As you probably observed in another thread, the AOC is under federal investigation over their mismanagement of the court interpreters program. Along with everything else they mismanage, the AOC has been managing the funds given to it by the state legislature for court interpreters. The way it works in practical terms is that a local court gets a bill for service rendered from a court interpreter. The local court then renders that bill to the AOC for reimbursement. The AOC defined a set of guidelines on the use and reimbursement related to court interpreters and of course, the appointees who could care less feigned governance over AOC control and approved these guidelines.
Courts would submit a pile of invoices to the AOC for court interpreter services. The AOC in turn would deny payment on a pile of invoices, paying some but not others. At the end of the year, whatever was left over in the court interpreters account was swept for AOC’s year-end purchasing binges to spend the money as they saw fit. Since the AOC runs their own internal court interpreters program that does no court interpreting, large charges to the fund can be covered up as the AOC’s expense of doing business. (example: let’s buy a few $40,000.00 email servers and a few web servers to support an individual in the court interpreters program, let’s furnish a new conference room on the 8th floor with court interpreters funds…, etc, etc……)
Over time, courts learned that if they wish to get reimbursed for hiring court interpreters, they must narrow the scope of the invoices submitted to the AOC. Meanwhile, the AOC learned that with 58 underlings that can’t possibly follow the ball in San Francisco, it was in their own financial best interests to declare that funds spent or limited funds were available to pay for these services, deny payments and sweep the excess funds for their own operations. Over time the amount of the sweeps grew and the amount of interpretive services dropped while the amount declared as being reimbursed to the courts was being fabricated by the AOC. At the end of the year, year after year an ever growing piece of the court interpreter pie was swept by the AOC as the cost of doing business.
In 2010 a complaint was filed with the U.S. Justice Departments civil rights division by the Legal Aid Society of Los Angeles on behalf of two Korean clients who were denied interpretive services by the Los Angeles Courts.
The reason the judges in this state have fallen silent as of late is because this is a serious issue that has gone on for years and has been getting worse and not better. It is an active federal investigation that will be leading to some changes in the court interpreters program to the detriment of the AOC. Will anyone actually go to jail for denying those invoices and sweeping those funds? One would hope but probably not. But what is described above is what was going down in the AOC’s court interpreters program and it should only take minimal effort by the justice department to verify that this what has happened to the court interpreters funds.
Today, both the Judicial Council and the AOC, both caught with their pants around their ankles is singing a new tune about “urban myths of payment denial” only because they’re in the feds crosshairs. Singing the loudest is Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye who promises to dispel these urban legends about court interpreter funds not being available.
There appears to be both a strategic and tactical element that parallels what is currently going on. You’ve probably noticed two things in the past six or so weeks.
1. You haven’t seen any Alliance of California Judges media releases anywhere.
2. You have witnessed an unprecedented crack-down on dissent with the judicial council pushing through new rules, new opinions and new procedures all designed to silence dissent because those in power know that it is an ethics violation to comment on a party to pending or impending litigation and it is much easier to push through this Orwellian utopia on the rest of the judicial branch while the judicial branch critics are silenced as a matter of law.
While rank and file across the judicial branch wonders where the voices of reason disappeared to in the last six or so weeks, they now have their answer.
The challenge is what can be done to stop the Orwellian Utopia that those in power are imposing on others?
Produced by Yen Interactive Media for Judicial Council Watcher
+++++++++++++
Got an anonymous tip? https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher
+++++++++++++
Here is the 92 page report CFWG-09-05-12-San-Diego referenced by Judge Maino in the comments section of this post.
+++++++++++++
California is a “Judicial Hellhole?”
unionman575
December 14, 2012
More fine work JCW.
I particularly like your refernece to Tani’s urban myths: “Today, both the Judicial Council and the AOC, both caught with their pants around their ankles is singing a new tune about “urban myths of payment denial”
It is hard to believe that our “leader” views the citizens we serve with such disrespect. Unreal.
😉
BadReputation
December 14, 2012
I tremendously appreciate everyone’s work here. However, I continue to find myself frustrated that there isn’t a lot more public interest in these issues- especially CCMS- and that administrators and managers at all levels are not held accountable. CCMS was the prime contributor to stress disorder and the end of my career, and I suppose of my life, if I don’t find meaningful work ever again. I just don’t see that the human toll of that project is known by anyone other than it’s victims.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
Welcome to Judicial Council Watcher BadReputation, it is AMAZING that no one has been held accountable. In any other branch of government these people would have been asked to resign or would have been fired. In the judicial branch we have people who literally gave up at 500+ million dollars and are currently embarking on supporting another case management system under a pilot in San Luis Obispo using the Tyler Technologies Odyssey case management system.
This will also be the likely big winner in Sacramento with the court technology managers current RFP as well. As we and others have said all along, viable off the shelf solutions exist that need only be configured to perform for the courts. The new RFP’s are smart, the vendor is experienced, savvy and delivers and does so at a lower cost than others.
Meanwhile, those in power want you to believe it was all their idea and they still ultimately want control via their vertical and horizontal scalability requirements and secure interfaces with the California Courts Technology Center.
While the secure interfaces can reside external to the CCTC it has yet to be seen if the AOC will permit the systems to run locally first with a replica at the cctc or the AOC will require everything be operated out of the CCTC assuring their control over the systems and assuring the boondogglers lifetime employment.
http:\\www.tylercalifornia.com
crtwatchr
December 14, 2012
I doubt any court will use CCTC to operate a new CMS. With the exception of SLO, the AOC is not paying for these systems. Many courts have transitioned to virtualiztion of their networks and most of the new systems will run in a virtualized environment. I am not tech expert, but Tyler, New Dawn, etc. offer cloud based and SAS services designed for their systems which I expect would provide a much more cost effective alternative to CCTC. While I have no inside information, I will give you odds that Sacramento will not run its system from Sacramento.
However, I share BadReputation’s concerns regarding the lack of interest outside of the branch in the mismanagement of the Judicial Branch. The CCMS debacle, the SEC Report, the $1,000/sq. ft. courthouses, the Long Beach PPP, etc. I think a good investigative reporter would be able to find a broad audience for the JC/AOC story. It highlights all of things people hate about government – arrogance, incompetence, abuse of power, wasteful spending, bloated bureaucracy, etc.
unionman575
December 15, 2012
The CCMS debacle resulted in 600 mil of trial court funds being wasted…while every trial court wastes away from lack of operations funding.
It’s a cluster fuck supreme.
Welcome to the blog Bad Reputation.
😉
anonymous
December 14, 2012
An indictment from within. What a great way to kick off a judicial council meeting. This isn’t the only fund that is treated this way.
Tim Crews
December 14, 2012
Sent from Sacramento Valley Mirror.
We have twice sued, and prevailed, on disclosure of court remodeling, furnishing and decorating cost matters.
This, however, is far more important — and note that the AOC told Mr. francke to take a hike. That email follows.
http://calaware.org/awareness-area-government/calaware-asks-hold-on-court-info-policy
Hold on Court Info Policy
by Terry Francke, General Counsel
CalAware Asks Hold on Court Info Policy
December 13, 2012 in Awareness Area: Government, Awareness Area: Justice, Awareness Area: Politics, Legal Issue: Public Information, News
Californians Aware has asked California’s Chief Justice to defer action on a proposal to treat requesters for judicial branch administrative information based on their need to know. Set for consideration at today’s (Friday, December 14) meeting of the California Judicial Council—policy-maker for the state’s court system—is a recommendation that requests for information that do not specify particular public records be treated differently depending on who is asking.
The rationale for the proposal is that while budget reductions have led to increasing staff shortages, there is also an increasing rate of queries as to how the court system is run involving why certain decisions were made or actions taken. Such queries often amount to demands for explanations, analysis or other responses that would require the creation of new records to fulfill, or that involve policy motives that staff either does not know or feels it above their pay grade to speculate about.
Three years ago the Judicial Council adopted Rule of Court 10.500, for the first time stating the presumption that the public is entitled to view or copy the judicial branch’s administrative records, as distinguished from records of court proceedings, which have been presumed public as a matter of common law for many years. But 10.500, like its counterpart pertaining to executive branch and local government documents, the California Public Records Act, does not require the creation of new records or the compiling of lists or reports. Nonetheless, the authors of tomorrow’s recommended action—which unlike most potentially controversial measures was not put out for public comment—contend that many information requests ask for answers rather than access to records, and need to be accommodated by new guidance from the Council.
The recommended policy set for action shortly after noon states:
Procedure
When (state court system headquarters) staff receives a request for records or information, they shall follow the process set forth below.
I. Identify the Type of Request
Requests will generally fall into four categories:
• Requests for judicial administrative records under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court
• Requests for basic programmatic or process information not embodied in judicial administrative records
• Requests for information that requires an explanation, discussion of policymaking, or is otherwise inappropriate for staff to answer
• Hybrid requests seeking both judicial administrative records and information
Once the type of request is identified, follow the process specified below for the particular type of request.
II. Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records Under Rule 10.500
EXAMPLES:
• Please provide any and all documents related to the financing and/or lease terms of the under-construction Long Beach Courthouse between the AOC; Long Beach Judicial Partners, their entities, affiliates or successors; and/or the State of California.
• Please provide a copy of the report called “Surveying the Future: California’s Attitudes Toward the Court System” that was published by the Commission on the Future of California’s Courts.
Staff should handle these according to the AOC policy for responding to requests for judicial administrative records: http://intranet.jud.ca.gov/reference/index.cfm?pg=referenceList&ref_catid=46
III. Responding to Requests for Basic Programmatic or Process Information not Embodied in Judicial Administrative Records
EXAMPLES:
• How far in advance of his or her preferred starting date for serving on assignment should a retiring judge submit his or her application to the Assigned Judges Program?
• How long does it typically take to process a compensation claim for a panel attorney in the Court-Appointed Counsel Program?
Because the nature of the basic programmatic/process information will vary from Office to Office, staff should handle these according to the policy of their Office or Division.
IV. Responding to Requests for Information not Embodied in Judicial Administrative Records That Requires an Explanation, Discussion of Policymaking, or is Otherwise Inappropriate for Staff to Answer
EXAMPLES:
• Why was the decision made to implement the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) for AOC employees?
• Why are judicial officers not afforded priority treatment with respect to requests for records made under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court?
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.
V. Responding to Hybrid Requests Seeking Both Judicial Administrative Records and Information
EXAMPLES:
• Please provide a list of every AOC employee whose compensation increased in FY 2011–12 and an explanation as to why each listed employee received his or her increase.
• It has been reported that, at a public meeting, the Administrative Director of the Courts said X. Please provide a transcript or audio recording of the Administrative Director’s complete remarks at that meeting and provide all facts on which the Administrative Director made the statement X.
Staff should make every effort to parse these as follows:
• To the extent the request seeks judicial administrative records, that portion of the request should be handled according to the AOC policy on rule 10.500: http://intranet.jud.ca.gov/reference/index.cfm?pg=referenceList&ref_catid=46
• To the extent the request seeks information not contained in judicial administrative records, it should be handled as described in sections III and IV above.
CalAware General Counsel on Wednesday—when it first learned of the proposal—sent the following letter to the Chief Justice, who chairs the Judicial Council.
December 12, 2012
The Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice of California
RE: Judicial Council Meeting of Friday, December 14: Agenda Item X
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye,
Californians Aware, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest organization concerned to protect and advance open government and public information policies and practices in California, asks that the Judicial Council defer the action recommendation proposed under agenda item X for Friday’s meeting.
The proposal calls for a complex, nuanced and somewhat subjective spectrum of authorized responses or (non-responses) to requests for information about judicial branch administration that are required to be given response—or not—under Rule of Court 10.500, governing access to judicial administrative records.
Before approving the recommended procedures, we urge the Judicial Council to direct AOC staff to consider, evaluate and report back on a far simpler approach. That approach will do nothing to solve the problem of reduced staff resources, but should at least make the work somewhat simpler in the sense of simplifying the decisional tree.
It should also permit dispensing with an apparent discretionary filter under which “Who’s asking?” can make a definite difference inconsistent with Rule 10.500’s declared aim to provide access comparable, by and large, to that of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), under which the requester’s identity or purpose are not to be factors considered in making a disclosure decision. Clearly judges may need specific information for practical and official purposes in doing their jobs; those requests are understandably to be given priority outside the Rule 10.500 scheme.
But otherwise, categorically qualifying and properly submitted requests (including those from judges) that reflect a general civic, policy or even political perspective should not be sliced, diced and pigeonholed for better or less better response depending on who the requester is.
Much of the problem that the recommendation identifies is one familiar to CPRA processors: a request for explanation, justification, qualitative or quantitative analysis, listing, etc. that calls on the agency, in effect, to create a new record. This issue is addressed in Rule 10.500 (e) (1) (B): “Nothing in this rule requires a judicial branch entity to create any record or to compile or assemble data in response to a request for judicial administrative records if the judicial branch entity does not compile or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or for provision to other agencies.”
But usually this kind of request can be recast into one which seeks records reflecting or addressing the subject matter of interest, for example treating the question, “Why does the AOC need an employee in China?” as “Please provide any record or records documenting the decision to have an AOC representative in China.” Most requests or queries that do not literally ask for records, in other words, can be converted fairly easily into those that do, and fulfilled accordingly, or declined, either because those records are exempt from disclosure under the Rule, or because they do not exist. The latter situation should be extremely rare: if something about how the branch is or has been run is being researched or questioned, it almost certainly has a documentary history. The records constituting that history can be provided, allowing the requester to draw his or her own conclusions.
A phrasing commonly used by public agencies in answering CPRA-based queries is that the agency has located “records responsive to your request,” meaning that the records are not necessarily those specified in the request but do contain information of the kind that seems to be sought. In fact often requesters cannot specify precisely the records whose contents will best answer their concerns. As the Court of Appeal has pointed out,
“Unquestionably, public records must be described clearly enough to permit the agency to determine whether writings of the type described in the request are under its control. (The CPRA) compels an agency to provide a copy of nonexempt records upon a request ‘which reasonably describes an identifiable record, or information produced therefrom . . .’ However, the requirement of clarity must be tempered by the reality that a requester, having no access to agency files, may be unable to precisely identify the documents sought. Thus, writings may be described by their content. The agency must then determine whether it has such writings under its control and the applicability of any exemption. An agency is thus obliged to search for records based on criteria set forth in the search request.” California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 847, 849 (1998).
Accordingly, Californians Aware requests that the Judicial Council defer approval of the recommended policy pending consideration of the approach suggested here, specification of the kind of request(s) that it could not accommodate, and the reasons why.
Terry Francke
General Counsel
Tags: Administrative Office of the Courts, California Judicial Coouncil, Tani Cantil-Sakauye
← Brown Act Violation Kills Hotel Deal
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sponsored by
RepresentingProperty Owners
Eminent Domain
Like
45
Send
Contact Us
© 2012 CalAware
CalAware is a tax-deductible 501(c)(3) charity. FID #20-1008855
unionman575
December 15, 2012
Thank you for your ongoing efforts CalAware. Keep up the fight!
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/controlling-the-message-public-information-requests/
Since no one spoke to this issue as public comment, perhaps someone (or a few someones) will have their hands raised so that they can comment specifically on this abhorrent proposal when it comes up for discussion. As you indicated, it is coming up after lunch. The AOC treated Mr. Francke’s letter as written comments received.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
Senator Evans deserves a kudos. One for being the only legislator of recent memory to actually attend a judicial council meeting and two, for explaining the competing challenges throughout government.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
…..and the payoff. Please take a look at these two links and you tell me what they have in common.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc-20121214-itemD.pdf
Pay particular attention to “State Bar / AOC Template response”
Note: 500 comments loads kinda slow
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/jcw-special-coverage-of-the-strategic-evaluation-committee-report/
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
And item x discussion begins……..
Judicial Council Watcher
December 14, 2012
No dissent noted. Item x passes with a report due back in 180 days.
To whatever extent we can work to serve as a clearinghouse to log actual requests that are submitted to the AOC as well as the replies back from the AOC, we would wish to work with those interested in preserving open government to keep this system both honorable and credible, We’ll be more than happy to establish a link for the sole purpose of tracking pubinfo requests as long as we’re copied on the initial request. All you need to do is copy judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com with your AOC bound request and we’ll work with you to track the request and determine if it was answered or you got the brush-off.
JusticeCalifornia
December 14, 2012
Re Item X.
LOL. Go Terry Francke. I do believe we have briefly crossed paths before. . . .
I don’t think the branch wants to tangle with Mr. Francke and CalAware.
You kind of have to laugh. Tani has surrounded herself with lots of people who have no idea what they are doing, and/or who are so deeply involved in Team George politics/corruption that there is no turning back. These compromised advisors are swimming in the same pool as those who, like Francke, have been around the block far too many times to count.
Now in contrast I hear Cory Jasperson is experienced, ambitious and smart. That does not equate with ethical. Let’s hope Cory utilizes his interesting new position and his past experience in an ethical manner, designed first and foremost to serve and protect the public. I certainly expect that from him.
Let’s all keep a VERY close eye on Cory, and let’s see what he does.
For years “top leadership” and certain other members of the branch have acted like arrogant, spoiled, wayward teenagers who WILL NOT be told what to do. And we all know how easy it ultimately is for all three branches of government — and outraged others– to crack down on arrogant, spoiled, wayward teenagers who desperately need to be taught a lesson or two.
unionman575
December 15, 2012
It’s real simple…Cory will do he is told or he’s unemployed.
I threw my rose colored glasses in the dumpster years ago…Sigh…
😉
JusticeCalifornia
December 14, 2012
And query: How much in taxpayer funds is the judicial branch spending in legal fees, defending (as opposed to challenging) bad branch behavior that is harmful to the public? And how much in taxpayer funds are all three branches spending in legal fees defending (as opposed to challenging or cleaning up) patently bad behavior of the judicial branch that is harmful the public?
Let’s look at the amount of money that has been spent statewide defending, rather than cleaning up, bad judicial branch behavior. LOL.
unionman575
December 15, 2012
A shitload of cash is being spent.
Wendy Darling
December 14, 2012
Published late this evening, Friday, December 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
New Terms Laid Out in Judicial Information Battle
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California’s Judicial Council on Friday changed its policy on information requests, in response to growing interest from judges in the judiciary’s financial affairs.
The council will now play a larger part in dealing with requests pertaining to council policy, and staff for the Administrative Office of the Courts must defer to council members on how to respond.
The battle over information plays out as part of a larger confrontation between a powerful court bureaucracy and trial court judges critical of the policy and spending choices made by that bureaucracy.
“It wasn’t until we were realizing the hundreds of hours that were being expended in answering the types of requests that we were seeing, that were, honestly, some people have a lot of time on their hands,” said Judge Mary Ann O’Malley.
Skeptical of the new policy, Judge David Lampe called it “an example of unwarranted bureaucratic complexity.”
Retired Judge Charles Horan from Los Angeles, who fought a lengthy information battle with the court bureaucracy earlier this year said rules on information requests were being subverted to withhold information.
He said he would have to wait and see on Friday’s policy changes.
“Any system is only as effective as the good faith of the people running it,” said Horan. “That’s what it will boil down to.”
The language adopted by the council on Friday consists of guidelines on how the administrative office staff should apply the council’s Rule of Court 10.500 titled “Open Access to Public Information.”
The preamble to that rule states, “The intent is to clarify and expand the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.”
Requests for records and information that come into the administrative office will split into groups.
If a question comes from the governor or a legislator, it will go to the court lobbyists.
If a question comes from the press and has to do with policy-making, such as why the director of the court bureaucracy sits on the Judicial Council as a non-voting member, it will by answered by the press liaison.
If a similar question coming from a judge, it follows a differnet route.
When faced with such a question from a judge, the new guidelines say, “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. If yes, appropriate staff will be notified and should respond. If no, refer to Chief’s appointee.”
If a member of the public who asks a question concerning policy, such as why is the administrative office employs attorneys in China, and if that questions “appears to present a legitimate issue or be appropriate for response,” the guidelines say, “refer to direct of Court Operations, Special Services Office, who will consult with Chief’s appointees(s) to determine whether to respond.”
“Otherwise,” the guideline continues, “a response is not necessary.”
Most of the requests for information over the last year came from the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group that has pushed for greater oversight of the bureaucratic agency. Judge Lampe of Kern County is a director of the Alliance and retired Judge Horan is a member.
The Alliance judges point to the language of Rule 10.500 that went into effect in January 2010, saying the rule should be broadly interpreted to give all citizens access to public information.
At Friday’s meeting of the Judicial Council, Justice Harry Hull argued that the staff was flummoxed by many of the questions, such as how many days former judges Roger Warren and Leonard Edwards worked as “scholars-in-residence” for the judicial branch.
At first glance, the question of how many days a particular person worked for a public agency might not seem overwhelming.
The question concerned a program that paid substantial salaries to “scholars,” whose precise work was unclear. It was attacked by the Alliance judges as a waste of money when trial courts were cutting their operations to the bone in the face of the governor’s budget cuts.
“Last spring, it became known to some of us on the Council that the AOC did not really know how to handle some of the requests that have been coming to them and how to respond to certain requests,” Hull said during the council meeting.
He said the questions asked staff to justify council and administrative staff policies, so Hull then took on the job of answering them.
An example of a question that was referred to Justice Hull was one from retired Judge Horan who asked, “I have been told the AOC will reimburse appellate justices 300 to attend the CJA conference this year. Is that true.”
“Is AOC also reimbursing for judges,” asked Horan. He also wanted to know who made the decision.
The conference has been a forum for debate on policies of the court bureaucracy and the council, and those who attend would influence the tenor and outcome of those sometimes heated discussions.
During Friday’s council session, Judge O’Malley of Contra Costa County, a council member who worked on the original information access Rule 10.500, defended the new guidelines.
“These requests when posted to staff were really difficult to determine,” she said. “For instance, and this is coming from another judicial officer, it really puts staff in a very awkward position. They did try to deal with it for months and months and months. It was amazing what it was they were asking for; some were possibly legitimate requests and some I could not see any logic whatsoever in the request. It got to the point of absurdity. It really did.”
Chad Finke, Director of the AOC’s Court Programs and Services Division, said, “As Justice Hull pointed out at some point or other, not only did the amount of time become an issue, but the issue came up — is this really appropriate for staff to be responding to these types of questions?”
The council will revisit the new method in six months, as suggested by Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County, to determine whether judges are getting the information they need.
Reacting to the new guidelines, Lampe suggested the council should have instead kept it simple.
“The council should simply adopt a policy that says, ‘all staff of the AOC shall respond to requests for information, not privileged, from any constitutional judicial officer as soon as can be reasonably accomplished,” said Lampe, “and to keep the requesting judge informed of the process of gathering information if there will be a delay.’ ”
Horan also said the process did not need to be complicated.
“This could be worked out if they behave reasonably and really try to be transparent. This was never an insurmountable problem.”
Horan said that since its adoption, the council has interpreted Rule 10.500 “very narrowly with a view toward withholding information.” He added, “They’ve not been interpreting that rule the way it was meant.”
He accepted the AOC’s complaint about some questions being beyond its purview, such as “questions as to the Judicial Council’s mental processes,” but noted there were many requests that staff could have answered and didn’t, particularly if they originated with the Alliance.
Horan said the attitude of council and AOC leadership will determine the policy’s success. “It’s up to them to make it happen. We’re not hard to satisfy. If the Chief Justice and [AOC Director] Judge Steve Jahr make it clear that the duty of the Judicial Council and the AOC is to fully cooperate with any lawful request for information, it will get done. It starts at the top.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/14/53159.htm
Long live the ACJ.
R. Maino
December 15, 2012
In Maria Dinzeo’s article dated December 14th she quotes Judge Mary Anne O’ Malley as saying that “some people have a lot of time on their hands.” This statement by her brought back a memory of mine from 2007. In 2007 I contacted a member of the Judicial Council about CCMS. I pointed out that it had never been authorized or funded by the Legislature; that it had no business plan; that it had no performance standards; that it had no known completion date; that it had no Plan B in case of failure; and that the cost was unknown. I was told that I “had too much time on my hands” and that I should read a good book or rent a good cowboy movie.
What happened in 2007 is now being repeated in 2012. Here is my example.
In August of 2012 our court submitted a report about our new San Diego County Courthouse. The report is 92 pages long.
On page 16 of the report the total project cost is $605,509,000.00; on page 23 the project cost is said to be $633,934,000.00; on page 54 the project cost is said to be $660,134,000.00.
Apparently these cost estimates do not include the demolition ofthe old courthouse and the bridge from that building to the Hall of Justice; the cost of a 300 foot tunnel through a V earthquake zone which will connect the jail to the new courthouse; or the cost of a 180 foot bridge from the Hall of Justice to the new courthouse. Other costs might or might not be included in these estimates.
So how much will this new courthouse, the crown jewel of the Judicial Council and the AOC’s building program, cost? These are the questions that we ask in good faith. These are questions that as of this date have not been answered.
Yes, we in the ACJ and others have asked a lot of questions and I will grant you that we have at times gone bit overboard. But why does it take so much effort to find out simple answers to simple questions? Why, to give another example, did it take multiple requests and a seperate investigation by some of us, to find out that the AOC had a telecommuting attorneys in both Geneva and Minneapolis?
I thank my friends Judges Horan and Lampe and many others, both inside and outside of the ACJ, for their persistence in asking for information from our judicial leadership.
The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and are not to be taken as coming from the ACJ or my court.
R. Maino
unionman575
December 15, 2012
Thank you your honor.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
December 15, 2012
Thanks Judge Maino. For those of you interested in reading the 92 page report referenced by Judge Maino, we’ve embedded the report in a link at the top of this post.
Additionally, we have linked to a new News 10 story that claims California is a “judicial hellhole.” that was forwarded to us by our favorite AFSCME rep.
Wendy Darling
December 15, 2012
“Why, to give another example, did it take multiple requests and a seperate investigation by some of us, to find out that the AOC had a telecommuting attorneys in both Geneva and Minneapolis? ”
Why? Because they didn’t want to admit, or take responsibility for, the truth. The question remains: Is this the kind of “leadership” that should represent the very branch of government that is supposed to stand for, represent, and defend, the value of telling the truth?
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. The conduct of judicial branch administration, from the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC, both past and current, makes it clear that they have plenty to hide, and are determined to do just that.
And until, and unless, someone, anyone, in a position of authority and responsibility, such as the Department of Justice, stops them, they will continue to do so. Because, in their own words, they can do what they want, and there’s no one to stop them. And so far, they’ve been right.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
BadReputation
December 15, 2012
Well then what is the role of officials in San Diego? There is an obvious and serious problem in the AOC/JC, but they can’t have gotten this far without a lot of local complicity. Remember, San Diego was a primary contributor to the development of CCMS and put a ton of resources into the project.
Wendy Darling
December 15, 2012
San Diego =’s Mike Roddy.
anonymous
December 16, 2012
I wonder if San Diego is going to have to wait until the project is half built to find out that they have to pay for a multi-million dollar tunnel. Is it a part of the bid package? Then it’s included. If it’s penciled in as “future tunnel” then that’s a multi-million dollar AOC surprise. A 55 million dollar difference in the same document. That could represent another courthouse.
The other surprise will be the money supposedly going back in to the fund after the tear- down costs of the old asbestos-laden courthouse are calculated which would result in a net loss to any judicial branch funds. Given that 1407 funds aren’t used to tear down vacant buildings, you’ll probably see a 12 foot fence around the property for years.
unionman575
December 16, 2012
Chain link baby, chain link around that old dead courthouse.
Wendy Darling
December 14, 2012
“It starts at the top.”
Yes, it does, Judge Horan. It most certainly, unquestionably, does. Start at the top.
Serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
December 15, 2012
Or shit flows downhill…
😉
unionman575
December 15, 2012
Another Friday night blue light special from the Death Star…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20182.htm
Council Concerns on Potential Cuts to Court FundingPrint for release
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7738
December 14, 2012
Judicial Council Expresses Concerns About Additional Cuts to Court Funding Council receives update on potential for extra reductions to judicial branch budget
SAN FRANCISCO— At its public meeting on December 14, the Judicial Council heard reports from judicial leaders about the possible impact of additional cuts to the judicial branch.
Since the enactment of the state Budget Act on June 27, 2012, the judicial branch, consistent with budget legislation, has operated on the basis that each trial court had two full years (until June 30, 2014) to spend down accumulated fund balances to 1% of their respective operating budgets to cushion the shock of what has amounted to a one-third cut in operations budgets since fiscal year 2008–2009.
However, judicial leaders involved in budget discussions reported their concerns that $200 million in remaining court fund balances at the end of the 2012–2013 are at risk. Several council members warned of the serious consequences of this potential action.
“When courts heard that fund balances may not be permitted to be carried over after the end of this fiscal year, there was heightened concern that they would have to rapidly change their budget plans over the last year,” said Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and chair of the Judicial Council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee. “Trial courts have used fund balances to mitigate cash flow issues and the budget reductions that have already been imposed on us.”
“Trial courts did not like the elimination of fund balances, as these accounts allow for bridge financing necessary to keep judicial branch business going,” said Judge Allan Hardcastle of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and president of the California Judges Association. “As we pointed out in the negotiations of this year’s budget, one year did not give courts sufficient time to adequately prepare for the change without drastically affecting the ability of the courts to carry out their functions.”
Other items on the council meeting agenda included:
Legislative Priorities for 2013: After receiving the judicial branch budget update, the Judicial Council approved legislative priorities for the judicial branch in 2013, which include advocating to achieve budget stability for the judicial branch, including opposing further budget cuts and advocating for sufficient resources to allow courts to be in a position to reopen closed courts and restore critical staff, programs, and services that were reduced or eliminated in the past several years. This advocacy also would include continued sponsorship of 17 proposals for court efficiencies, cost-savings, and new revenue. Note: The council deferred action on the recommendation to request an additional 50 new judgeships as part of its legislative agenda until further review and consideration by the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee.
Policy on Responding to Requests for Information and Records: The council voted to establish a formal policy to guide staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in responding to public requests for information that is not contained in judicial administrative records, as such requests do not fall within the current AOC procedures for handling requests made under rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court. In approving the new policy, the council made clear that it did not change rule 10.500 or the existing procedures for handling public records requests; the new policy simply ensures increased clarity and direction for AOC staff that receive requests for information not contained in judicial records.
Report on Court Security: The council received the final report from its Court Emergency Response and Security Task Force that recommended maintaining the AOC Office of Security and creating a new Court Security Advisory Committee. In a separate action, the council approved the report’s recommendation to retain the AOC Office of Security. But the council deferred action on the creation of the new advisory committee.
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.
JusticeCalifornia
December 15, 2012
A judge questioning the true cost of a proposed new courthouse in his county was told he “had too much time on his hands” and “should read a good book or rent a good cowboy movie”.
Wow. I’m sorry, but you just can’t make this stuff up.
But Judge Maino and the ACJ shouldn’t feel singled out. The state auditor and the SEC were also SOL with respect to certain of their information requests. . . .And when Justice Scotland insisted that certain information be provided back in the Summer of 2011 I don’t think that went over very well. . . .
As an aside, wasn’t the San Diego courthouse slated to cost over $1 billion at one time? So many of us commenting here on JCW have suggested that the state auditor or law enforcement follow the courthouse construction money to find out who has gotten or was going to get rich in connection with patently overpriced courthouses. . . . .
Why can’t “branch leadership” be straight up and transparent? Why are all the usual suspects circling the wagons and scurrying around trying to hide information? Why are so many different answers given (or not given at all) to the same questions– especially questions about how much things cost, what the contracts said, and what happened to the money? The answer is obvious, isn’t it. . . .and none observing branch leadership’s behavior can be faulted for the negative conclusions being drawn by the public and in all three branches of government about branch leadership’s insular, secretive behavior and conflicting stories. . . .
CA Evidence Code Section 412. If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it
was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.
CA Evidence Code Section 413. In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or
facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party’s failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case.
California Evidence Code Section 780. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court or jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following:
(a) His demeanor while testifying and the manner in which he testifies.
(b) The character of his testimony.
(c) The extent of his capacity to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he testifies.
(d) The extent of his opportunity to perceive any matter about which he testifies.
(e) His character for honesty or veracity or their opposites.
(f) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive.
(g) A statement previously made by him that is consistent with his testimony at the hearing.
(h) A statement made by him that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing.
(i) The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by him.
(j) His attitude toward the action in which he testifies or toward the giving of testimony.
(k) His admission of untruthfulness.
Judicial Council Watcher
December 15, 2012
There she blows citing those facts again. I have it on good word that facts come from books and books are elitist. (At least up until Stephen Colbert started writing his own books….)
😉
unionman575
December 15, 2012
This goes out to the Death Star…
courtflea
December 15, 2012
Oh Justice CA “facts smacs” who needs em?
Judicial Council Watcher
December 15, 2012
I was being cynical. JusticeCalifornia cites the standard by which we consider evidence. It is no less an appropriate standard to apply towards the events we’ve witnessed with respect to the judicial council and the AOC.
Time after time the evidence is as plain as the sun rising in the eastern sky but because this is the judiciary, we and many others set it aside in disbelief or worse, jump to the aid of our “brethren” under fire to prevent anyone from peeling back the layers that would reveal the lies and the corruption and that’s unfortunate. These events undermine the credibility of the judiciary as a whole so those that are the problem work hard to convince those who are honest and ethical that there is no problem without giving them the answers to the questions.
I guess it amounts to some of us loving our state greater than the flawed system that we work in that refuses to right itself. That’s unfortunate and it is unfortunate that governance is so bad that it is necessary to go outside of the branch to seek redress.
unionman575
December 16, 2012
“I guess it amounts to some of us loving our state greater than the flawed system that we work in that refuses to right itself. ”
Bingo!
😉
“
courtflea
December 15, 2012
JCW my friend i was being tounge in cheek as well. If you are a fan of the comic strip non sequetur (my spelling sucks) you would have understood my reference.. the strip writer uses that term when referring to Fox News.
unionman575
December 16, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_Sequitur_(comic_strip)
😉
TheInterpreter'sHere!
January 10, 2013
I seem to have found this conversation far too late, but I wanted to contribute, if possible. I work for the Union that represents court interpreters. I don’t know if we have a reputation, but we try to be even-keeled and reasonable.
Anyway, we are painfully aware of the AOC’s practice of using unspent interpreter funds on other costs. That practice was clearly happening. We’d been trying to track this down and bring it to light for years until the JC brought it up in their own agenda and voted on it publicly.
The one point that I wanted to ask about is the allegation that the AOC denied reimbursement to courts for interpreter services. We’ve been looking and we can’t find any single example of it actually happening. Are there any anecdotes floating around that this happened? There are many courts that don’t even report the purpose of the interpreter reimbursement and they’re still reimbursed.
I think that what *is* happening is that someone at the AOC suggests that there is a possibility the courts won’t be reimbursed for certain services, so the courts are terrified and limit their services to those service types that a so-called, “reimbursable.” That’s part of the reason they’re in trouble with the DOJ.
unionman575
January 10, 2013
LASC has had some recent Interperter “travails” involving the U.S. Dept pf Justice Civil Rights Division and a slight “reorg” in Interperter Services Administration
Ask your folks on the ground over at LASC..
Welcome to the Blog.
😉
TheInterpreter'sHere!
January 10, 2013
Thanks. Believe me, we’re aware. 🙂
Judicial Council Watcher
January 10, 2013
This issue has been whispered to us from both inside and outside of the AOC. I would love for some of those people to post and confirm but I’m afraid it would amount to career ending whistleblowing.