Please note that every underlined item is a link to another article or document.
We’re going to take on the housekeeping matters first. Nearly every day readers find JCW because Yen Interactive Media and others have made it their goal that we own the internet globally on certain issues. For quite awhile, JCW results on all search engines have either immediately followed or topped all returns of the California court system.
This does not come without some pain. Between 50 and 100 times a day each day, JCW is spammed by those that wish to promote their products or services. Nearly every day, we reject posts from those who try to bring their cases to JCW and attack individual courts or individual judges for their work from the bench. Utilizing the ‘benevolent dictator’ model of site moderation straight from Yen’s own site operations manual, we strive to curtail these posts utilizing diplomatic means, inviting prospective posters to post, yet firmly asserting our responsibility to stay on message. We also invite these posters to use a signature line on their posts pointing to their own site on the internet where they have the right to make their own case. All of this is spelled out on our about and privacy page.
Due to an increasing influx of such posts, a reminder is in order that while we respect your first amendment right to free speech, this site is run by a private entity that has no obligation towards preserving those rights. Our focus of this site is the mismanagement of the AOC and the abdication of Judicial Council oversight responsibility, which we refer to as the proverbial head of the snake. While we discourage attacking judicial officers or whole courts for their official acts and decisions, their administrative acts in support of or how they relate to the judicial council and the AOC are fair game and this is often how we (and others) toss the sycophants under the bus regardless of who they are or how well respected others believe they should be.
If you don’t wish to end up in digital purgatory or ridiculed on these pages for your administrative acts, the solution is simple. Don’t be a dumbass. Don’t lie to (or come up with another version of the truth to) the branch or the public. Don’t purport to represent something you clearly have no interest in (like AOC access and diversity, transparency or accountability) Don’t be a brown-nosing sycophant and toss the rest of the branch and the public under the bus just to move your own career aspirations forward & don’t be an overpaid mismanager that manages to keep their job.
We also wish to remind our detractors that we accept and are willing to publish articles in opposition to us so feel free to give us your best shot. (Where’s Dredd?)
________________________________________
On to documents of curiosity that you might be interested in. Stephen Jahr’s report to the council on AOC activities. While most of this report is interesting, we would like to call your attention to page 13 titled AOC staffing metrics. At the top of this page is this language: In the last month, 32 long-term employment agency temporary staff were converted to regular employees. Were these competitive job announcements? No. Were they announced on the AOC’s website? No Why could they not wait until after January 1 to make these conversions and do you believe like we do that it was irresponsible to not have competitive job announcements or that they made these hires BEFORE the new pension rules kicked in? Way to go Jahr. Can we have your resignation please? It would have been much worse we’re told but a certain article dampened the partying mood over at the AOC.
On page 14 of this document we’d like to call you attention to the definition of contractors employed by the AOC. There are 63.5 contractors still employed by the AOC. The AOC defines a contractor as Individuals augmenting the work of the AOC and providing services for a limited period of time or on a specific project, where a particular skill set is required that is either (1) not within an existing AOC classification and/or job description or (2) where recruitment issues require the use of a contractor.
This is where all the really high-paying jobs are. If you conduct one-man studies for the AOC, you can bill out a half million dollars a year. Since the recruitment issue is that they don’t wish to put these types of contracts out to competitive bid and wish to employ someone in particular with a really high paying job, they have them hide behind a corporate veil. The 63.5 contractors employed by the AOC amount to an incalculable multi-million dollar expenditure. We’re going to toss out number and tell you first that it’s not accurate but representative. Are you ready? These contractors cost you in excess of 15 million dollars a year in direct billables. Indirect billables are the projects they’re attached to.
Right now, the AOC is authorized 815 positions. They claim they have only filled 703 positions and have a 13.7% vacancy rate, yet have 801 people employed. The Governors proposed budget raises the AOC head count to 844.4, adding approximately 30 new positions to the AOC and it appears that most of these jobs are being added to the facilities program. Build less facilities, hire more people to do it. That’s the AOC way.
The total proposed AOC budget is 414 million dollars and the headcount continues to grow, grow grow.
________________________________________
.
Judge Bea was born in 1934 in San Sebastián, Spain, and emigrated with his family in 1939 to Cuba to avoid the Nazis. He represented Cuba as a member of the country’s basketball team in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics. Some time after moving to the United States, he was put into deportation proceedings for allegedly avoiding the draft. He offered to be drafted in order to cure the apparent violation, but the immigration judge refused as the Korean War had already ended. He won his appeal at the Board of Immigration Appeals, which opined that the lower court had abused its discretion.Judge Bea is a graduate of Stanford University. He received his BA in 1956 and his JD from Stanford Law School in 1958. He became a naturalized citizen in 1959. In 1990 he took the bench in San Francisco as a Superior Court Judge. He served there until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit in 2003. The Senate confirmed him on September 29, 2003, by a vote of 86–0. His son is former Olympic rower Sebastian Bea.
.
This will be an interesting, educational and entertaining conference that will have 120 judges in attendance. Respected First District Court of Appeal Justice J. Anthony Kline, when informed about the conference, said: “This sounds to me like the type of educational program that ought to be promoted.”
The hundred million dollar sickout
You know, if, on June 30th a budget passes that permits the AOC to raise their head count, a budget that costs the people of the state of California 414 million dollars misdirected to the judicial council and court facilities over the courts, a budget that continues to permit them to claw back tens of millions more from the trial courts, I hear you’re going to be sick as a dog, unable to work for a whole week between July 1 and July 5. Word on the street is that thousands of other judicial branch employees, judges and clerks alike will also be catching this virus. Of course if a hundred million dollars is redirected from the judicial council budget to the trial courts, I’m told that this will serve as an innoculation. I don’t know how much truth there is to this story but I hear the press is asking about it and planning on visiting the mausoleums to justice during that week….
Related articles
- The May Revise – 4 months to make a difference (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Setting up the courts for an AOC takeover? (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Death Star politics from the White House to San Francisco (judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com)
- Taking On the American Corporatocracy (DailyKos.com)
unionman575
January 17, 2013
You usual fine work JCW.
That Jahrhead report is unreal with those AOC staffing metrics.
😉
unionman575
January 17, 2013
IWith all the Trial Court Layoffs throughout CA, I am waiting for the “hammer” to drop with a Trial Court Act case along these lines..
(Trial Court Act GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 8, CHAPTER 7,
TRIAL COURT EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION AND GOVERNANCE ACT)
http://www.caperb.com/2013/01/16/perb-employer-must-negotiate-number-of-employees-subject-to-layoff/
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
January 17, 2013
After being contacted by some union reps, we’re told that the hundred million dollar virus is real and that you should contact them to find out if it is spreading in your court.
R. Campomadera
January 17, 2013
Run on Opinion page of yesterday’s Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/16/5117550/local-court-loses-amid-raids-bad.html
wearyant
January 17, 2013
Lightning speed at adding 30 — THIRTY — contractors to the bloated AOC bureaucracy as employees and those bastards are still dithering about the well thought out recommendations by the SEC that hundreds of letters support. Hope the pin-headed ditherers wither! (apologies to Justice Arthur Gilbert)
wearyant
January 17, 2013
I stand corrected. THIRTY-TWO — 32 — additional people to the current horde the AOC carries within their bloat! And they STILL “burn the midnight oil” and work “nights and weekends.” What rubbish!
Rough draft of Jahr head’s remarks today at the clown meeting:
“We are initiating the first of a two step approach in respect to temporary and contract staff in light of the reports that observed that there is additional expense associated with retaining on a long-term basis temporary employees and contract staff. We have made a conversion of 32 long-term temp agency staff to regular employee status. This approach is consistent with the goal of ensuring the appropriate use of temporary workers to meet short-term needs and this has no effect on the overall total workforce numbers because the numbers embrace those categories in a similar but they staff or, a plan is being to develop to convert long-term contractors is appropriate to reduce the costs. Once again, these have no immediate impact on and will not have a future impact on the numbers that I laid out for you. So, we believe that these steps as they are ongoing will address a workload need and reduce dependency on the temporary untracked worker categories and also maintain institutional knowledge in such critical areas as facilities and IT, the latter of which, as all of you know, has a number of contract staff.”
Such tripe. Anyone who has been in the workforce for a week knows it’s more expensive to maintain full-time employees rather than contract out to an agency. If Jahr head really believes this trash he’s uttering, he surely should not be the ADOC.
unionman575
January 17, 2013
“And they STILL “burn the midnight oil” and work “nights and weekends.” What rubbish!”
I agree with you Ant 100% – It is BULLSHIT.
But I will tell you one thing that’s postive, JCW burns the midnight oil all the time.
😉
wearyant
January 17, 2013
I’m thankful for you, Unionman575, and JCW.
Wendy Darling
January 17, 2013
Here’s the funny thing, Ant: the AOC didn’t (and still doesn’t) report temporary and contract staff as “employees” to the State Controller, under the theory that the AOC doesn’t actually “employ” these people. So by now adding these temporary and contract staff as FTE’s, it more than cancels out the token 34 AOC employees that got “laid off.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
January 17, 2013
From today’s Capitol Accounts tweets at The Recorder:
Capital Accounts@CapitalAccounts
Judicial Council ices courthouse projects in Sacto, LA, Nevada Cty & Fresno to free up $ for public-private financed Long Beach courthouse.
http://twitter.com/CapitalAccounts
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 17, 2013
Long Beach was just another HUGE Death Star waste of cash.
R. Campomadera
January 17, 2013
And who gets to pay the price of such folly? Those at the Death Star responsible for the mess? No! The trial courts, as usual.
unionman575
January 17, 2013
Yeah Trial Courts take it in the a** everytime.
wearyant
January 17, 2013
Some thoughts after looking at Judge Rosenberg’s remarks following:
ROUGH DRAFT of Judge Rosenberg:
“First of all, this is a really fine discussion and I want to commend everyone. I think there were legitimate concerns raised regarding the interpreter issues and constitutional issues such as the confrontation clause. I think the issues will need to be sorted out, primarily in the development of an appropriate form, which that is something judges do all the time. I think we need to make sure that the waivers are knowing and intelligent and I am confident that the judges will do that — or judicial officers, as the case may be. Ultimately, I think we have to give trial courts the ability to be imaginative and innovative and to provide equal access to justice in difficult times. Ideally, we would have courthouses conveniently located in communities. We do not have that ability or luxury anymore.
“We have to undertake innovation, while making sure that as we develop these pilot programs to broaden them, we have protected everyone’s rights. The devil is in the detail. It is in the form that we use. I am certainly willing to launch this process.
“I said I am certainly willing to launch this process, because I think we have to make sure that we give our trial courts the ability to be imaginative and innovative in these times. I am completely in support of it, with the understanding that we are going to develop appropriate forms and these forms will evolve to make sure that rights are protected.”
==========================================================
I have a question. What is the difference between a judge and a judicial officer? I remember a judge mentioning here at JCW that he really disliked the term “judicial officer.” Is it a term that our beloved AOC has come up with? They have a strange penchant for changing the meaning of words, usually within their grubby desires to meet their personal and selfish objectives regardless of the means used. And the AOC portends to teach ethics. What a joke! After working over a quarter century with the courts, I’ve grown to hate the word “innovative.” And I wish the JC/AOC would stop using the word “transparent.” They obviously do not know what that word means.
Also, what about the comment that community courthouses are a luxury we no longer have? That sad fact has come about directly through the AOC’s mismanagement of public funds. And I disagree that community courthouses are a luxury.
What about the confrontation clause in the constitution? Is that just a meddlesome factor that is in the JC/AOC’s path to continuing their questionable business as usual? When the AOC is challenged in their riotous living, they tend to push back at those who cannot defend themselves or are weak, i.e., the poorer counties, say, Fresno. Who cares about them in their tule and methamphetamine fog? Those large, outlying areas where it’s difficult to get to the courthouse and of course all the branch courts have been shuttered, again, thanks to the JC/AOC mismanagement of public funds. Some new court forms can handle these tiresome rights provided by the constitution. Yeah, right. The answer to everything, a new form. They say this pilot program is temporary. Yeah, right. Once the video cameras are in, they will stay. Follow the money. Who will benefit from this technology being installed in perhaps every court up and down California? Don’t think the defendants won’t be pressured to waive their rights and “get on with it.” Everyone will be waiting and staring at them. I haven’t even broached the interpreter issue. I’m the interpreters are aware and were at the meeting to be heard. Probably didn’t do any good with the elitist eggheads, but at least whoever else was listening was witness to their remarks.
I’m sorry at the length of this post. I am just really heartbroken at what the California justice system is coming to at the hands of these mindless, greedy bureaucrats. Hate to watch it all crumble away. What hurts too is that the branch made it through the wild, wooly days of the Los Angeles growth through the 1800s and alleged rampant corruption that followed, plus the Great Depression. Our justice system is going down at the hands of form creators? Gawd. God help us all.
unionman575
January 17, 2013
“Ideally, we would have courthouses conveniently located in communities. We do not have that ability or luxury anymore. ”
My, my my, Judge Rosenberg you certainly are a legend in your own mind…
unionman575
January 17, 2013
Ant, you are never “too long” in your comments. Rock on.
😉
The OBT
January 18, 2013
While all trial courts suffer laying off long time valued employees the AOC apparently just converted 32 part time employees to full time status. It is remarkable that in an environment that is so devastating to the line staff of the trial courts that the AOC would take this action and that the JC would allow it. Living in the tower at 455 Golden Gate certainly appears to lead to losing touch.
Lando
January 18, 2013
Your out of touch. Hall and Oates from the 80’s. In fact the AOC’s hiring of 32 more employees is so out of touch it is an outrage. Almost every trial court has had to significantly reduce staff due to massive imposed budget cuts. It would be a leap of faith not to conclude that the state wide budget cuts were motivated in part by the JC/AOC’s waste of millions on CCMS, over the top courthouse construction projects and layers of unnecessary staff at the crystal palace. Yet despite all that , the JC/AOC hires new full time employees by the dozens. You can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Delilah
January 18, 2013
Judicial Council Approves Traffic Court via Video
By Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
January 17, 2013
SACRAMENTO — The Judicial Council on Thursday authorized courts to handle traffic infraction proceedings by remote-location video despite the objections of criminal defense attorneys and interpreters.
This article requires premium access
unionman575
January 18, 2013
http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/20609197/gov-brown-wants-to-raise-fees-to-fund-courts
Gov. Brown Wants to Raise Fees to Fund Courts
Posted: Jan 16, 2013 9:50 PM PST
By Debbie Milius
SACRAMENTO, Calif.–Californians may face higher court fees in the future. That’s if Governor Brown’s portion of the budget to fund state courts is passed by the Legislature.
The Governor’s spending proposal for state courts includes a hike in fees to oppose traffic tickets by mail and even an increase in costs for clerks to search and retrieve multiple case files for Californians. Brown says the increased costs to taxpayers will help offset nearly 2-hundred million dollars in cuts to the state’s trial court system in the 2014-15 fiscal year.
The budget plan also calls for the price for a paper copy of a court record to go up to 1 dollar per page.
While costs may go up, dozens of court houses in California are cutting back on staffing. Many courthouses have reduced hours and even closed offices to save money, while the state’s caseload is growing.
😉
Wendy Darling
January 18, 2013
Published today, Friday, January 18, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Votes In Remote Video Traffic Cases
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – After hearing grim reports of how trial courts are reacting to proposed budget plans, California’s Judicial Council approved a cost-saving measure that lets courts hear traffic cases via remote video.
The pilot project will take some pressure off of Fresno County, which has recently shut down seven outlying courthouses in rural areas because it could not afford to keep them open.
Advocates of the project, which allows defendants in traffic cases to make court appearances remotely, noted that defendants often have to travel 120 miles for arraignments and hearings. Criminal defense attorneys and court interpreters meanwhile staunchly oppose the constitutionality of the program, saying defendants have the right to confront police officers in court and have an interpreter on hand.
But council judges saw the new rule as a way of solving Fresno’s current access crisis, and generally making courts more accessible to residents of rural counties.
Justice Marvin Baxter of Fresno said the council shouldn’t “micromanage” courts trying to find creative solutions to budget problems.
“When I started my career as a lawyer in Fresno, I used to go out to those rural courts,” Baxter said. “I would drive out to Firebaugh. I would drive out to Coalinga. I would drive out to Kerman, and these were major undertakings.”
“And if your car happened to break down halfway between Fresno and Firebaugh, you might be lost for a few days,” he added, to laughter around the council table. “And if someone suggested to me at that time that, within my lifetime, those courts would be eliminated, I would have bet the ranch against it. But it did happen, and it really created a very difficult situation.”
He added: “They did what they had to do. This proposal is limited to traffic infractions. There are greater problems out there. I think the last thing we want to do is to micromanage the Fresno Superior Court. Those judges are perfectly capable of hearing these arguments on confrontation and other related arguments and presumably they will make just decisions based on the facts before them.”
Assistant Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County said he thought most people would prefer to appear remotely in traffic infraction cases.
“If you took a vote of the general populace and said to them, ‘You can come to court and try your case, or you could actually stay home and have a video camera and try your traffic citation in your living room,’ how many people would go for that,” Kaufman asked. “I think just about everybody would. I trust the trial judges to develop a way of handling it in their courts and make sure that justice is done and they are not going to let anybody’s rights be trampled on.”
Fresno’s dire financial situation is not unique, as Los Angeles also gears up to close 10 regional courthouses by June. The outlook is equally bleak in other parts of the state, as Judge Allan Hardcastle of Sonoma County said in a presentation earlier in the council meeting that a visit to the Lake County court revealed low morale among court employees.
“Their issues are the same that we have statewide, but it is profound when you go to a county and see the dramatic affect,” Hardcastle said. “They are only down 11 employees, so that doesn’t sound like much until you realize that that is more than 35 percent of their workforce. Their staff morale, unfortunately, is extremely low. What is really sad – I think it is unacceptable – they have folks that are ‘full-time employees’ who are on food stamps. That is sad to hear. Many of them got tearful in the two-hour meeting that they had with me. They are very upset. They feel they cannot achieve what they believe to be access to justice.”
In the face of ongoing budget cuts and little relief from Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget package for this fiscal year, the council also decided to scrap plans to ask the governor and Legislature for more judgeships.
“It is more important to keep the courts open,” Justice Baxter said. “It is more important to provide the basics of assess to justice and keep the focus on those primary issues.”
Presiding Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County cast one of only two dissenting votes on the matter, the other belonging to Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth of Riverside.
“It sends the wrong message,” Rosenberg said. “It sends a message that filling the needs of the judiciary for the needs of the state and the public is of a lower priority. I don’t want to keep deferring this. There are courts out there like Riverside that are grossly under-judged, if you will. They need many more judges because of the growth of the caseload and growth of population.”
Earlier in the meeting, Rosenberg pointed out that the judiciary accounts for 2.2 percent of the state’s overall budget, compared to 3 percent years earlier.
“The judiciary’s workload has not decreased,” Rosenberg said. “Yet our total support within the state budget has decreased substantially.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/18/54070.htm
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 18, 2013
full time court staff on food stamps……and Rosenberg wants more judges. Shut your pie hole Dave.
Wendy Darling
January 18, 2013
Rosenberg is so concerned about sending”the wrong message”. What kind of a “wrong message” does he think is sent when judicial branch administration and “leadership” lie to the State Legislature? Or throw away a half billion dollars plus on an IT project that produces absolutely nothing of value? Or when judicial branch administration and “leadership”never takes responsibility for their mismanagement and misconduct? And that’s just a short list.
Branch administration and “leadership” have done little else but send “the wrong message” to Sacramento and the general public for quite some time now. Maybe Rosenberg could work on correcting some of those “wrong messages” before admonishing the Governor and the State Legislature about needing more judges while trial courts all over the state are reducing services, closing courthouses, and laying off trial court staff.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 18, 2013
I remember that, working for the courts and (some employees) qualifying for food stamps in our county, yeah. Not exactly politically correct, no? Another not too bright judge asked through a message why no consideration as to cost-of-living increases for judges? Wow. No, now is not the time to push for more judges. Hellllooooo, you, up there in that high and mighty tower, come down to earth once in a while …. afraid to mingle with the huddled, unwashed masses, are ye? 😉
wearyant
January 18, 2013
An excerpt from Wendy D’s post above re The Courthouse News:
===========================================================
Assistant Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County said he thought most people would prefer to appear remotely in traffic infraction cases.
“If you took a vote of the general populace and said to them, ‘You can come to court and try your case, or you could actually stay home and have a video camera and try your traffic citation in your living room,’ how many people would go for that,” Kaufman asked. “I think just about everybody would. I trust the trial judges to develop a way of handling it in their courts and make sure that justice is done and they are not going to let anybody’s rights be trampled on.”
===========================================================
Excuse me, but is that what this pilot project is really proposing? That citizens may appear in court via video camera from their own living rooms? And this is going to be tried in perhaps every county in California? Um, is Judge Kaufman confusing this remote control viewing with the JC/AOC/CJ office’s largess to their telecommuting employees from Switzerland and a couple eastern states in America that is ongoing? Another extremely outrageous extravagance that continues and continues unabated by the imbeciles within the AOC bureaucracy. Those special employees should be ordered to return immediately — say, like last year — or put on administrative leave without pay. That could be done — oh, it can’t? Why not, do they know where the bodies are buried?
Michael Paul
January 18, 2013
Most computers sold today have webcams and while it would be effortless for most people to choose to use Yahoo, google or some other system to communicate with the courts from home which is what Judge Ira Kaufman is alluding to, this is not the proposal. The whole state would jump on Kaufman’s proposal.
The proposal is to use fixed video that is bonafide video conferencing software from a remote center, possibly a room in a local police station, city hall or some other public building far away from the court. This is the expensive, private circuit feed method vs, the stay at home and use your webcam method.
It’s amazing these people approve the proposal or speak authoritatively about the proposal without even knowing what the proposal consists of.
– Mind-numbing-
Wendy Darling
January 18, 2013
“It’s amazing these people approve the proposal or speak authoritatively about the proposal without even knowing what the proposal consists of.”
Not all that amazing when you accept the fact that the puppets on the judicial council just vote the way the AOC tells them to. No thinking required, and questions not welcomed. Just shut up and obey. And that’s what the voting members of the judicial council do time after time after time after time, ad nauseum.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
January 19, 2013
Too bad. If I wasn’t already working I would have loved to take this on, having deployed the IP videoconferencing systems already installed in several AOC facilities and all appellate courts.
Judge Kaufman’s idea is totally doable and someone wise within the court system should indeed contact Yahoo or Google to see if this is a project that they would be willing to take on… or issue an RFP and make sure they get a copy of it as opposed to just posting it on-site. They wouldn’t normally respond to an RFP like this. But making court web pages and integrating them with local courts so that web cams could be used from home is an idea whose time has come and the technology already exists today to make this a low hanging fruit reality.
Internally, the entire New York court system already benefits from sip (session internet protocol) technology and can desk-to-desk videoconference each other. And so can 5DCA as I recall.
For all of the reasons it’s a great idea, it is also all the reasons that it won’t go down this way. It makes too much sense for the JC\AOC. There is decorum lost in the web cam. There’s inevitably going to be some idiot that looks like they just got out of bed and are still in their jammies. There’s going to be another idiot that has 40 pot plants growing behind him while his web cam is on. This can be easily mitigated but it would be the decorum argument that will carry the day and make this an expensive closed circuit solution.
courtflea
January 18, 2013
Indeed Michael, Ira Kaufman himself is mind numbing. What a dumbass.
wearyant
January 18, 2013
Michael and CourtFlea, these mind-numbing dumbasses, who currently appear to hold unfettered power over all beleaguered California citizens and our judicial branch must be forced to step down — somehow. If I knew and had the power, they would all be gone. What really set me off was the 32 additional people added to the current bloated horde. Outrageous. On top of all the other unconscionable waste!! Beyond belief. Someone should write a soap opera or a nonfiction book. As others far superior to me have said here, you just can’t make this stuff up — really!
wearyant
January 18, 2013
I’m sorry, J Bruiniers and accomplice JC/AOC/CJ, but Elaine Howle still expects to be advised about your shenanigans. San Luis Obispo may say they are responsible for the CMS purchase and the AOC only “advised,” but c’mon, we all know that ain’t gonna cut it. The state auditor still requires and deserves a report after the audit. Would y’all like to have another audit?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/18/54083.htm
courtflea
January 18, 2013
Wearyant, the goal of JCW, in addition to this blog should be writing a book/expose’ on all of the shitty stuff us current/former/retired court AOC/employees could contribute. All proceeds going to the recall Tani effort! Shut your piehole dave’s website should certainly be included 🙂 Proposed title: the california judicial branch. you can’t make this stuff up.
wearyant
January 18, 2013
Hey, Flea, these crumb-bums may go down in history. Their ancestors will be reading about them decades from now. As JusticeCalifornia says, document and report! This stuff they’re doing is too good to be forgotten. Sheila, my dear, you will go down in history! 😀
courtflea
January 19, 2013
Hey Michaael, they can solve the decorum problem simply by halting the session and requiring the jerk to come to the courthouse. Remember, this a a convience for them, as well as better access to justice. BTW, I have seen folks come to court in PJs. Usually the 18 to 25 year old age group. The county where this ocurred shall remain nameless.
wearyant
January 19, 2013
Shouldn’t a report be made to the state auditor Elaine Howle on the cost budget analysis of these additional 32 employees at the AOC?
Judicial Council Watcher
January 20, 2013
Not only is it the 32 employees that went temp to perm in December but they’re still on-boarding people in the month of January. Additionally, the governors proposed budget adds another 30 bodies to the head count over at the AOC for approved BCP’s (budget change proposals).
While the SEC report, Mike Feuer, The Alliance of California Judges, a good majority of Los Angeles judges and a majority of the 500 people commenting upon the SEC report all endorsed reforms related to the downsizing of the AOC, either we have to believe Steven Jahr, Jody Patel & company went off the range or that the Judicial Council endorses the adding of these 70+ positions to the AOC’s head count based on SEC report findings.
As we said long ago, there has never been a reorg at the AOC that has not resulted in the AOC increasing its size, expanding its mission and increasing the numbers and layers of management staff.
wearyant
January 20, 2013
“Additionally, the governors proposed budget adds another 30 bodies to the head count over at the AOC for approved BCP’s (budget change proposals).”
Does anyone know why, in the world, GuvMoonbeam would agree to this? More bodies to the already extremely bloated (everyone who is sane agrees) AOC bureaucracy? Was it a bargaining point that he couldn’t refuse? And why? Skeletons in his closet too? The JC/AOC/CJ had a poker chip to play?
Lando
January 20, 2013
Another important question is what could those 32 positions possibly be for ? Courthouse construction has been radically cut back with the exception of the Long Beach fiasco. CCMS is gone and so must those rooms full of people in Southern California depicted in Ms Kozak’s classic video where we were at the “tipping point ” , just days away from CCMS going live state wide.The CJER Unit actually to their credit has been developing more web based judicial education so that reduces the need for AOC employees to be on site in some expensive hotel. The OGC already overstaffed can’t possibly be growing. Accordingly, there is no reasonable explanation for this unjustified growth at 455 Golden Gate. The CJ and J Jahr then owe us all a specific explanation as to how and why the AOC continues to expand while they say they have imposed a hiring freeze and while the trial courts and the public we serve continue to suffer.
Michael Paul
January 20, 2013
Who knows what fancy titles they go by today but the facilities maintenance people from around the state that worked out of AOC field offices were mostly Apple One temps spanning from Redding to San Diego and every point in between.
Each location has one or two regular AOC employees and the rest of the employees in each office were Apple One temps handing out AOC business cards.
As I understand it, this represents a majority of those conversions from temp to perm along with some IT people. Generally speaking, these people should have never been temporary workers. However, having them as AOC workers is not necessarily in the local courts best interests either.
Because of a closely held approved vendors list managed by the vendors on behalf of the AOC, the courts do not get as much value from the work performed that they would get by going out to local vendors and getting three bids and performing the work themselves.
As I refused to use the top-tier contractors who managed the vendors lists and were all unlicensed contractors, I would often (with the courts and AOC’s consent no less…) go get three independent bids and submit my recommendations. My recommendations usually carried the day and the work was performed without the use of AOC’s approved vendors list vendors. They were usually local companies local to the court that were awarded this work and did the work inexpensively.
When dollars available to perform work became an issue,(because the top-tier unlicensed vendors charged too much) the task to get the work done was often transferred to me and I would use the same money-saving procedure to get the work done. it was AOC management in four different AOC divisions including my own division that relied on my talent to deliver and the finance division that blessed my frugality and performance on these tasks.
Raul O. did networking and rack mounted UPS’s in the trial courts and I seemed to get everything else, like freestanding UPS’s, environmental control, wiring, cabinets, racks and electrical. It worked well and resulted in significant cost savings.
PS courtflea: I’m writing a book, though I hope any proceeds reimburse my significant investment in calling everyone’s attention to what’s going on in the branch, which I currently estimate to be around 280K – and growing.
Wendy Darling
January 20, 2013
In AOC speak, “hiring freeze” =’s hiring like crazy.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 20, 2013
Look forward to reading it Michael, and thank you for your service of keeping us informed.
wearyant
January 20, 2013
Yes, me too, Michael, and please have a kindle edition made. 😀
Delilah
January 20, 2013
All I can do is roll my eyes anymore. The CJ and Jahr are answerable to NO ONE. Oh, and It’s all the Governor’s fault now (see below).
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Calif-Judges-Say-Courts-Under-Budget-Cut-Siege-187663821.html
Wendy Darling
January 20, 2013
That continues to be the failed game plan of branch “leadership” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Delilah. Blame others, such as “rebel” judges, or the State Legislature, and, now, the Governor, for the problems in judicial branch administration, and just demand “more money,” while taking no responsibility for branch mismanagement and misconduct. Answerable to no one, indeed, and arrogant about it to boot. No wonder the whining of the Chief Justice is falling on deaf ears in Sacramento. I reached a point of utter disgust some time ago, and can’t fault either the State Legislature or the Governor for not just giving branch “leadership” more money as it would just be throwing good money after bad. And more money isn’t going to fix what is really wrong in the California Judicial Branch.
Can anyone name just one substantive act of accountablity and administrative integrity by the current Chief Justice since she took office? Just one? (Crickets chirping.)
As a voting member of the Judicial Council, and now as Chief Justice, she has knowingly and willingly supported, endorsed, and voted for, the very acts of mismanagement and misconduct that created this mess and brought the branch to its current state of ruin and disgrace. Having made those decisions, she has forfeited the right to whine and complain of the consequences those decisions have wrought. She should either shut up or resign.
But, hey, we’ll have a brand new crystal palace in Long Beach. And CCMS is finished, and it works.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
January 20, 2013
>>As a voting member of the Judicial Council, and now as Chief Justice, she has knowingly and willingly supported, endorsed, and voted for, the very acts of mismanagement and misconduct that created this mess and brought the branch to its current state of ruin and disgrace. Having made those decisions, she has forfeited the right to whine and complain of the consequences those decisions have wrought. She should either shut up or resign.<<
AMEN, Wendy. Or, as an alternative: http://recalltani.wordpress.com
We need to bring it!!
Judicial Council Watcher
January 20, 2013
Write this date down in history! JCW and the chief justice ACTUALLY AGREE on something! A 50.00 fee to challenge your citation by mail is PAY TO PLAY and will raise hardly any money. But it will cost the state money when someone looking to avoid paying that fee goes to court instead.
Jerry – Think DMV Fees. An average of 40.00 per vehicle would wipe out all budgetary losses over the last 5 years. Think of declaring California Corporations (except for homeowners associations and co-ops) non-persons not subject to the benefits of Prop 13 and pay down that wall of debt really fast.
Wendy Darling
January 20, 2013
But there’s plenty of money to keep hiring and adding positions at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Sunday, January 20, from The Sacramento Bee:
Judicial officials say it’s time to restore California court funding
By Jeremy B. White
As many California lawmakers herald a budget proposal that appears to restore fiscal stability to the state, some court officials have a different message: It’s not enough.
Under Gov. Jerry Brown’s blueprint, the court system would be compelled to transfer $200 million from a special construction fund to keep its operating budget at the same level as last year. The budget would also have trial courts draw their reserves down to 1 percent, depleting them to a level that critics say leaves the courts vulnerable.
While judicial officials have praised Brown for not cutting more deeply, they argue that another year of diminished funding will impede their ability to swiftly handle matters before the court.
Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, agrees. She will seek to restore some of the money that has been cut as California has sparred with soaring deficits, an effort she has unsuccessfully taken up in recent years.
“We’ve been cutting and slashing the justice system funding for several years now to the point where we’re closing courtroom doors all around the state, and it’s impossible to administer justice when you don’t have adequate courtrooms and adequate judges and adequate staffing,” Evans said.
Years of general fund cutbacks – about $1.2 billion total since 2008, including $475 million from trial courts – have already forced courts to recalibrate. While California does not keep comprehensive statewide data on the impact of court funding, a county-by-county breakdown in a judicial branch website reveals a litany of reduced hours, vacant positions, shuttered courthouses and eliminated programs for handling domestic violence and family law.
The Administrative Office of the Courts estimated in October that trial courts statewide were operating with about 250 fewer judicial officers – a category that encompasses justices, judges, commissioners and referees – than needed.
As of last July, Los Angeles County saw the number of available positions shrink by nearly 900, or about 16 percent of its total workforce; Sacramento County has shed 230 employees over the last five years, just under 27 percent.
The consequences of annual cuts have resembled “triage in an emergency room,” said Nancy Drabble, chief executive officer for Consumer Attorneys of California, a group that advocates for plaintiffs’ lawyers.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/20/5126939/judicial-officials-say-its-time.html#storylink=cpy
Long live the ACJ.