The whole concept of a trial court funding workgroup, complete with a stacked deck of those who routinely speak with one voice we’ve found troubling for some time. When we look at their charter, knowing how the AOC routinely refuses administrative records requests and redacts public contract language, we know with some certainty that this group seeks to preserve the status quo yet is also trying to extract greater funding from state coffers to preserve that status quo.
Even more disturbing and something that completely undermines the credibility of their charter is the fact that this group is stacked 6 to 4 with true believers so that any vote this committee takes is automatically stacked in the true believers favor. Adding insult to injury is former senator Isenberg whose name was added to Lockyer-Isenberg as a political favor as Mr. Lockyer was the principal drafter of this legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Lockyer is tied up at the moment in the court system with his ex-wife and her shenanigans so his presence would probably amount to conflicting interests.
Both the judicial council as well as the AOC are seeking to flex more control over the trial courts and it is this group of true believers that they are counting on to deliver as the AOC’s office of governmental affairs still lacks credibility. A changing of the guard over at OGA does not address this as the new players still don’t represent the interests of the trial courts as they work for and pledged to serve the AOC.
What is happening with OGA appears to be an expansion of this lobbying office with people outside of the judicial branch who have little to zero knowledge of judicial branch operations and are all but completely isolated from those operations. Since the ongoing assault on the Judicial Council and AOC programs is so expansive, it only makes sense to slice and dice the issues so that more talking heads can address those issues individually. Lobbying is no longer left to people whose credibility is all but totally shot, save one. In documents we’ve recently reviewed, those documents appear to refer to three (count ’em, three) OGA directors. One of those is a director whose credibility remains totally shot, one Donna Hershkowitz. We’re assuming that the AOC permits assistant directors to refer to themselves as directors and now there is two assistant directors and one director.
According to their charter, this TCFWG will meet approximately every 5 weeks on an agenda and supporting materials supplied by Jody Patel. The materials that will be provided for these meetings will be delivered to attendees three days in advance of the meeting. If it is anything like the judicial council (and you know it is….) there will be voluminous materials delivered that the attendees will not have time to review or verify before any vote is taken because this is the way the AOC prefers to conduct their business.
After all how could anyone possibly disagree with voluminous materials provided at the last moment when they don’t have either the time or resources to form an argument?
+++++++++++++++
It appears that Washington DC’s fiscal cliff impacts to California have been calculated. In this morning’s SFGATE there is an article titled Fiscal Cliff cuts could hit state hard . It starts out with California stands to lose as much as $4.5 billion in federal funding and more than 200,000 jobs next year if Congress fails to reach a deficit reduction agreement by Dec. 31. Add to this figure the abandonment of federal unemployment extensions and California is looking at a world of hurt and a plunge right back into recession and foreclosures.
By any account the U.S. deficit is and has been out of control. While the republicans tend to tout fiscal restraint one would be hard pressed to define a republican presidency where deficits did not explode in size and magnitude. If you’re spending about the same amount of money year after year there is only two ways to pay those bills. One is to raise taxes and the other is to lower taxes, sell bonds and transfer that debt to your grandchildren. Our current deficit exploded with September 11th 2001, followed by off-budget costs to conduct two wars and the meltdown of financial institutions. Today, our debt is still largely financed by China – a China whose own economic activity is grinding to a halt due to lower exports to the EU and to the US. Australia remains the untouched entity in this financial morass but even their economy weighs heavily on raw material exports to China. Today China has stockpiles of merchandise that they can’t sell to world markets. Producers in China are going bankrupt and factories are closing all over the country. It’s apparent that China will not be able to finance U.S. debt and Chinese stimulus has only served to increase stockpiles of unsold goods and build stockpiles of mostly Australian raw materials.
There is no doubt that we need to decrease spending. However we also need to analyze how those dollars are spent and how less dollars might be more productive. A dollar spent in the defense sector is well known to create the least amount of jobs and economic activity, yet California is the home of many defense contractors and state coffers are reliant upon those high paying jobs to pay their own bills, so the ripple there turns into a tidal wave in Sacramento that will directly impact future judicial branch budgets.
The American people aren’t looking for a fiscal cliff. This fiscal cliff deal that was made in the summer 2011 to increase the debt ceiling would have never happened to a republican president because republicans and democrats in congress wouldn’t have allowed it. In fact, the debt ceiling was routinely increased under republican presidencies by both democratic and republican congresses. As borne by actual numbers, the debt ceiling has risen 4.5 trillion dollars under democratic presidencies and a staggering 10 trillion under republican presidencies. Today government spending puts us in a very exclusive club whose only other members are Japan, Greece and Italy, all of whose public debt exceeds their GDP by more than 100%.
CBO indicates that the U.S. will run out of money in February. Failing any meaningful cuts to budgets along with increased taxes on the wealthy and yet another increase on the debt ceiling will plunge the country back into a serious recession whose pain would be extended to the previously untouched. We’ve stopped conducting the two off-budget wars that got us in to this serious mess but we have other off budget matters that threaten our economic livelihood, namely the rapid increase in social security and medicare recipients as the baby boomers retire. So whatever approach our leadership takes must be a balanced approach that both raises taxes and cuts spending. Luckily, California is far less reliant on defense spending that we were in the early 90’s when military bases were closed all over the state.
By any stretch, whatever happens on capitol hill in the next 8 to 10 weeks will affect many. What we don’t wish to see is the fiscal cliff go into effect unmodified and whatever changes should impact the least amount of people. We’ll let you draw your own conclusions of how that should transpire.
Related articles
- Setting up the courts for an AOC takeover? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Using judicial ethics to silence dissent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Feinstein: AOC is partially to blame for judicial branch budget crisis (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Facts remain hidden in AOC power grab (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- How Congressional Republicans And Fox News Displayed Their Profound Debt Ceiling Ignorance | ThinkProgress (easyjjgrand3.newsvine.com)
- ‘Fiscal cliff’ cuts would hit state hard (sfgate.com)
- L.A. to close 10 courthouses in the next 8 mos (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
unionman575
December 1, 2012
“Both the judicial council as well as the AOC are seeking to flex more control over the trial courts…”
Your are right on the money as always JCW.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 1, 2012
Those of us trying to play by the rules were told in no uncertain terms that…absolutely, positively, the revenue formula adopted with the passage of the Trial Court Funding Act would not and could not ever be changed. The funding formula was based upon the monies received by local trial courts in 1996. Playing by those rules, many of us carefully and sometimes painfully, made prudent fiscal decisions on how to spend the money that was allocated to us, while trying to maintain and even build reserves for a “rainy day.”
Once again, the Legislature, Governor and Judicial Council have demonstrated they are not to be trusted, nor can they keep their word. The current Governor believes that there is more than enough money being allocated to the Judicial Branch, it is just being allocated incorrectly. This “committee” that was formed is stacked exactly the way the JCW has stated. The ultimate outcome will be that the 1996 formula will be jettisoned. All trial courts, despite those exercising prudent management in years past, will be reduced to the lowest common denominator. This means that all trial courts will be operating in a substandard fashion and the public, along with our employees will be the ones to suffer.
This is ultimately heading to the inevitable takeover that was discussed by JCW on an earlier thread. It has become obvious that the local trial courts are going to be bled to the point at which they can no longer provide “services” to the public if they also maintain a local management structures. Once again, the Judicial Council and AOC will ride to the rescue! Our local CEO’s and managers will be replaced with AOC flunkies working from San Francisco. The judges will have no say because Tani and Company have enacted and will continue to enact “ethical” rules that prohibit us from speaking out about anything. (The First Amendment certainly no longer applies to trial judges.)
Proposition 30 will end up much like the parallel legislation passed in Maryland some years ago. Revenues will actually be reduced as the “wealthy” leave California, along with a number of major businesses. With one of the highest income taxes and point of sales taxes in the Country, what is the point of doing business here?
Take a look at the Sacramento Bee’s link to a listing of State employee salaries. You will be amazed at the number of people in the UC system making close to a million dollars a year, along with hundreds of others making $500K to $750K. Don’t forget to look at the AOC management salaries as well.
This past election has left me believing that the majority of Californians have no idea how government or business is supposed to operate. Despite the polls that reflect Californians have a low opinion of their elected political officials at the State and National level, they still return them to office and it is business as usual.
Good luck folks. I decided there are very few listening to any of us anymore.
Wendy Darling
December 1, 2012
The AOC and branch “leadership” have long envisioned the silver lining of the current State budget situation and the correlating result of putting the trial courts in financial straightjackets due to branch fiscal mismangement — the perfect excuse to gain complete administrative control over the trial courts, with AOC selected Court Managers replacing court-selected Court Administrative Officers, and those Court Managers reporting to AOC selected Regional Directors. Curt Soderlund specifically talked about this in meetings at the AOC as early as 2009. And here we are.
Just as Curt Soderlund said, General Woodhull: “The judges will be allowed to control their courtrooms, and we (the AOC) will control everything else.”
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
Wendy – you just described Death Star Nirvana: “…with AOC selected Court Managers replacing court-selected Court Administrative Officers, and those Court Managers reporting to AOC selected Regional Directors”.
Michael Paul
December 1, 2012
The business have already left. Most California corps either moved their articles of incorporation to another state to lower their taxes or moved overseas to avoid the wrath of regulation. Recent legislation levels the playing field on the taxation issue but you’re correct about the uber wealthy identifying themselves with another state of residence. Unlike Maryland however, California has long arms and will still collect the taxes from those who had earnings here, unlike other states. Given that this state is still the 9th largest economy in the world I’m not so sure people will up and move.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
“It has become obvious that the local trial courts are going to be bled to the point at which they can no longer provide “services” to the public if they also maintain a local management structures.
Yes indeed General.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
Message to the legislature:
NEO
December 1, 2012
One would only have to look at their massive retirement funds and offshore accounts to really size up the situation. The California judges funds were 266 Billion dollars last time I looked, this does not include the combined offshore accounts with the BAR Association of California, and National banks. Question Where did they get this amount of funds? Well do you remember all that sweat equity that has been robbed from the people thru foreclosures and traffic court? Don’t forget the cusip investments that the AOC does with BOA behind your back on each case. So when I hear the AOC is crying for more welfare money from the federal government, lets just do a federal government audit on them first. If both the IRS and the GAO were doing their job they would find massive tax evasion and embezzlements of funds from both the peoples money and the Federal funding for fair and honest services, from both the FEDS and from the innocent people they rob daily. This is not justice YET. The people have been screaming for government to do something about the justice system for years, apparently they are aware but are not interested to put a check on it.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 1, 2012
According to Calpers, the retirement funds are managed by Calpers.
Are these the California judges funds you’re referring to? If not, could you please identify what California judges fund is?
Foreclosures in California are non-judicial for the most part. Traffic court fines go uncollected to the tune of 7+ billion dollars. We’d be interested in finding out more about these allegations.
As far as a federal audit of the Judicial Council and the AOC I think that is what many people are hoping for as that would serve to underscore the need for democratization of these institutions with rigorous checks and balances from the other two branches of government.
The stench is still rising from the AOC. Unbelievably, that stench has increased in the past two years while those who produced the stench try to shut everyone else up.
It seems to have had some success with the ACJ because we haven’t seen or heard much from them in the last month or so, ever since the news report came out about
Steinberg’sSpeaker Perez’s lead counsellegislative aidesuggesting that the ACJ risked being ignored because they had too many complaints.While we believe that this was a concerted effort to produce this story with the intent of silencing the ACJ, perhaps they took the warning seriously…… *added – but it looks like propaganda to us that takes effect just as new legislators take office so that the AOC can bamboozle them first.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/benefits-overview/retirement/jrs-benefits.xml
courtflea
December 1, 2012
Just like the current Egyptian president, the JC and AOC has placed themselves above judicial review.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
The stench is still rising from the AOC.
unionman575
December 1, 2012
Hmm…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
AOC RESTRUCTURING AND REALIGNMENT
unionman575
December 1, 2012
Hmm…here’s another one…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
AOC RESTRUCTURING
unionman575
December 1, 2012
Here’s a 3rd one…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
AOC RESTRUCTURING
unionman575
December 1, 2012
4th one…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
AOC RESTRUCTURING
unionman575
December 1, 2012
5th one…
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
AOC RESTRUCTURING
unionman575
December 1, 2012
There currently are at least two positions in the Legal Services Office that
violate the AOC’s telecommuting policy. These should be terminated
immediately, resulting in reductions. Nor should telecommuting be permitted
for supervising attorneys in this division.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
AOC RESTRUCTURING
courtflea
December 1, 2012
JCW the traffic fines that you refer to may go uncollected forever due to the transient nature of Californias population. Not to mention many folks are just too poor to pay. Can’t get blood from a turnip.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
http://lasccourtreport.com/?p=578
Court Update
Posted by courtadmin on Nov – 27 – 2012
Last week the L.A. Superior Court began disseminating information about major changes that will take place as a result of the severe budget crisis facing the Court.
These are significant changes that will affect every CAALA member and the way they litigate.
Despite the passage of Proposition 30 and the election of Democrat “Super Majorities” in both Legislative Houses, the LASC alone must permanently cut its budget by $55 million to $86 million in expenditures before June 30, 2013. This is in addition to the more than $100 million the LASC cut in the last two years.
As a service to CAALA members, following is a preliminary summary of the changes that have been announced that specifically affect the Civil Courts.
There are still questions to be answered, but following is what has been announced to date.
(Note: All of the following will occur between December 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013).
• Ten Courthouses will be closed:
Huntington Park, Whittier, Pomona North, Malibu, West L.A., Beverly Hills, San Pedro, Beacon Street, Catalina, and Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center.
• All PI cases (including wrongful death and medical malpractice) will be filed downtown in Mosk and will be assigned to one of two Master Calendar (MC) Courtrooms.
Each MC Judge is expected to have as many as 8,000 cases under his or her jurisdiction at any one time.
There will be no MC Courtrooms in the districts. A PI case will be in the district only if the MC Court determines (at the request of a party) it should be transferred to an IC Court in the district if the case will be too “appearance-heavy” for MC, but does not qualify for Complex designation.
You will receive Trial and Final SC dates at the filing window when the Complaint is first filed.
Court will no longer monitor service of Summons & Complaint.
If LASC gets the Court Rule change it WILL soon seek, there will be no more CMCs in PI cases. And there will be no more OSCs re: Dismissal, Default, or Service, nor will there be any Post-Mediation Status Conferences.
• Trials, (if the Complaint is timely and properly served and if Notice of the Trial and Final SC was timely and properly given) will be assigned to one of the dedicated TRIAL courtrooms (10 of such in Mosk, plus others spread around the County). You may or may not get your Trial in Mosk and you will not know until the day of trial where you will be sent for trial.
At the present time, the Court has not determined whether any changes will be made as to those PI cases that are currently pending before IC Judges.
Insurance Bad Faith and wrongful termination/discrimination/harassment are NOT considered PI cases, and thus will remain in IC courts or in Complex.
• All LASC collections cases will now be handled out of two Master Calendar departments, one in Norwalk and one in Chatsworth. Collections Trials will be spread around the County.
• All non-collection limited jurisdiction cases, including limited jurisdiction PI cases, will be handled by two Master Calendar Courts in Mosk. These are different MC Courts from the above referenced PI MC Courts. Trials of limited jurisdiction PI cases will be spread across the County.
• All Civil Harassment cases will go to Family Courts.
• All Probate cases will be in Mosk (shuttering 7 to 9 branch probate courts); however, a bench officer MAY “travel” to conduct some guardianship or conservatorship hearings in some branches.
• All Small Claims will be heard only in six Courthouses (Lancaster, Mosk, Alhambra [for the entire Eastern part of the County], Van Nuys (north), Norwalk, and Inglewood).
• Unlawful Detainers will be heard only in four Courthouses (Mosk, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Pasadena).
• The Temporary Judge (Judge Pro Tem) AND ALL Court-run ADR programs will be discontinued.
• Judges, Commissioners will focus on one, or possibly two types of cases only. There will be Geographic Hubs for some types of cases (as with Probate, supra)
• Further reductions in Courtrooms will occur, as will further reductions in Courtroom staff.
There will be NO Court-provided Court Reporters for Civil matters. The Court will likely retain Court Reporters for some types of matters such as Family law.
One court liaison will serve two to three Courtrooms–so the Courtroom will have only a Judge or Commissioner and a clerk most of the time.
• CCW will still operate as it now does; all complex cases, asbestos exposure cases, and class actions will be handled there as they are now. However, the Court is considering certain operational changes to endeavor to eliminate the volume of paper that must be processed in the Complex Cases.
• Settlement Courts will be maintained in the current numbers in the Districts, including seven downtown. Specific locations not yet determined.
• All Counsel are encouraged by the Court to significantly reduce their law & motion activity and to pursue ADR outside the Courts.
wearyant
December 3, 2012
Happy news for JAMS!
unionman575
December 3, 2012
There are dozens of retired LASC Judges at JAMS. Coincidence? I think not.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
December 2, 2012
Many trial court judges have been in a position where they feel like the Sheriff of Nottingham…nothing but tax collectors for the evil Prince John. Many people are outraged at the “courts” when they find out what fines are for minor traffic infractions or misdemeanor offenses. Their anger is focused on the wrong branch of government. Trial Courts normally do not get a dime from traffic fines.
Here is an average breakdown for fines that are “mandated” by the State legislature and how that money is distributed. Some of those “hidden taxes” that have been imposed by the Legislature going back to the 1960’s.
The average “penalty assessment” applied to traffic fines is about 260% of the base fine. For each $100 traffic fine, assessments of $270 are imposed for a total of $370. Then there are added a number of other “assessments and surcharges for an additional $100. The end result, that $100 traffic fine is now $470. $100 is allocated between the city and county. The remaining $370 goes to the specific entities outlined by the Legislature.
For a misdemeanor criminal conviction, take a case of driving under the influence, a mandatory minimum $390 fine is imposed. With all the mandatory stacked assessments, that $390 fine is now $1745. About 2% of that goes to the State Trial Court Improvement Fund. None of the money goes to directly to the trial court overseeing the case.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
Nice breakdown General.
😉
L.A. Observer
December 2, 2012
The total amounts of actual fines after penalty appeasements are so outrageous that many are not paid and remain uncollected. As little of the revenue goes back to the trial court, the courts have little impetus to try to recover the supposed revenue anyway. But if a trial court is audited by the AOC, they will “ding” the court if, in their view, judges of the court are not assessing enough in fines. So judges in traffic and criminal learn that if they try to use judicial discretion to lower or waive fines they will get in trouble (or at least need to defend their judgment) because Judnick and his staff at the AOC will treat their court unfavorably. Yep, glorified tax collectors is a good analogy.
Wendy Darling
December 2, 2012
And who is auditing the AOC as to how and why public money is being spent by 455 Golden Gate Avenue? Oh yeah, that’s right . . . the AOC “audits” themselves.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
crtwatchr
December 2, 2012
You are correct about no portion of the fees going directly to the the local court imposing the fine. However, using your example of a $100 base fine, which result in a total fine of $470, assessments would include $50 to the state courthouse construction fund, $40 tor the “Court Operations Assessment” and $35 for the “Conviction Assessment”, which is also used for Courthouse construction.
Of course, the public doesn’t (nor should it be expected to) understand the distribution of these fines and fees. It if very difficult to explain to a customer who is writing a check to the Clerk of the Superior Court that none of the money actually goes to the Superior Court. The fine on a VC 22350 (speeding) is $35. If the defendant wants to go to traffic school it will cost about $270 before paying for the traffic school.
There was a reason that court facilities were in such poor condition before the CJ George and Bill V convinced the legislature to transfer responsibility for court construction and maintenance to the AOC. The reason – it costs a lot of money to build and maintain courthouses. Money the counties didn’t have. Unlike the AOC however, the counties, even the smallest ones, had the administrative infrastructure, i.e., Public Works, General Services, in place to construct and maintain buildings.
Long story short, if the counties would have retained responsibility for facilities and received the additional funding generated by the new fees, courthouses could have actually be built and at a much lower cost/sq. foot.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
courtflea
December 2, 2012
Thanks union man for all of the great info on “changes” at the death star. Notice they are adding new divisions as the are supposedly cutting. Regional offices closed……lets see the details.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
AOC HR METRICS BY OFFICE Data as of October 16, 2012
😉
unionman575
December 2, 2012
bbqchefs1963@hushmail.com
😉
disgusted
December 2, 2012
PLACER COUNTY COURT LAYS OFF
ALL OFFICIAL REPORTERS
CCRA is saddened to announce that Placer County Court has chosen to privatize all their court reporting services. A Request for Proposal (RFP) went out September 2012 from Placer County courts to solicit bids for court reporting services. After receiving several bids, the court reporter representatives have been informed by court management that a deposition firm had been selected to provide court reporters in lieu of court employees providing all reporting services, including criminal, juvenile, family law, probate, and civil. All ten staff reporters are expected to receive layoff notices as a result, to take effect no sooner than February 2013.
Placer County court estimates they will have a $2 million budget shortfall. The court estimates an approximate $600,000 yearly savings by privatizing their court reporting services. Staff reporters offered numerous concessions in an effort to stave off the court’s plan for privatizing, including offering to take a 15% pay cut. Local attorneys rallied behind the staff reporters by providing letters in support of retaining the staff reporters. All these efforts were rejected, and the court continued with its privatization plans.
CCRA has been closely monitoring this situation with the reporters in Placer County. CCRA has spent a considerable amount of time consulting with experts, advisors, attorneys, and union representatives concerning the legality of a court choosing to privatize all reporting services, and discussing strategy and the far-reaching effect this type of trend could mean for the officials in California. It has been determined that there is no legal restriction for the court to take such an action.
Please contact CCRA if changes occur in your area, so that CCRA may be best prepared to address statewide issues affecting freelance reporters and official reporters.
At this time, please consider making a financial contribution to CCRA’s PACCRA fund or CCRA’s Special Fund. We must remain diligent. Only through your help is CCRA able to continue the fight to save our profession.
CCRA – Continuing to protect the
profession for over 100 years!
disgusted
December 2, 2012
And that was e-mailed out to reporters around 7:40 p.m. on Sunday night.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
A Sunday night special.
Get me a bucket!
wearyant
December 3, 2012
Sunday night ! A new level in “low” !! The workers are in our thoughts.
unionman575
December 2, 2012
Meanwhile back at the AOC Ranch…
Judicial Council Watcher
December 2, 2012
San Diego County Court Employees sue superior court over layoffs.
http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/san-diego-county-court-employees-sue-superior-court
unionman575
December 2, 2012
😉
unionman575
December 2, 2012
Here is the San Diego Case Number for San Diego County Court Employees sue superior court over layoffs :
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
Case Number 37-2012-00085234-CU-WM-CTL Date Filed: 11/13/2012
Case Title: SAN DIEGO COUNTY COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. San Diego County Superior Court [IMAGED] Case Status: Pending
Case Category: Civil – Unlimited Location: Central
Case Type: Writ of Mandate Judicial Officer:
Case Age: 19 days
😉
unionman575
December 2, 2012
Use the link https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
and type in “00085234”.
😉
Michelle
December 3, 2012
I’m an official court reporter in El Dorado county and I am sickened to hear about Placer County officials being layed off. We are currently in contract negotiations looking at upwards of 20% reduction in pay. What do I do?? I feel so helpless! If anyone can give me some guidance, it would be greatly appreciated!