Going on as the last item on the discussion agenda is item x. Item x was not put out for public comment and it should be. The Judicial Council has chosen a labyrinth to evaluate if they will even respond to public information requests. If you are classified by them as a member of the general public – and this includes attorneys and judges – then you can probably expect that the new pubinfo won’t respond at all to your request.
First, identify the requester according to the following five (5) categories and then
respond accordingly:
• Judicial officers
• Members of Judicial Council advisory committees, task forces, and working groups
• Media
• Executive and legislative branch staff
• General public
A. Judicial officers
– Refer to Director of Court Operations Special Services Office, who will consult
with Chief’s appointee(s) to determine whether request is within the regular scope
of judicial business
o If “yes,” appropriate staff will be notified and should respond
o If “no,” refer to Chief’s appointee(s)
B. Members of Judicial Council committees, etc.
– Is request from or on behalf of committee chair?
o If “yes,” respond
o If “no,” continue below
– Refer to Director of Court Operations Special Services Office, who will consult
with Chief’s appointee(s) and/or committee chair to determine whether request is
within the regular scope of committee business
o If “yes,” appropriate staff will be notified and should respond
o If “no,” refer to Chief’s appointee(s)
C. Media
– Refer to Office of Communications for evaluation and response as appropriate
D. Executive and legislative staff
– Refer to Office of Governmental Affairs for evaluation and response as
appropriate
E. General public
– If the request appears to presents a legitimate issue or otherwise be appropriate for
response, refer to Director of Court Operations Special Services Office, who will
consult with Chief’s appointee(s) to determine whether to respond. Otherwise, a
response is not necessary
Let’s work this new procedure out. If you’re a member of the Alliance of California Judges and you want an administrative record about how much money was spent scraping gum off a sidewalk, the AOC will first discern if you have any business making the request. If scraping gum off sidewalks isn’t in your purview, then you are classified as the general public and no response is required.
If you’re a member of the “blog-like” courthouse news, then it’s conceivable that you are making the request as a member of the general public because the AOC does not wish to recognize you as a media company. Therefore, again, no response is required.
This is just another continued abuse of the public and judicial branch employees by the central politburo that wishes to conceal their actions. Regardless of the legitimacy of the requests, they have the option to reclassify the requester and not respond at all.
I think it is time that the state sunshine laws shined upon the Judicial Council and the AOC.
Related articles
- Using judicial ethics to silence dissent? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Setting up the courts for an AOC takeover? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- The Judicial Council returns to control of public comment (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
+++++++++++++
Got an anonymous tip? https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Institutionalized censorship at it’s dysfunctional best. What a stellar reputation for the branch of state govenment that is supposed to stand for the defense and value of just telling the truth.
It’s not called the Ministry of Truthiness without good reason.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
December 12, 2012
Right on JCW! I am appalled that court executives did not make the list. Highly insulting. And how about court staff?! Dickwads.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 12, 2012
Everyone else (court execs, court employees, AOC employees) is a member of the general public. Even judges or committee members that are not chairs can be reclassified as members of the general public. This move towards a marked lack of transparency and accountability is no coincidence with the justice department bearing down on them. They don’t wish to give anyone any reason to look further into the affairs of the judicial council and the AOC.
courtflea
December 12, 2012
So if you make a request and it is deemed not a “legitimate issue” or “appropriate” for comment, then what? A fuck you letter?! This whole piece of work is insulting,officious, and bureaucratic to the inth degree. You can’t make this crap up!!
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
It’s going to take someone filing a writ of mandate against the Judicial Council and the AOC over public information requests Flea. Some of us have actually sat in meetings at 455 Golden Gate Avenue where this very issue has been discussed, including how to evade requests for information, and that no one will dare to take them to court over this issue. And so far, they’ve been right.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Stuart Michael
December 12, 2012
Who would have standing to bring an action?
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Anyone who makes a request to the Judicial Council and/or the AOC for information that is denied or evaded.
Per AOC internal policy, information requests that are especially to be denied or evaded: any request from one of the unions representing trial court employees.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
December 12, 2012
Check out the attorney who responded to the proposed ethics language. He seems like a possibility. I would guess anyone denied access to AOC records like Mr. Paul.
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
AOC internal policy regarding requests for Information:
1. Ignore. Simply ignore the request.
2. Deny. Deny that the request was received.
3. Delay. Respond that the Agency is currently handling a large volume of requests, and the request will be responded in the order it was received.
4. Delay again. Respond that the request was vague and/or ambiguous, and the Agency cannot determine what information is being requested.
5. Delay again. Respond that the request needs more specificity.
6. Delay and deny. If more specificity is provided, state that parts of the request are still too vague and/or ambiguous to understand, and as to the remaining parts, the request is denied as it is excluded information under the Public Records Act, is not covered by the Act, and/or is protected by attorney-client privilege.
7. Requests for information from judges, members of the State Legislature, the Governor’s Office, and/or law enforcement agencies are to be immediately forwarded to the Office of General Counsel.
It has been openly stated in meetings at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and with the blessing of both the Office of the Chief Justice and the AOC Office of General Counsel, that this is a sound strategy and practice, as denied requests would ultimately have to be challenged by a writ of mandate, and the “general public” doesn’t have the resources to take the Judicial Council and/or the AOC to court. So “we can do what we want. There’s no one to stop us.”
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
December 12, 2012
The AOC has answered about 75% of my requests and admittedly when they didn’t answer, my question wasn’t clear or I was asking for something other than an administrative record. They’ve not refused my latest request and it appears a more comprehensive request than mine happened upon their example page. It is a request that can easily be fulfilled and consists of administrative records.
Michael Paul
December 12, 2012
The one that they would not give me was the Jacobs and Aleut contracts, claiming there were over 600 amendments to the jacobs contract and it would cost too much to review the contracts and determine what they could turn over. I asked for a price and they didn’t wish to give me a price. They just didn’t want to turn over that information.
Wendy Darling
December 12, 2012
Exactly, Michael Paul.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
December 12, 2012
For what it’s worth, and to be fair, in the past few months pubinfo has been amazingly gracious and fast providing information that I requested. I didn’t ask for voluminous information, but still, I received what I asked for very quickly.
It would be very unfortunate for the Judicial Council to impose new procedures that intentionally allow for delay, discrimination, cherry-picking, obfuscation, and/or total disregard for information requests.
Knowledge is power.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
YES: Knowledge is power.
😉
unionman575
December 12, 2012
I think it is time that the state sunshine laws shined upon the Judicial Council and the AOC.
Me too JCW!
😉
unionman575
December 12, 2012
JCW how the heck do you find this stuff like Item X?
You never cease to amaze me JCW.
Keep up the good work JCW.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
December 13, 2012
Union folk like yourself and AOC employees flood our inbox with tips and things we may have missed or overlooked. Item x just happened to fall into our lap courtesy of one of our favorite AFSCME contacts. 🙂
Without the fine work of those court workers and AOC workers alike, it would be difficult to produce Judicial Council Watcher.
https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher
unionman575
December 13, 2012
My hat is off to you JCW.
😉
unionman575
December 12, 2012
“Regardless of the legitimacy of the requests, they have the option to reclassify the requester and not respond at all.”
Silence is golden baby.
DOJ keep digging at Death Star HQ. You will find a gold mine of info.
unionman575
December 12, 2012
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oga-advocacy.pdf
Here is the new PR Hot Sheet…Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) Advocacy Contacts December 2012
Judicial Council Watcher
December 13, 2012
Donna Hershkowitz is no longer referenced as a director and no longer lying to legislators. That’s a positive step in the right direction.
unionman575
December 13, 2012
Agreed!
😉