities, what we are recommending is a 60 percent reduction of our dues,” said Jody Patel, newly appointed Chief of Staff for the Administrative Office of the Courts.
In her presentation to the council, Patel said that last year, the administrative office paid $571,000 in dues to center, which operates as a support group for state courts. This year’s fee was set to go even higher, to $582,000.
“As you can imagine, California being the most populous state, our assessment is larger than any other state in our nation,” she said, recommending that the council approve a reduced rate of $232,000 for 2013.
“I have had discussions with the NCSC, and they’ve noted that we are not the only state in the country who has paid a reduced amount in light of the fiscal crisis throughout our country.”
The amount paid every year to the national non-profit has drawn criticism in recent years from state judges urging the judiciary to eliminate unnecessary expenditures from the court budget and put all available funds directly toward keeping courthouses running.
A records request to the central administrative office shows that in addition to $571,000 membership dues, the administrative office, and ultimately the state’s taxpayers, shelled out another $32,000 to participate in the center’s Consortium for Language Access for the Courts and $7,500 in registration fees for the Court Technology Conference for a total payment to the center of roughly $611,000.
An April 2012 email from Chad Finke, Director of the AOC’s Court Programs and Services Division, to retired Los Angeles Judge Charles Horan said the National Center for State Courts received about $822,000 from the AOC from July 2011 to April 2012.
“From July 1, 2011, to date the AOC has paid the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) $822,877.05. Of that amount, $571,057 was for California’s 2012 annual assessment,” Finke wrote. “The remainder of the amount paid to the NCSC in fiscal year 2011-12 is for various other services.”
According to Jesse Rutledge with the National Center for State Courts, those other services include contracting for special projects for the courts.
In an email, he said, “Assessments paid by the states provide for many of our services, but courts can and do contract for specific projects in their local jurisdictions, and it would take far too long to enumerate that list here, which numbers in the dozens just in recent years. The size and value of those contracts can vary from a few thousand dollars to much larger. Suffice it to say, NCSC earns those contracts in a competitive environment, and we are proud of our record of performing projects that aim to improve the administration of justice in courts across the state of California.”
Rutledge said a few examples of such projects include helping the AOC determine how to best handle court security and threat reporting, at a cost of $98,000.
Individual trial courts like Los Angeles contracted with the center to assess its juror selection system for $125,000. The center also helped the Merced County Superior Court transition its master calendar system to an individual judge calendar system for $55,000, an amount subsidized by a state grant.
“Projects come in all shapes and sizes, and these are merely examples drawn from projects over many years,” Rutledge said.
On Thursday, Patel told the council that the administrative office currently isn’t paying the national center any money beyond its dues. “In the current fiscal year we do not have a contract with NCSC for any additional services,” she said.
The 60 percent reduction is another in a series of cutbacks following harsh funding cuts to the judiciary’s budget by the legislature.
Speaking to the council, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the judiciary’s budget woes seem to have unified the state’s judges, citing the optimistic mood she felt at this year’s annual judges conference in Monterey.
“I believe that in spite of our difficult budget year and many of the challenges facing the branch and the legal community, that there was a positive tone,” said the chief justice. “And I think a feeling at every engagement I attended an optimism in spite of the cuts, and maybe because of them, I think there exists even now a more collaborative effort to do whatever a we can to restore justice to California.”
She then officially swore in retired judge Steven Jahr as the fifth director of the AOC and the first ever to have also served as a judge.
Also sworn in were new council members Judge James Brandlin of Los Angeles County, Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento County Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth of Riverside County, Judge Allan Hardcastle of Sonoma County, Judge Morris Jacobson of Alameda County and Judge Brian McCabe of Merced County.
The council also took up a report from the Summit on Judicial Diversity, which found that while the percentage ethnic minority and women judges has increased slightly since 2006, the judiciary has a long way to go to before the gender and ethnic makeup of the bench fully reflects the state’s population.
“Caucasians comprise less than 40 percent of our state’s population. They are more than 72 percent of our bench. African-Americans are about 6.2 percent of the population, with about 5.7 percent of the bench. Asian Pacific islander, 13.1 percent of the population, about 5.8 percent of the bench. And Latinos comprise almost 40 percent of our population, about 8.2 percent representation in our judiciary,” said summit chair Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte of Alameda County. She added, “Let’s agree it’s going to take a long time. Does that mean we do nothing? Or does it mean that we continue incrementally to try to increase diversity on the bench? I think that’s the important question for all of us. It’s going to be hard. Progress is difficult. And progress is hard and progress takes a long, long time.” But, she said, “It is doable.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/26/51727.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
October 26, 2012
Assistance anyone?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19412.htm
Employee Assistance Program HR-2012-01-RB
The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit and award a one-year contract, with the possibility of four additional one-year option terms, to one qualified service provider to deliver up to six face-to-face or telephonic mental health counseling sessions per incident to up to approximately 4,000 participants and members of their household. The service provider will also provide referral services and sessions as needed by the AOC’ s Human Resources Office (“HR”) for workplace and productivity issues, life events, personal challenges, or other issues that an employee may not feel comfortable discussing with a supervisor or human resources representative.
Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by November 1, 2012.
Proposals must be received by November 29, 2012, no later than 1:00 PM (Pacific Time).
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Nadine McFadden, RFP: HR-2012-01-RB
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Further details regarding the solicitation and program requirements are set forth in the RFP and related documents provided, below:
unionman575
October 26, 2012
Another Friday night blue plate special from the Death Star:
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19422.htm
Judicial Council Delays 7 New Courthouses
Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
October 26, 2012
Judicial Council Delays 7 New Courthouses
Delay caused by devastating cuts to judicial branch budget
At the start of the meeting on Oct 25, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil Sakauye swears in members to the Judicial Council.
SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council accepted recommendations from its Court Facilities Working Group to indefinitely delay seven new courthouse projects due to ongoing state budget cuts. The seven projects—in Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Placer, and Plumas Counties—will be paused until funding is restored or regained through cost savings on other projects.
By fiscal year 2013-2014, nearly $1.5 billion of court user fees originally designated by the Legislature to be set aside for court construction will have been borrowed, transferred to the state General Fund, or redirected to court operations. This year the Legislature directed that $50 million per year be permanently diverted from court construction to trial court operations.
“Four years of deep budget cuts to the judicial branch—more than 30 percent since the 2008-2009 fiscal year—have required that we radically refocus the court construction program,” said Justice Brad R. Hill, chair of the Court Facilities Working Group and Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. “It’s been a difficult and painful process to freeze certain projects and direct cost-cutting across the board in all others, but we’re grateful for the continued collaboration, flexibility, and creative thinking of the courts in this process.”
Despite having to delay the seven projects, the council was able to approve 23 courthouse projects to proceed as funds become available and changed one project to a renovation, rather than new construction. See a status update on those projects.
During the meeting, the Judicial Council also approved the working group’s recommendation to accept the comprehensive audit of the court construction program completed by Pegasus-Global Holdings, Inc. The council adopted the audit’s 137 recommendations and directed that they be implemented by July 16, 2013.
Other items on the council meeting agenda included:
Council Approves Emergency Funding to Kings Court; Defers Action on San Joaquin:
The council approved the allocation of $94,000 in emergency funding to the Superior Court of Kings County, but deferred action on further emergency funding for the Superior Court of San Joaquin County until the court reports back to the council on its use of the $916,000 loan it received from the council in December 2011. These two courts qualified to request supplemental funding under the council-approved criteria because they project to run out of money in the current fiscal year.
Court Closures: Per statute and its normal meeting procedures, the council received an updated report on which trial courts have closed courtrooms or clerks’ offices or reduced clerks’ office hours on days that are not judicial holidays because of budget reductions. Since the last council report, the Superior Courts of Amador, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kings, San Mateo, San Diego, Sutter, and Ventura Counties have given notice of closures or reductions.
Judicial Branch Education: The council received a report from the Governing Committee of the Center for Judicial Education and Research, demonstrating how the judicial branch is using technology to make judicial education more efficient and cost-effective by relying more on webinars and distance learning, while reducing the number of in-person courses.
Judicial Council-Approved Realignment of AOC: The council received a report on progress of the 145 recommendations approved by the council to restructure the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to increase efficiency and accountability; 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).
The meeting agenda and reports considered during the meeting are posted on the California Courts website. In addition, an archived audiocast of the meeting will be posted early next week.
###
unionman575
October 26, 2012
Are you shitting me?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19410.htm
2012 Distinguished Service Awards Announced
Print
Contact: Leanne Kozak, 916-263-2838
PDF Version
October 25, 2012
Judicial Council Announces 2012 Winners of Distinguished Service Awards
Honor service, fostering access to justice, and defense of the rule of law
SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council of California has announced the winners of its 2012 Distinguished Service Awards. This year’s awards recognize six individuals in five award categories and include a special recognition for the contributions of our armed forces in expanding and defending access to justice, with the Stanley Mosk Defender of Justice Award honoring the late Captain Matthew Manoukian of the United States Marine Corps.
The awards program is now in its 19th year, and the awards will be presented later this year at a special ceremony in San Francisco. The Distinguished Service Awards are the highest honors given by the council, recognizing those who have demonstrated extraordinary leadership and made significant contributions to access to justice and the administration of justice.
The recipients are (details follow):
Stanley Mosk Defender of Justice Award
—Captain Matthew Patrick Manoukian (posthumously), United States Marine Corps
Ronald M. George Award for Judicial Excellence
—Justice Richard D. Huffman, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
—Judge Wendy S. Lindley, Superior Court of Orange County
William C. Vickrey Leadership in Judicial Administration Award
—Ms. Jody Patel, Interim Administrative Director of the California Courts
Bernard E. Witkin Amicus Curiae Award
—Ms. Mary Lavery Flynn, Director, Office of Legal Services, State Bar of California
Richard D. Huffman Justice for Children & Families Award
—Judge Stephen V. Manley, Superior Court of Santa Clara County
unionman575
October 26, 2012
Michael Paul
October 26, 2012
The awards the JC / AOC gives out are always amusing and they’re always creating more of them to award……………to each other.
courtflea
October 26, 2012
I love these self serving annual awards. Is this a bone tossed to Jody for not being appointed Direktor and J huffman?!! 😛
I figure the CJ got “positive” feelings from the judges at CJA because she was sur rounding her self with lickspittles and suckups. Ya think?!!
Justice Barbra
October 28, 2012
Giving Jody Patel the William Vickrey award is basically giving her a piece of junk mail. I am sure that she will throw it in the trash. I am curious if anyone else is feeling the optimism that the Chief Justice said that she felt in Monterey? Sounds more like Bloody Mary’s talking rather than a clear vision for the future. I would love for her, Judge Jahr, the Judicial Council, anyone, to own the issues, lay out a plan, and become a leader. How did CJER get away with “not started” regarding the SEC plan? Just curious if anyone knows because they appear overstaffed.
Wendy Darling
October 26, 2012
Published late today, Friday, October 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Desperate Courts Ask for Money But Only One Gets Bailout Funds
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Two of California’s neediest trial courts petitioned the Judicial Council for emergency funds at its meeting Friday, but only one walked away with money.
While both Kings County and San Joaquin county courts are in dire fiscal straits, with negative fund balances of $2.2 million and $1.7 million respectively, the council voted to keep only Kings afloat until the end of the fiscal year with $94,000.
San Joaquin had initially asked for $2.2 million, or at the very least $442,000, the amount it had contributed to the judiciary’s emergency reserve. Presiding Judge David Warner of San Joaquin County Superior Court pleaded vehemently for the funds, saying the court’s understaffing issues have brought it to the brink of closing down its ability to handle a majority of the types of cases filed in the court.
“We’re no longer able to do all the case types. Beginning September 1st in our county, if you file a small claims action, it’s literally stuck in a box. And I get letters and calls from people saying, are you kidding me? Is this a joke? Are you doing some grandstanding here? And I tell them I have to have staff to process these cases,” Warner said.
“And we stopped small claims. Here’s the worst problem. That’s not enough. Even where we’re at right now, we’re not getting the cases done. We’re going to have to start to cut into other civil cases in order to balance that workload and the caseload that we have.”
Warner attributed the court’s financial crisis the way the courts are funded, a method he said has historically left San Joaquin as the most underfunded court in the state.
“I believe our county is a special situation brought about by historical, chronic, significant underfunding and a funding mechanism that this council controls, which has not been fixed, and that’s led to the situation that we’re in,” Warner said, noting that if the court received only $442,000 of the $2.2 million it requested, it will definitely lay off another 22 staff and start closing more regional courthouses.
“We’ve already closed Tracy completely, Lodi is down to one court. We’ll close it up and that will leave us with Manteca as an outlying branch,” he said. “At that point we will not only stop doing small claims, we will stop doing civil. There will be no civil cases in San Joaquin County. You can file it, we’ll stick it in a box, and good luck with that. That’s where it will sit. I have to have the staff to move those cases along.”
On the judiciary’s need to overhaul its funding structure, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said a committee formed in conjunction with the governor’s office will address the issue in the coming weeks.
“I think this is a critical piece that is significant to the trial court funding work group and the discussions to be had about the range of problems that the courts are facing,” said the chief justice. Three of the council’s judges are on that committee.
Judges on the council grilled Warner over what the court had been doing to cut costs since December 2011, when the council sent $2 million to the court — a $1.08 million grant and a $916,000 loan. Warner replied that the court was currently working it way through a list of 59 recommendations that the a group of judges and court officials had given them, and is still holding $916,000.
“The other 916,000 was to create a reserve, which at the time we were having reserves,” he said. “Until the state changed that. And so it was done as a loan. So it is still there. But it’s a loan that we pay back. So it sits there.”
The council members seemed to be in agreement that the generous payback period of five years meant that the court should be spending the $916,000 to meet its budgetary needs this year.
“To sit on a loan of $900,000, what good is the loan if in fact it wasn’t used other than to house it for five years to pay it back? And it’s not a criticism. I know these are difficult times,” said Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth of Riverside.
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County suggested the court consider closing its regional branches.
“I don’t think we are in a position here at the Judicial Council to micromanage or give you suggestions or tell you how to run your court,” said Rosenberg. “But I do want to say two things. There is a requirement in California that we have a superior court in each and every county. But there is no requirement that we have a superior court in each and every city.
I know that my court, about a decade ago, when we were in economic good times, decided to close a number of courts in communities,” he continued. “And brought all superior court functions back to the county seat. And sure, it’s inconvenient in many ways for people to drive 10 miles or 20 miles. But it was a significant cost saving measure. So that’s just the way it is in California today.”
He also acknowledged the structural problems in the judiciary’s funding system, but said, “I don’t think a court can constitutionally say, ‘you know, we’re just going to close small claims or we’re just going to close down probate or we’re going to close civil or traffic.’ I don’t think a court can do that. Will processing be a lot slower because of funding problems or staff problems? Yes, I’m sure it will be. But I think we are obligated to perform all the functions the law.”
“I couldn’t agree more,” Warner said.
The council voted to defer a bailout to San Joaquin, directing the court to instead put the $916,000 loan to use and report its financial situation to the council at its next meeting in December.
Rosenberg, Justice Douglas Miller, Judge David De Alba of Sacramento and Judge Stephen Baker of Shasta County voted against the motion.
In an interview after the meeting, Miller said, “I was shocked like everyone else that they hadn’t used the $916,000 but I believe they are underfunded.”
He added that the court had been “making great strides” to cut costs, but “More than likely, they’ll be back here in December.”
The council also deferred action on whether to give each trial court a share of $25 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund and ask the Department of Finance and the legislature for the authority to distribute an additional $37 million from the fund. Justice Miller said he had met with state Finance Director Ana Matosantos, who had urged him to tell the council not to spend that money until January.
“She stressed that she wasn’t in any way indicating we didn’t have the discretion on one of those funds to make that appropriation. But that she didn’t feel that this was the appropriate time to do this,” Miller said.
“And she was recommending that we would hold that off until our January Judicial Council meeting, when she felt and her office felt based on their analysis that we would all have a better more complete picture as to what the actual revenues were and what the actual expenditures were.”
The council also decided to hold off on giving the courts revenues from a new $30 fee for civil court reporter services in the amount each court collected until January, assuming that by then the governor’s trial court funding working group will have met and talked about how to allocate those funds.
Miller said Matosantos told him “she felt that that was something that should be decided in conjunction with the new working group that will evaluate that in consistency with the trial court funding act on a statewide basis.”
“I don’t want to win the battle and lose the war,” said Assistant Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman from Plumas County. “With the Department of Finance, we’re starting down a new road with them, with the working group. We’re talking about two months really. For 60 days to go into the meeting with good faith means a lot more sense than thumbing our nose and say we’re going to take $30.”
Judge Ellsworth was the only council member to vote against deferring the matter, saying it would cause problems for the courts.
She alluded to former council member Judge David Wesley of Los Angeles, who was often the lone dissenting vote on the council. “I’m going to Dave-Wesley this and say that I think the delay could cause some problems,” she said with a laugh.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/26/51728.htm
Long live the ACJ,
JusticeCalifornia
October 26, 2012
Bull$$$$ branch kumbaya at all levels is not going to cut it.
The public and all three branches of government are so much more savvy about branch bull$$$$ than they were three or four short years ago.
The branch must genuinely clean up the corrupt factions of its act, or share the blame for and collectively experience public/ legal /legislative fallout like no one ever thought possible. . .
Names are being taken, and records are being made.
Lando
October 26, 2012
I believe the Judicial Council deserves a great deal of credit for their recognition of Captain Matthew Manoukian, an outstanding young man who died in service to our country, protecting all of our freedoms and Judge Steve Manley who is a pioneer in the field of understanding and respectfully treating those that struggle with drug and alcohol dependency.
The OBT
October 26, 2012
Lando, I totally agree, particularly with the very nice recognition of Captain Manoukian who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. While financial issues pale in comparison to the tragic death of a fine young man, the JC also stepped up today in the manner in which they dealt with the emergency funding issues of the SJ and Kings Superior Courts. It is great to see the common sense approach some of the new members of the JC took like Riverside judge S Ellsworth.
JusticeCalifornia
October 27, 2012
Those awards for Huffman and Patel. . . .
And the fact that three awards are named after George, Vickrey and Huffman. . .
It all looks so insular, inbred, and unclear on the concept that so many are genuinely angry that Team George put the branch where it is today.
Wendy Darling
October 27, 2012
Perhaps the word you are searching for, Justice California, is it all looks so . . . incestuous.
wearyant
October 27, 2012
Just as I’d love to hear the backstory of the infamous writer of the 2009 trailer bill re JC power over designating trial court presiding judges, administrators and clerks, I’d equally love to hear the backstory behind the recognition of Captain Matthew Manoukian by the judicial council. Anyone willing to step forward? Will Miller spill? Hellloooooo, anyone out there?
Res Ipsa Loquitor
October 27, 2012
Is he the son or other relative of Justice Patty Manoukian?
wearyant
October 27, 2012
Oh, now I get it.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
October 27, 2012
Yes… he is the son of Santa Clara judge Socrates Pete Manoukian and associate justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian of the state appellate court.
Michael Paul
October 27, 2012
http://captainmattmanoukian.com/
Michael Paul
October 29, 2012
It’s too bad that the Manoukian award was made amongst most of the self-serving awards as it tarnishes the intent. Two of these awards weren’t made to the ‘usual suspects’ and all of the other awards were self-serving. It’s also beyond presumptuous to name buildings or awards after those that are still alive, like the teeth rattling Jack Halpin award or the Ronald George office complex or William Vickrey conference center. The intent is not honoring a person with an award, the intent is neuro-associative, to praise failed leaders and to provide (im)moral support for those under fire in an effort to stave off investigations.
courtflea
October 28, 2012
I can already name some picks for next year: Souderland, Child, Hull, Miller…..have I missed someone? 😛
Res Ipsa Loquitor
October 30, 2012
Oh, Flea, we cannot, must not, forget Roberts. Perhaps an award can be created for her!
JarJarBinks
October 28, 2012
William C. Vickrey Leadership in Judicial Administration Award
—Ms. Jody Patel, Interim Administrative Director of the California Courts
That is awesome!!!! Hahahahaha
I can’t think of a better recipient. That made my day! Too damn funny…
The council should get create a Richard Nixon award for their next meeting and give that out too. It could be a lifetime of crookery award in honor of America’s most well known disgraced leader who was also forced to resign. Lol
Delilah
October 29, 2012
Capital Accounts: Failed Computer System Takes Turn as Campaign Bogeyman
Premium Access Required
SACRAMENTO — The state judiciary’s fizzled Court Case Management System has reached a new level of infamy.Proponents of Proposition 31, which would overhaul California’s budgeting process and…
By Cheryl MillerContactAll Articles
The Recorder
October 26, 2012
Michael Paul
October 29, 2012
From the California Voter Information Guide:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110612-general-election/prop-31/prop-31-arg-in-favor.pdf
And who authored it?
Retired supreme court justice Cruz Reynoso (ouch, that had to hurt), Delaine Eastin & Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University.
Judicial Council Watcher
October 29, 2012
courtflea
October 29, 2012
I say lets name the restroooms i n the conference center the “Steve Jahr Heads”
unionman575
October 29, 2012
disgusted
October 29, 2012
TRAFFIC COURT SPECIALIST I/II
Traffic Violators School Monitoring Program
21 positions available
Positions located at courthouses throughout Los Angeles County
$2551 – $3730 per month – DOQ
Regular Position
The Community Development Commission is a dynamic, innovative agency created in 1982 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Funded primarily with federal grants, the Commission is an industry leader in sponsoring new solutions and forming partnerships with private and public agencies to provide community services.
The Traffic Court Specialist positions are being filled as part of a contract with the Superior Court. To apply and find out more about the Community Development Commission, please visit our website at http://www.lacdc.org.
ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS
Under direct supervision, performs assignments requiring the use of independent judgment and problem solving techniques. Employees are expected to acquire and demonstrate considerable knowledge of assigned program regulations and procedures by the fourth week of employment. Collects applicable traffic violator fees and penalties. Receives and processes cash, money orders and credit media. Prepares receipts for skims and closeouts and balances cash drawer daily. Processes completion certificates (batches and indexes completion certificates). Receives and responds to written appeals and judicial correspondence. Travel within designated regions may be required. Other related duties as assigned. Regular attendance is an essential job function.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS
Any combination of education and/or experience that has provided the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for satisfactory job performance. Example combinations include two years of college coursework from a regionally accredited college/university in a related field (additional experience may be substituted on a year for year basis). Second language skills (Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Russian, etc.) may be instrumental for this position. The ability to plan, organize and manage multiple assignments; remain calm under pressure; establish and maintain effective working relationships with others; interpret and apply laws and regulations to state funded program; compile and analyze a variety of statistical or financial information; make effective recommendations; maintain accurate records; understand and apply policies and procedures; operate a computer and a variety of software programs. Prior cash handling experience is preferred.
Possession of a valid California Driver’s License, an acceptable driving record, a reliable insured vehicle and United States citizenship are required for this position. This is a grant-funded position. Continuation of employment is dependent upon continued state funding of the Traffic Violator School Monitoring program, section 11205.2 (d) of the State of California Vehicle Code.
Successful applicants must complete a thorough background investigation, including a fingerprint search. Examples of disqualifying factors discovered during this investigation include: any felony convictions, job related misdemeanor convictions, certain serious traffic convictions or patterns of traffic violations (four (4) or more moving violations within the last two years; failure to appear; at fault accidents; suspended license; driving under the influence), poor employment history, substance abuse, and anyone on probation. The criminal background check is required by law.
Division management will establish and implement screening criteria to comparatively and fairly evaluate the qualifications of all applicants, based on the application materials submitted and the needs of the Unit. Only those applicants, whose qualifications most closely meet the needs of the Unit, will be invited for basic skills testing and an interview appraisal. Those applicants who do not complete the employment application and supplemental questionnaire will be disqualified.
LAST DAY TO FILE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2012 – 5:00 PM
RECRUITMENT NUMBER: 12064
unionman575
October 29, 2012
Job Title: Traffic Court Specialist IV
Closing Date/Time: Fri. 11/16/12 5:00 PM Pacific Time
Salary: $23.57 – $34.14 Hourly
$4,085.47 – $5,917.60 Monthly
$49,025.60 – $71,011.20 Annually
Job Type: Regular
Location: Los Angeles, California
Department: Office of Executive Management
Print Job Information | Apply
Description Benefits Supplemental Questions
TRAFFIC COURT SPECIALIST IV
Traffic Violators School Monitoring Unit
3 positions available
Positions located at courthouses throughout Los Angeles County
$4085 – $5924 per month – DOQ
Regular Position
The Community Development Commission is a dynamic, innovative agency created in 1982 by the Board of supervisors. Funded primarily with federal grants, the Commission is an industry leader in sponsoring new solutions and forming partnerships with private and public agencies to provide community services.
The Traffic Court Specialist positions are being filled as part of a contract with the Superior Court. To apply and find out more about the Community Development Commission, please visit our website at http://www.lacdc.org.
Essential Job Duties:
Under limited supervision, plans, assigns, schedules, and directs the work of assigned staff; evaluates trains and disciplines staff; assists management in establishing and implementing goals and objectives; may work on highly specialized and complex projects or develop methods for the implementation of new programs. Travel within designated regions providing guidance and backup to support staff and functions as needed. Liaise with Superior Court staff as needed or directed. Review and approve bi-weekly time cards and vacation requests. Oversee cash drawer balancing – analyze and resolve out of balance cash drawers. Audit receivables and report variances. Review system batch transmissions as defined by the Court. Other related duties as assigned. Regular attendance is an essential job function.
Desirable Qualifications:
Any combination of education and/or experience that has provided the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for satisfactory job performance, as well as three years of experience comparable to that of a Traffic Specialist – Level III for the Commission, including supervisory skills. Uniquely specialized skills are required for some positions. Example combinations include a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college/university in a related field (additional experience may be substituted on a year for year basis). Second language skills (Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Russian, etc.) may be instrumental for this position. The ability to plan, organize and manage multiple assignments; remain calm under pressure; establish and maintain effective working relationships with others; interpret and apply laws and regulations to federally funded programs; compile and analyze a variety of statistical or financial information; make effective recommendations; maintain accurate records; understand and apply policies and procedures; operate a computer and a variety of software programs. Prior cash handling experience is required.
Possession of a valid California Driver’s License and an acceptable driving record, a reliable insured vehicle and United States citizenship is required for this position. This is a grant-funded position. Continuation of employment is dependent upon continued state funding of the Traffic Violator School Monitoring program, section 11205.2 (d) of the State of California Vehicle Code.
Successful applicants must complete a thorough background investigation, including a fingerprint search Examples of disqualifying factors discovered during this investigation include: any felony convictions, job related misdemeanor convictions, certain serious traffic convictions or patterns of traffic violations (four (4) or more moving violations within the last two years; failure to appear; at fault accidents; suspended license; driving under the influence), poor employment history, substance abuse, and anyone on probation. The criminal background check is required by law.
Division management will establish and implement screening criteria to comparatively and fairly evaluate the qualifications of all applicants, based on the application materials submitted and the needs of the Division. Only those applicants, whose qualifications most closely meet the needs of the Division, will be invited for an interview appraisal and written exercise. Those applicants who do not complete the employment application and supplemental questionnaire will be disqualified.
LAST DAY TO FILE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2012 – 5:00 PM
RECRUITMENT NUMBER: 12063
Agency: Community Development Commission
Address: 2 S. Coral Circle Monterey Park, California 91755 Map/Directions
Phone: 323-890-7001
Web Site: http://www.lacdc.org