Whispered into our private message window and combined with other information gleaned from within the AOC, it appears that the contractor heavy IT department has been instructed to reduce their use of contractors…….. wait for it………… by hiring them. In particular, they want to make FTE’s out of the people supporting CCMS that haven’t already been previously hired.
We’d like to point out that the AOC only started releasing accurate head count numbers only after we got a hold on their internal use only directory and published it here. According to our sources, this directory is and always has been the most accurate document reflecting active positions within the AOC.
++++++++++++
There’s a really good article by Bill Girdner titled “Tough Sell” over at courthouse news. Hopefully Bill, Maria & co have been following the long beach fiasco and can also highlight how the AOC apparently concealed the total costs of this project until it was half-built. That would be a good story for them.
In the tough sell article Mr. Girdner covers the savvy business acumen of one of our judicial branch heroes spending hundreds of Woodrow Wilsons for a stellar rate of return of a few hundred George Washingtons. And you heretics out there had the audacity of accusing him of being an alchemist. Wait. Wasn’t he the director of finance that probably signed off on Long Beach? The gift that keeps on giving.
++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Jahr is swimming up stream. He seems to think having the full faith and credit of the Judicial Council at his back gives him a mandate. In legislative circles however they’re wondering if this is all just a bad joke. Sure, the AOC has new faces at the Office of Governmental Affairs that indeed are more credible, but the legislature can’t seem to get past the fact that he who was the least credible was launched into a Chief Operating Officer position. The words “are you fucking kidding me?” have been uttered numerous times amongst legislative aides in Sacramento.
+++++++++++
We don’t know if you noticed but in another thread Makara28 indicates he submitted three comments in regards to the latest ethics opinion that were not posted, so we suggested that he post them here because there seems to be less resistance to posting over there if the cat is already out of the bag over here. Case in point, Mr. Paul’s letters – but they want to make him out to be a nutbag so they publish them. So it was with both glee and some surprise that we were able to view what was rejected for posting by the Ministry of Truth and Enlightenment over at the AOC and it is worth repeating here. Note to makara28 – highlighting hypocrisy is the biggest no-no of all at the Ministry of Truth and Enlightenment.
Someone must warn the Judicial Council that my very own Chief Justice (it’s okay, the Chief Justice uses the same fond intimacy in referring to trial courts as “my courts”) will commit ethics violations if she ever again speaks as freely as she did at the meeting of the Judges Association in Monterey. On October 14, 2012 my Chief Justice revealed she “whispers in the ears of a few attorney organizations” to ask them to arrange a reception to wow newly-elected legislators and offer them “swag bags with goodies”. If other judges follow her example and, at her urging, “whisper with one voice”, the wave of ethics violations would overwhelm the disciplinary agency, and forever tarnish the reputation of the Judicial Branch.
So, if the link for comments ever heals up, I hope someone takes the initiative to urge the JC to put more thought into this rule. It could potentially destroy the lives of hundreds of honest judges who, merely by the free expression of their one voice, would soon be charged with ethics violations. Many of you have seen it, but here is the comment, which, if history is kind to my Chief Justice, will be deleted from the internet as efficiently as the JC censors unfavorable public comments (and now I’m miffed as to how mine was considered as such since I simply took a stand for my Chief Justice’s and other judges’ right to make these sort of statements):
“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 ….”
~just laughs~
Note from JCW: The link above for comments has healed up. Actually, we bandaged it. Our bad. Also: rules of court apply to serf judges that don’t have a seat in the Star Chamber. You would need to follow this bunch like we do to know that.
++++++++++++++++++++
If there were two words that could best describe what is happening in our court system those two words would be “complete disarray”. A few threads back Anonymous posted a craigslist ad for a Fiscal Director for Mono County Courts. http://sacramento.craigslist.org/gov/3397864678.html Now I suppose that I don’t need to point out that the fiscal director will probably be the one carrying the ball under government code 13324 and the personal liability associated with the same. That 65K-85K isn’t going to go far…
Let us not forget that these laws were all enacted in better times and under King George’s iron fist. If the reserves are swept then it is only fair that the two pieces of government code that have court execs and presiding judges alike terrified to do their jobs be removed from the books. Is the Office of Governmental Affairs lobbying to get these laws removed? Word on the street is they’re actually counting on them to reign in rogue courts and vocal judges.
+++++++++++++++++++
The next hot thing: Baseline funding. Baseline funding is the amount of funding that is divvy’d up between courts based on now ancient formulas. Initially courts were told that these amounts could never be changed, so some courts in the well-to-do coastal counties received greater baseline funding because their counties could support them well. The challenge has always been inland in what is known as “cow counties” where the sales tax might be as low as three full percentage points lower than coastal counties and those courts weren’t funded as well. Enter in the dot com craze. During the dot com buildup, affordable housing was something achievable only by driving at least 100 miles inland from the coast. And so, developers built in these cow counties, many of which are now the poster childs of the real estate meltdown. But justice did not keep up with growth and now these same counties are suffering with an avalanche of caseload and no funds to keep the doors open. DOF and the legislature have hinted that after 14 years of have/have not disparity, if the JC wants any more money for the trial courts it must first address the funding disparities between the well-to-do courts and the poor courts. Without a funding commitment everything stands to be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Baseline funding shouldn’t be based on percentages being divvy’d up because in that rat race, the AOC gives the courts an 18% haircut to fund their own operations. Baseline funding should be what it costs to operate the courts efficiently – and those monies should be committed by the legislature and entirely bypass the AOC.
Your thoughts?
++++++++++++++++
Legislative low fruit – Across the country, assigned judges programs have been dismantled. The State of California pays over 26 million dollars a year for the assigned judges program operated by the AOC. This program needs some legislative revisiting and until then, the line-item funding for it should be terminated. Now we wouldn’t necessarily feel this way if the program wasn’t being abused by some, but it is being abused as a way to assign unelected judges to the same bench for greater that 20 years in one case, and greater than 10 years in several other cases. And yet the assigned judges program should fund a temporary stay in a court for a short period of no more than 60-90 days according to the laws on the books. And it is being abused. Since it is being abused, it should be a budgetary line item that should be redirected for court operations.
unionman575
December 7, 2012
Thje Death Star goes on ANOTHER hiring binge…and the trial courts continue to waste away throughout California….
More nice work JCW!
😉
unionman575
December 7, 2012
Baseline funding shouldn’t be based on percentages being divvy’d up because in that rat race, the AOC gives the courts an 18% haircut to fund their own operations. Baseline funding should be what it costs to operate the courts efficiently – and those monies should be committed by the legislature and entirely bypass the AOC.
Your thoughts?
Here are my thoughts JCW: “BINGO”.
😉
makara28
December 7, 2012
I agree the AOC needs to be bypassed, but I wonder if there’s an additional motivator for the Governor. Is the governor now giving Californians payback for its rude rejection of Bird, Reynoso, and Grodin in 1986 (a sad day, indeed)? Does the seriously imbalanced current composition of the supreme court (GOP appointed justices: 6-1) and the AOC remind Jerry of the forces — all undeserving of respect — who defeated his justices? It was truly a nasty blow to the young governor.
It makes mild sense that he’s still pissed. These days I’m unable to hold a grudge for more than 30 seconds but some are true champs at it, and I recall telling myself I’d never forget what happened to those 3 justices. And I admit that when I reflect on what happened my blood still rises. But still, while entirely justified, if he is, consciously or not, feeling the Judicial Branch doesn’t deserve full funding, then it’s an exceptionally immature attitude toward something as vital as access to the trial courts.
Perhaps we need to insist that instead of advancing the 1% rule, the Governor must appropriately fund the trial courts for the next year while threatening to cut off heads if the AOC hasn’t made significant and objectively verifiable progress in implementing the SEC recommendations. Perhaps Brown does need to be told to get past past insults and to demand real reform. Democratizing the JC, making the director an elected official, as advocated by JCW, means certain progress.
Segregating trial court funding from the rest of the Judicial Branch is our only hope. But I don’t see that happening any time soon. Can we just give Jerry the authority to appoint the JC’s Chair?
makara28
December 7, 2012
Before anyone jumps on me for my comment about the governor, Mea culpa. I withdraw my comments about his immaturity. I’m not in a position to make such judgments and I certainly don’t want to imply the governor suffers from the sort of imbalance displayed by George W in his revenge-motivated invasion of Iraq, to make his father pay for favoritism toward Jeb, and insisting he wouldn’t “cut and run” like dad.
I do, however, believe this theory offers some contextual support for the Governor’s failure to take appropriate action to remedy the damage done to our trial courts. I can’t help but feel that if the leadership and staff of the JC and AOC was replaced with honest, hard-working (I’m sure there are some) individuals who have the interests of access to justice as their primary goal, rather than the accumulation of personal power, the Governor would allocate sufficient funds to end this crisis.
I think it’s wise to demand that he stop the bleeding and give the JC an ultimatum which makes legislative and/or constitutionally mandated head-rolling changes similar to AB 1208, and also replacing the JC’s Chair from Chief Justice to an elected position, if the JC fails to heed the ultimatum. But letting the governor appoint a new head to the JC would immediately end this mess.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 7, 2012
The guv has heard worse. In the case of the budget issues we have contacts elsewhere in state government that pretty much indicate that this has been a financial bloodbath across the board in all branches and agencies.
No one was spared.
In the case of the courts however, the clerk in Fremont Hall of Justice has been busting her ass on a line that goes out the door and down the street while the AOC management and the Judicial Council party like it’s 1999 and keeps on wasting monumental sums of money. To the casual observer and even in the eyes of some major media that doesn’t know better, this is a single entity from the Judicial Council on down called “The Courts” and that poor girl that has been busting her ass at that front window and serving the public pays the price for AOC follies with the loss of her job.
makara28
December 7, 2012
unionman575: this was precisely the argument we used to defeat the reductions to the court in Fort Bragg recently. Functionality must prevail over percentage cuts. Ukiah, with 7 courthouses can absorb percentage-type cuts. A single rural courthouse cannot. As I argued to the judges: they must have known that the cuts would destroy the function of our court and realized we are already at our bare minimum funding.
unionman575
December 10, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/68106-Mendocino-20121030.pdf
courtflea
December 7, 2012
Baseline funding has always been a hot potato since no one can seem to agree on a fair way to divy the funds up. I disagree that coastal courts received less due to their respective counties wealth. That was not a factor in the RAZ model formula for baseline funding (which i believe was the last formula used). Conties no longerfund courts either. But i agree that al ll courts need proper funding, the stickler is agreeing on what proper funding is for all courts. Consider this as an example: some think that courts in metropolitan areas should receive more funding since the cost to do business is higher. Others think funing should be based on caseload. And that is just one argument. This issue is a gourdian knot that really needs to be unravelled once and for all but smarter folks than i.
courtflea
December 7, 2012
PS please forgive my typos i am getting used to a tablet!
The notion that judges should have no say in how the branch is run is ludicrous. This is definately a shot over the bow of LA’s poweress i.e. a big attempt to shut them up. If the judges don’t stand up against this they are giving the commission on judicial performance a lot of potential work. I guesss now the comission, the AOC, or the JC will have to get in the surveillance business to catch judges not complying with this edict. Will the AOC’s security division become the new KGB?? Judges get ready to sweep your chambers for “bugs”.
Wendy Darling
December 7, 2012
Published today, Friday, December 7 (Pearl Harbor Day), from Courthouse News Service, by Dave Tartre:
SF Superior Settles With Workers
By DAVE TARTRE
SAN FRANCISCO – A deal between the clerks and the administration at San Francisco Superior Court was approved this week by the court’s executive committee, conclusively ending more than 9 months without a labor agreement in place.
What was expected to be a done deal in late October, when the clerks’ biggest union voted to accept the offer that had been made by the court, faced a setback in November when the executive committee, which comprises 11 of the court’s roughly 45 judges plus Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein, rejected the deal.
This week the committee voted unanimously in favor of the deal, though it had not been changed.
The committee also approved agreements with the court’s other unions. Those were signed in February, but had gone back onto the table over the 5 percent wage cut that became a rallying point for the court’s largest union, the Service Employees International Local 1021.
Both the court and the union have characterized the new contract with Local 1021 as an improvement over the one that expired in February.
“Employees have done their part to help the court through the unprecedented challenges of the past four years,” according to T. Michael Yuen, the court’s top administrator.
“These agreements make fiscally-sound structural changes which benefit the court,” Yuen said.
For their part, the members of Local 1021 liked the terms well enough to vote 215 to 1 to accept the agreement, which will be in place until July 2015 and calls for an immediate $3,500 bonus, a 3 percent pay hike next year and fresh wage negotiations in the third year.
Supervisors must now respond to requests for variable schedules and clerks will get two more floating holidays, in addition to the four they currently receive.
The clerks also succeeded in having the 5 percent wage cut reversed.
Shortly after the union vote, union bargaining team member Priscilla Agbunag said, “Our voices have been heard.”
Agbunag, a clerk in the civil division, said then, “We love our jobs and what we do and all we wanted was respect, and I believe they heard us.”
Negotiations came to a head in July when the court imposed the cut, and union members responded with a one-day walkout.
The sides talked into autumn, with the new package emerging in October. After the union’s overwhelming approval, though, the court’s executive committee voted the agreement down.
California’s recent budget problems hit San Francisco Superior Court hard and set the stage for the labor dispute. In July 2011, Presiding Judge Feinstein announced that 200 court workers would lose their jobs in a belt-tightening that would also result in closed courtrooms, reduced public access and delays in justice across the system.
In the end, 11 courtrooms were closed and 67 employees were let go, mainly court reporters.
Two unions besides the Local 1021 represent workers at San Francisco Superior Court. One is the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO, which includes staff attorneys and information technology workers. The other union is the Municipal Executives Association, representing supervisors.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/07/52955.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
December 7, 2012
Also published today, Friday, December 7, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Capital Accounts: Reeling Courts Face New Threat
By Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
December 7, 2012
SACRAMENTO — When is a threatened budget cut just more bad fiscal news and when is it really an angry-gram from the governor’s office?
Full article requires subscription access: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202580767296&Capital_Accounts_Reeling_Courts_Face_New_Threat&slreturn=20121107195237
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 7, 2012
It’s the latter – but it is up to real leadership to point out where the problems lie and to ensure the other two branches do something about it. It’s obvious that neither the agency nor the Judicial Council are committed to any meaningful reforms. They talk big about transparency and accountability when there is mass judicial outcry but they keep on doing the same thing and no one is ever held accountable. We would hope that the recent silence of a few significant parties is being heard on a personal level far and wide throughout the capitol building. We wish them gods speed and damn the torpedoes.
courtflea
December 7, 2012
Hey ACJ we need you!
The OBT
December 8, 2012
The ACJ and CJA need to set aside any differences they have and join together to help save the trial courts.Those in the ‘ tower ” at 455 Golden Gate should also be reaching out . They should have realized long ago that Ronald George’s way of dealing with dissent by trying to crush it, minimize it or ignore it would be ultimately self defeating. The Chief Justice would be wise to call all judges together for a branch wide summit and allow representatives from the Presiding Judges, ACJ, CJA and any other judge interested enough to attend, to make suggestions as to how the branch should be governed and stabilized financially. Ronald George and Bill Vickrey’s model of top down centralized control and big spending has failed. To save the branch we need a bold new approach . The ball is in the Chief Justice’s court.
Wendy Darling
December 8, 2012
The ball has been in the Chief Justice’s court for quite some time, OBT. So far, all the Office of the Chief Justice has done, figuratively speaking, is give the Governor, the State Legislature, the ACJ, and everyone else, a big middle finger salute, and maintain an unsupportable stance that branch administration and “leadership” can do whatever they want, vis a vis the teflon protection of “co-equal branch of government” and “separation of powers.” The answer from Sacramento is to impose the equivalent of economic sanctions.
And they still just don’t get it at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
December 8, 2012
You’re tilting at windmills, The OBT, if you think the CJ or the AOC’s JC will do anything other than further their own interests. I don’t think there’s any hope in that direction especially if you study their past actions. The only actions they take is to further their own well-being! I do hope the ACJ, the CJA and trial courts get together to formalize some plan to save the California judiciary. Forget the chief justice. She’s a ronG pawn, only out for her own interests and power. God help us all. And a Merry Christmas!
Lando
December 8, 2012
OBT has a great idea. Based on history however, Wendy’s analysis is compelling. The Office of the Chief Justice failed to reach out to the ACJ, failed to end CCMS when all the evidence showed it wasn’t working, attacked the State Assembly after the passage of AB 1208, has been totally silent on the new CCMS, Long Beach and has empowered her allies like Justice Hull to suppress any branch dissent while claiming all is “transparent” and “reformed”. Given all that don’t hold your breath for any real innovation or attempt to solicit valuable input from anyone outside the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Ave.
JusticeCalifornia
December 11, 2012
JCW, you said:
“Legislative low fruit – Across the country, assigned judges programs have been dismantled. The State of California pays over 26 million dollars a year for the assigned judges program operated by the AOC. This program needs some legislative revisiting and until then, the line-item funding for it should be terminated. Now we wouldn’t necessarily feel this way if the program wasn’t being abused by some, but it is being abused as a way to assign unelected judges to the same bench for greater that 20 years in one case, and greater than 10 years in several other cases. And yet the assigned judges program should fund a temporary stay in a court for a short period of no more than 60-90 days according to the laws on the books. And it is being abused. Since it is being abused, it should be a budgetary line item that should be redirected for court operations.”
I have been a bit under the weather and absent, but can I just ask? Will Sakauye, Jahr, Baker, and Bigelow agree to take personal responsibility for keeping 86-year-old retired judge Jack Halpin on the Shasta County bench for 19 years and counting, with no end in sight, as a “temporarily” assigned judge, over the ongoing objections of the Shasta public, and at a cost of $700-plus a day? Although Halpin ostensibly “retired” as an assigned Shasta judge in April 2012, and Judge Greg Gaul was re-assigned full time to the family law department to take over that calendar, Halpin keeps showing up like a bad penny collecting over $700 a day (Shasta’s forced unofficial public assistance program for this guy?) to hear family law cases that Gaul could and should be handling..
Officials in all three branches of government should check their mail and e-mail in the next few days. Governor Brown, Attorney General Harris, please especially be on the lookout. Our legislators, governor and attorney general must step in and stop the $26 million assigned judge madness. Feuer was on the right track about this issue, and JCW, thank you for your thoughts and attention regarding this issue as well.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 11, 2012
According to intel, Judge Halpin has retired three times (his latest retirement party was in April of this year) yet still manages to find a warm and welcome AOC paid seat on the bench as if he never retired.
How is it that an executive director of the AOC and the Chief Justice could continue to violate the law with respect to this 20 year assignment and several other 10-12 year assignments?
Under what authority do these people sit on the bench and usurp the will of the electorate that is being denied their opportunity to select their own judges via the voting booth?
Peppermint Pattie
December 11, 2012
Good to hear from you, Justice California. You’ve been missed.
Long live the ACJ.