Something has been bothering us for a few weeks now and we think we need your help in developing an understanding of the why. The thing that has been bothering us is the Judicial Councils legislative priority of fully funding 50 new judgeships when current judges statewide don’t have enough staff to operate a courtroom and that most of the current judges without staff are reduced to pushing paper because they have no court staff.
It doesn’t make any sense to us to fully fund 50 more judges when they will have no staff to support them, nor an open, available courtroom to conduct the courts business. What we do see is that funding these positions amounts to a permanent increase in the funding going to the branch in general. New money to remodel, renovate or add more courtrooms. Statewide, over 200 courtrooms have been closed by 1.2 billion dollars in budget cuts. Dozens of courthouses have been shut down. Thousands of court employees have lost their jobs. Hundreds of judges currently do other kinds of work that does not require a full compliment of court staff because there is not court staff to support them.
So why would we hire another 50 judges to do little more than sit around waiting for – or looking for something to do?
The only thing that comes to mind is the money that would go towards AOC’s operations to accommodate 50 new judgeships. Construction money, pegged at 750K per courtroom. Additional operations monies to run those 50 courtrooms. While it would cost a small fraction of that to take one of the 200+ courtrooms out of mothballs, there seems to be no effort to re-open existing courtrooms or courthouses and that re-opening of these courtrooms or courthouses is not a legislative priority. Someone a few weeks ago gave us a figure and indicated a fully staffed courtroom, with supporting staff in the courthouse have an operational cost that is pegged at 2.4 million dollars.
Yet even in our analysis of current court budgets, that figure seems outlandish when considering current allocations as many courts seem to be able to operate a courtroom for less than a half million dollars per year. When one analyzes the facts on the ground, adding even one more judge (or even filling a judicial vacancy) makes no sense until the existing courtrooms are re-opened to serve the public.
Until existing judges have enough staff to actually conduct the courts business. What appears is that the JC\AOC gets a big lump of cash to build or remodel a courtroom, the balance of the funds aren’t dedicated to that courtroom but are redistributed via a formula so that everyone gets a share of this operational money, leaving everyone in the same existing lurch of not having enough staff to open the courtroom they built or remodeled.
It doesn’t make any sense to us. If it doesn’t make any sense to us, how could it make any sense to the other two branches of government?
We’re hoping there is someone out there that can explain to us via the private message window or a comment why it makes sense to add an additional 50 judges when over 200 judges occupy mothballed courtrooms today without any support staff. To access our private message window, click here :https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher – Note that if you are in-the-know, we might have additional questions and wish to confidentially converse with you over this subject.
Judicial Council Watcher 
R Campomadera
January 21, 2013
It makes perfect sense, once you realize the game is always about getting as much new money as possible, not using what you have more efficiently.
Wendy Darling
January 21, 2013
What R Campomadera said.
And can anyone remember the last time that branch “leadership” did anything that actually made sense? [More crickets chirping.]
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 21, 2013
That’s just reckless. Surveying the landscape, there really seems to be an effort to “fund the judicial branch” and “fund 50 new judgeships” “Fund Long Beach” “fund a new case management system”
Where is the message “fund my court”, “fund my existing staff so we can reopen courtrooms” ?
A recent discussion with an attorney suggested that this is a bold move to to privatize our civil justice system. I’m not sure I disagree with that.
Wendy Darling
January 21, 2013
“That’s just reckless.” Yep. And that is a predominant behavior trait of current branch “leadership” — reckless.
And where is the message on behalf of the trial courts, JCW? 455 Golden Gate Avenue doesn’t really care about the trial courts, with the singular exception of currently using them as an excuse to demand “more money” from Sacramento. Have we already forgetten how hard branch “leadership”, and especially the Chief Justice, fought and lobbied against the provisions of AB 1208 for funds to go directly to the trial courts?
Curt Sonderlund openly talked about how a fiscal crisis in branch funding would provide the AOC with a golden opportunity to finally gain direct and absolute control over trail court operations and trial court funds. Nothing has changed about this. For 455 Golden Gate Avenue it’s not about courtrooms closing, trial court staff being laid off, or judges not having anything to do. It’s just about the money, and especially about getting the money and having control of the money.
People need to stop deluding themselves that “more money” would fix what is really wrong with the California Judicial Branch.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 21, 2013
Where is the message “fund my court”, “fund my existing staff so we can reopen courtrooms” ?
The Death Star is NOT giving that message.
Get me a bucket
Wendy Darling
January 21, 2013
Exactly right, Unionman. Because it’s all about them.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
January 21, 2013
Yeah, JCW, what Campomadera and Wendy D said. By now we all know the JC/AOC/CJ goals are not about the well-being of the third branch or common sense or providing justice to California citizens. The bloated bureaucracy is all about themselves, not only just stayin’ alive, but livin’ large. It appears that the piggies will all still be here getting fat long after we’re all gone. They’re all about THE MONEY. Yes, they are reckless. It’s working for them thus far so why not?
Lando
January 22, 2013
JCW I think I understand this. On the one hand the JC/AOC is asserting we need judgeships in areas impacted by large population growth such as the Valley and the Inland Empire. On the other hand they are ignoring that budget cutbacks have reduced existing courthouses , court employees that provide service to the public and judicial positions including leaving judges without courtrooms and commissioners without jobs . What is consistent in all of this is the leadership in the branch expects they should be funded for the projects they like, 50 new judges and a over budget courthouse in Long Beach. That same JC leadership does not accept any responsibility for the budget cutbacks that have closed entire courthouses , led to the layoffs of Commissioners and eliminated staff to support public access to the courts. The JC/AOC sees no connection between wasting half a billion dollars on CCMS and probably an equal amount on overpriced new courthouses and unnecessary bureaucrats at 455 Golden Gate and the current budget woes we are facing. Instead it appears the JC/AOC will blame anyone else, the legislature, the Governor or their critics within the branch for their significant budget problems. What they aren’t getting is that no one is buying their approach because they won’t ever admit they messed up and do things like hiring 32 more employees while everyone else is reducing staff. The answer is simple. We need to democratize the JC and recall the CJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
January 22, 2013
Thanks, Lando. That really seems to be what it is all about. The Judicial Council’s “leadership” simply ignoring all of the other problems and pushing forward with their own self-centered agenda, damn court workers and damn the taxpaying public.
At least in this latest volley of articles it appears some people have had an epiphany and moved away from that co-equal branch argument which was solid reasoning for the implementation of new budget cuts. Someone appears to have got that message…
It is and has been judicial council “leaderships” feigned ignorance of the issues that gets the branch as a whole in hot water that has led to budget cuts. Unfortunately, this feigned ignorance does not bode well for any increase in funding at any level without the other levels disowning this feigned ignorance.
unionman575
January 22, 2013
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project
😉
NewsViews
January 22, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
unionman575
January 22, 2013
And now a word from Dave Rosenberg…
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22423266/judges-say-state-courts-under-siege-from-cuts
Judges say state courts under siege from cuts, but Yolo bucks trend
By DON FRANCES/and Associated Press
Created: 01/22/2013 12:35:47 AM PST
Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget, with its heavy focus on education and scant mention of courts, is a disappointment to many judges statewide. But in Yolo County, lean budgeting early on has spared the courts much of the worst of it.
Over the past few years, cuts have closed courtrooms around the state, halted new construction and taken a toll on the administration of justice. And the most recent budget — which still must be approved by the Legislature — is no exception, taking another $200 million from court construction funds.
Ten courthouses are set to close in Los Angeles County alone, and seven will close in Fresno County. Some people with legal problems in San Bernardino and Humboldt counties may have to drive hours to find a courtroom.
But Yolo County has been more fortunate, with the historic Courthouse staying afloat while plans remain intact for a new Courthouse at 1000 Main Street.
“Yolo is not as badly hit as other courts,” said Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg in an email. “That’s because we anticipated tough times years ago, and we ran very lean for many years. For example, years ago (before it became fashionable) we closed courthouses in communities such as Davis and West Sacramento, and consolidated in Woodland.”
With the new Main Street courthouse still on track, bonds for the $161.5 million project — a 14-courtroom, 163,000-square-foot structure — were sold in late October. Construction is expected to begin in a few weeks and end by May 2015.
“Yolo moved rapidly and got in under the wire for new courthouses,” Rosenberg said. “We were at the top of the food chain for need and we stayed there. We had to cut back costs — like everyone else — but we were not delayed.”
Not all courthouse projects have fared so well. On Thursday the Judicial Council — tasked with implementing budget cuts to the state court system — voted to delay construction of a new Sacramento County criminal courthouse. Similar delays were approved for projects in Nevada, Los Angeles and Fresno counties.
H.D. Palmer, Brown’s spokesman on budget and financial issues, defended the proposed cuts by saying that “Compared to other parts of the state budget, the state has found a way to keep these court budgets operating at a stable level.”
But California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye says “crisis issues” such as domestic violence, landlord-tenant matters and child custody cases are suffering badly statewide due to lack of funding.
“Everyone expects courts to be there when they need them,” she said. “When you need us, you need us desperately and immediately.”
Advocates for more court funding point to a 2011 study showing courts have failed victims ever since budget cuts that began with the recession. It documented a man’s fight against eviction that took so long he died before he could return to his home. It also cited the case of an abused San Diego woman who slept in her car outside a courthouse to get a restraining order because she couldn’t get a hearing due to reduced court hours.
Business disputes go unresolved, the report said, and victims of fraudulent foreclosures are unable to get into court.
Judge Rosenberg confirmed that court services have suffered in Yolo County too.
“We still have lost staff which has resulted in shorter public window hours, and delays in back-office work” such as filing, he said. “If this trend continues, we will be slammed hard in Fiscal Year 2014-15. And if our ‘reserves’ are diminished to 1 percent we will not be able to handle cash flow such as payroll.”
Part of Brown’s budget proposes new court fees, such as $50 to fight a traffic ticket by mail and $1 per page for photocopying documents. That suggestion gets a thumbs down from Cantil-Sakauye, who calls it “pay for play.”
Follow Don Frances at twitter.com/donjfran
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
January 22, 2013
A regular pioneer that Dave…. shutting down access to justice long before it was fashionable.
Wendy Darling
January 22, 2013
That really says it all about the current state of judicial branch administration and “leadership”, that it is now “fashionable” to close courthouses, shutter courtrooms, reduce court service hours, and lay off trial court staff. Some of us can’t even swallow that it’s even acceptable, much less “fashionable.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 22, 2013
JCW this conundrum is worthy of Anderson Cooper’s Ridiculist.
Shut your gob Dave.
The OBT
January 22, 2013
Closing courthouses before it was “fashionable”? Does the “insider” J Rosenberg also believe it is ” fashionable ” for people to lose their jobs once these courthouses are closed? Does he also believe it is ” fashionable ” for a crime victim, juror or small claims litigant to drive for hours to even get to a courthouse ? Does he believe it is ” fashionable” for judicial officers who once worked in these closed courthouses to no longer have a staff or a job ? I do know what isn’t ” fashionable”, bragging about your ” accomplishments” while court employees all a cross the state are losing their jobs and court services to the public are radically reduced.
Wendy Darling
January 22, 2013
Some of us would like to see indictments and handcuffs come back into fashion, especially for some “fashionable” people at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Speaking of being fashionable, can’t help but notice that the Attorney General’s Office is being fashionably tardy in responding to that quo warranto petition.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
January 22, 2013
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=115zra2zhpc1pcu&xid=115xj6wktau5liq&done=.115zra2zhpcbpcu
That day in court may take a while
By Greg Lucas | 01/22/13 6:00 AM PST
Resolving a divorce, a custody tussle, a contract dispute, a landlord tenant fight, an unpaid debt or any number of multimillion-dollar or small claims civil issues takes longer and costs more than it used to.
And it’ll get costlier and even more time-consuming, experts say, because of the steady diet of state budget cuts force fed to the courts in California, the nation’s largest judicial system. Since June of 2009, the state general fund’s share of the court’s $3.1 billion budget has fallen from 56 percent to 20 percent.
“Devastating,” is how Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, describes the impact of the five years of reductions totaling $1.2 billion. The chief justice echoes many of her colleagues on the bench – and those who appear before them.
The burden of the cuts appears to fall hardest on Californians who might not have the means to hire a lawyer. Self-help centers designed to assist them have been curtailed or eliminated.
Increasingly, Californians are spending more time and expense commuting to a court and waiting there for service, all the while being absent from work.
In some cases that delay can be dangerous, like having to wait several days to a week for a restraining order in a domestic violence dispute.
“A lot of things are being delayed and some will have severe consequences,” said Allan Zaremberg, CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. “And it’s those people who can least afford to have their lives disrupted that are the ones most impacted.”
In his budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Gov. Jerry Brown proposed a $200 million reduction in state support for courts. The impact on court operations would be blunted by taking a like amount earmarked for court construction and spending it on court operations.
In light of the Democratic governor’s move, the Judicial Council voted Jan. 17 to “indefinitely delay” four courthouse projects in Sacramento, Nevada, Los Angeles, and Fresno counties. Seven other projects were delayed in October, also for budget reasons.
Brown says he has treated courts significantly better than other parts of state government in his budgets.
But, he argues, closing the spending gaps of $26.6 billion and $15.7 billion in his first two budgets required belt-tightening by everyone.
Courts point out that Brown’s proposed actions for the next fiscal year follow a one-time cut of nearly $500 million this year. Like Brown’s current proposal, much of this year’s reduction was offset by $120 million in fee increases and transfers from the court’s construction fund and other sources.
Boosting filing fees, tapping reserve accounts and diverting nearly $1 billion from courthouse capital improvements have helped cover some lost revenue.\
So has the closing of courtrooms all over the state.
Some permanently.
Los Angeles announced in November the shuttering of 10 regional courthouses including those in Malibu, Pomona, San Pedro and Avalon on Catalina Island.
Earlier in 2012, the state’s largest county announced closing 56 courtrooms by June 30 to close a $30 million operating hole.
The result – just like in other parts of the state – is longer waits, delayed trials and furloughed or laid off court workers.
When it announced the courtroom closures last spring, Los Angeles also said it would no longer provide court reporters for civil trials.
And, the court noted, 329 of its employees had been pink–slipped over the prior two years while 229 retired and their positions left vacant. Still, Los Angeles targeted another 100 non-courtroom personnel for lay-offs.
Over the past four fiscal years, the state Judicial Council says its number of “permanent filled staffing positions” in the state court system has been reduced by 2,263, a 12 percent reduction.
“We should all be alarmed. Every single one of us,” says Sen. Noreen Evans, a Santa Rosa Democrat who chairs the upper house’s Judiciary Committee.
“There can’t be a healthy, functioning democracy without a healthy judiciary.”
The courts are a separate branch of government. They can’t reduce their workload or ratchet down costs by restricting “eligibility.”
On the other hand, their autonomy – each of the state’s 58 counties has its own court – makes it difficult to gauge operational efficiencies and implement across-the-board cost-savings solutions.
Brown says he has respected the unique position of the courts.
His previous two budgets — and his proposed spending plan for the fiscal year beginning July 1 — treat courts fairly benignly compared to other recipients of state revenue.
Public schools, for example, have been shorted $9.3 billion over the past five years. The budget for state universities was cut by 25 percent.
But the Democratic governor stresses that the one-time measures that have helped court funding stay relatively stable will be used up by 2014.
“We may not be able to do what we’ve done so far after this next budget,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brown’s Department of Finance. “The court’s reserves and the balances in the other funds will be pretty much drawn down. Ways have to be found to achieve additional savings.”
Courts say that Brown’s insistence they spend down their reserves to no more than 1 percent of their overall budgets is unworkable. One percent isn’t enough to cope with monthly cash challenges.
“We’re trying very hard to persuade the legislative and executive branches that this 1 percent fund balance rule should be reversed,” said Judge Steven Jahr, a retired Shasta County jurist named administrative director of the courts last summer.
“Reserves allow courts to advance costs. Make payroll. It’s a savings account that can be utilized for cash flow needs,” Jahr told Capitol Weekly. “ If you don’t have a savings account or fund balance to manage those issues, you’ve got a big problem.”
Under the law, criminal matters take precedent over civil. So, on the natural, civil matters take longer before they’re heard.
Cutbacks have sharply lengthened that wait.
In Sacramento County, a law and motion hearing is now calendared for eight months in the future. The usual wait used to be one month, Zaremberg said.
The time between a Shasta County judge issuing a temporary custody and visitation order and a final one has grown from six weeks to three months.
Small claims court, which handles disputes involving up to $7,500, has also felt the impact.
While plenty of lawyers are available to volunteer to as judges, fewer court workers has meant insufficient personnel to staff courtrooms.
“Like everyone else, the courts should look to become more efficient,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, a Sacramento Democrat. “But ultimately we have to be prepared to put more general tax money into them because, like education, the courts benefit all of us.”
The state’s 58 courts have taken different steps to meet the drop in revenue from the state.
Besides Los Angeles, 38 other counties have either closed courtrooms and courthouses or reduced hours of operation, according to the Judicial Council.
Alameda now shuts its Court Clerk’s office at 2:30 pm.
Fresno closed courthouses in Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Kingsburg, Reedley and Sanger.
San Bernardino announced the closing in May of its Barstow courthouse.
Rather than close courtrooms or courthouses outright, some counties restrict the places certain cases can be heard.
Los Angeles has limited time-sensitive landlord tenant disputes to five or six locations throughout the 4,752 square mile county. There is no venue for landlord tenant matters in the rental-rich San Fernando Valley causing landlords and renters there to search for another courthouse.
Besides being physically harder to file an unlawful detainer – for delinquent rent, eviction or both — it’s also more expensive.
Five years ago, filing a landlord-tenant case ranged from $195 to $315. Now it’s a low of $240 and a high of $385, the court says.
A civil filing fee – divorce, custody, probate – has climbed from a high of $320 in 2008 to $435 in 2012 – more than a 25 percent increase.
The base fine for running a red light has jumped from $425 in 2008 to $542 in 2012, the court says. During the same period, speeding tickets grew by $99 to $290.
Critics of the cutbacks say the impact of closing satellite courthouses or courtrooms ripples throughout the justice system.
Fewer available courtrooms mean even criminal trials with priority won’t come to trial as quickly. Inmates housed in already overcrowded jails will be held longer.
If a peace officer normally patrolling Malibu, Coalinga or Barstow, for example, is summoned to the county seat to testify about a traffic violation or some other legal matter, that can be a full day of law enforcement lost to those smaller communities.
Financially, to increase services, the courts need more money from the state or other sources like higher fees, although judge and others acknowledge fees can be boosted only so much.
Dickinson says the issue involves more than just money.
“Beyond the tangible consequences, if you start to eviscerate the third leg of the stool, you start to undercut the basic belief in there being a fair and civilized way to resolve disputes.”
—
Ed’s Note: Greg Lucas, a contributing editor of Capitol Weekly, is the editor of California’s Capitol and the host of Politics on Tap on the California Channel.
Lando
January 22, 2013
Judge Rosenberg is Exhibit 1 in the case to democratize the Judicial Council. If his comments above don’t convince you, check out his own webpage complete with a picture of him affixed to the top left corner. Pretty amazing stuff.
JusticeCalifornia
January 23, 2013
Re 50 new judges while courtrooms are being closed:
The number one priority of public servants must be to serve the public.
The Office of the Chief Justice has the constitutional and statutory authority to temporarily redistribute sitting judges statewide.
There should be a primary roster of sitting judges who VOLUNTARILY offer to serve TEMPORARILY as an assigned judge in other counties.
There should be a secondary roster of sitting judges who have light calendars and are available to serve TEMPORARILY as an assigned judge in other counties.
I have to believe a number of sitting judges would view a couple of temporary all-expense paid assignments per year as an interesting adventure.
Re Judge Rosenberg’s really tasteless comment characterizing shutting down courthouses as “fashionable” — it seems he simply cannot overcome his foot-in-mouth problem. He seems so impressed by himself, and the fact that he has been allowed into the faux ivory-tower inner circle the Office of the Chief Justice has created and fostered (he seems to forget his humiliating public bitch slap when he once spoke out against CCMS at that one judicial council meeting).
Wendy Darling
January 23, 2013
“He seems to forget his humiliating public bitch slap when he once spoke out against CCMS at that one judicial council meeting.” After that, he drank the Kool-Aid, Justice California. It causes a person to forget a lot ot things.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
January 23, 2013
Yeah Lando I love Rosenberg’s website, the “portrait” and the characture of him. I hope it appears in Michael Paul’s book. Gotta have some humor amongst the tales of corruption. You can’t make an gob/ego like that up!