March 21, 2013
Dear Members and Others,
It seems like yesterday when respected State Auditor Elaine Howle issued her scathing report on CCMS. To those in the Legislature and Governor’s Office that audit turned out to be a game changer. No longer would the judicial branch get a free pass on cost estimates, competency or managerial abilities. And thanks to our sister branches of government the plug was finally pulled on the most costly computer boondoggle our state has ever witnessed.
The day before yesterday the State Auditor released her findings on “Judicial Branch Procurement,” which echoes many of the observations made in that February 2011 audit of CCMS. Here is a link to that report. What follows are merely highlights from the audit:
- The AOC’s semiannual report was “neither accurate nor complete with respect to data from the superior courts.”
- The AOC “filtered certain transactions out of the report.”
- There were instances “where the semiannual report was missing information…….and where the semiannual report provided inaccurate cost data.”
- “During the course of our audit we relied on the AOC’s semiannual report….We stopped testing when it became clear that the report contained a number of inaccuracies.”
The Alliance wishes to allay any concerns you may have regarding these findings as the AOC has “asserted that it has corrected the problems that caused these errors and that they will not occur in future semiannual reports.” You will also be relieved to know that in many of these instances the AOC indicated “that the errors were the result of flaws in the extraction process that it has since corrected.” You will likewise be satisfied to hear that as to the other inaccuracies, omissions, and flat out wrong information provided to the State Auditor, “the program used to extract the courts’ data contained a programming error that has since been corrected.”
As to the six local trial courts that were audited, we ask you to read the report for yourself and compare those findings against those of the AOC. The State Auditor appears to be committed to getting to the bottom of what is happening in the central office. On page 12 she writes: “Further, we anticipate conducting a review of the Phoenix system concurrent with our audit of the AOC’s procurement practices at a future date.” To that the Alliance says: Godspeed!
The Alliance would ask however, that the State Auditor not confine herself to AOC procurements only. A real independent audit must be conducted concerning the maintenance and construction programs. Too much money is on the line to give the bureaucracy that has a historical record of recklessness with public dollars the ability to conduct business as usual.
Which brings us back to the dysfunctional and inbred system of branch governance which is designed to turn a blind eye in order to speak with one voice. We need a truly diverse group of judges, democratically elected to appropriately manage and oversee the morass that is the AOC.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
Related articles
- Audit: California courts’ statewide financial report incomplete (blogs.sacbee.com)
- Time is running out for court funding group & Council Meeting Commentary (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
unionman575
March 21, 2013
Way to go ACJ. It’s hammer time.
I hope the auditor does an audit of the maintenance and construction programs.
😉
MaxRebo5
March 21, 2013
Agreed. Keep it going ACJ and State Auditor.
I work in procurements for the Executive Branch now and there are so many controls for state agencies on how money is spent (which is good). For example, all state agencies in the Executive Branch have to spend 25% of their procurement dollars with CA certified small busineses (SB’s) and 3% with disabled veteran business enterprises (DVBE’s). The agencies in the Exec Branch work really hard to meet these goals and support CA small businesses/DVBE’s. They even compete against one another in a healthy competition to see who can get the most SB/DVBE participation and receive awards for excellence in procurements called the State Agency Recognition Awards (SARA).
Is the Judicial Branch helping to support CA SB’s and DVBE’s with the billions of 1407 bond funds it was provided or just on IT projects and regular procurements? My guess is the anwer is no. I know for High Speed Rail the state is planning to have 30% of the money go to CA certified small businesses to help keep limited taxpayer money in the hands of CA small businesses in this recession. That’s simply expected in the Executive Branch when doing procurements and is the right thing to do to help CA small businesses who are the ones employing CA workers and paying taxes to fund government projects.
So how is the AOC doing in hiring certified CA SB/DVBE businesses on all of the courthouse construction projects? 0%, 5%, 25%, 50%, 100%? I’d really like to know.
I believe the branch just finished last year their own procedures for procurements and I bet the state auditor and legislature will see that they are inadequate compared to state standards for the Executive Branch. Go get em Elaine Howle!
Wendy Darling
March 21, 2013
Some of us have been big fans of Elaine Howle and the Bureau of State Audits since the BSA released the audit of CCMS and AOC “management” practices. 🙂
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
March 22, 2013
The amazing thing is that it never ends for the Judicial Council and AOC. The “pay for view”, new audit problems and the Judicial Council’s recent shocking support of telecommuting are just the latest in a continuing list of problems that the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate create for the branch and the public we serve. I think in college the concept was described as “Groupthink” , essentially where no one ever dissented and bad public policy decisions were made. The lack of any meaningful discussion and dissent at the crystal palace leads to all these miscues. What is disturbing is that the same bad decisions are made long after HRH1, Vickrey and Overholt left the building. Hmm, it is like they never really left. As Wendy says the more things change at 455 Golden Gate, the more things stay the same. The solution ?We need to enact Woodhull’s proposal and bring democracy back to the judicial branch in California.
unionman575
March 22, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
😉
unionman575
March 22, 2013
The solution ?
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project
😉
The OBT
March 22, 2013
Lando raises a great point I have long wondered about. You would think that something would have changed within the way the JC and AOC were administered after Ronald George, Bill Vickrey and George’s henchman, Richard Huffman all exited. Remarkably it is as if all of them are still here running the show. Despite the SEC report, we continue to see blundering on a variety of issues, and a total lack of dissent at the JC level. My guess is that Ronald George is actually still running things behind the puppet regime of our current CJ. It is the only logical explanation for the continuing mess we find ourselves in.
unionman575
March 22, 2013
Who is going to pay for this?
Nothing like UNFUNDED MANDATES…
😉
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/22/laura-law-judge-mental-illness/
LAURA’S LAW WOULD FACE UNDERSTAFFED COURT SYSTEM
By Logan Jenkins6 a.m.March 22, 2013
I’ve received many smart personal responses to a series of columns about Laura’s Law, controversial state legislation that allows the creation of a special court to order defiantly and dangerously mentally ill individuals into treatment.
However, one email from a Superior Court judge delivers a dark cloud of depression that must be lifted if Laura’s Law is ever going to be woven into San Diego County’s safety net.
To allow the judge to speak freely (and, thank God, irreverently), I granted his request for anonymity.
“I have been reading with interest your columns regarding implementation of Laura’s Law,” the judge begins.
“Unfortunately, in this age of budget constraints, it is one thing to direct the court to have a special court since we have many such mandates — some imposed by statute and some self-imposed — but the current and sad realities of the California judicial system is that although we have plenty of judges in San Diego County (although one can quarrel with the allocation; i.e., North County loses a total of one judge every calendar year who are never replaced and currently we have three completely closed/locked courtrooms with neither judge nor staff while downtown has a surfeit of judges), we have no staff.
“Layoffs of courtroom and business office staff have approached well over 40 percent, and in some instances the very indicia of a justice system has been removed.
“For example, in family court where daily we make important decisions not just involving dissolution but children and issues of domestic violence, we have lost roughly 25 percent of our working staff and no longer have the services of certified shorthand reporters.
“The courts have throughout the years not only have had to deal with mandates from the Legislature regarding such ‘special courts’ such as Proposition 36 (drug court), veterans court, parole court and (with the criminal realignment laws) new duties regarding probation of recently incarcerated parolees, we also have internally developed ‘feel good’ courts without direction or mandate from the Legislature such as yet another drug court (essentially a AA meeting run by a judge and in a courthouse), homeless court and specialized criminal courts dealing solely with domestic violence issues — none of which we are required to do by statute.
“All of these mandates, whether legislatively required or not, require court staff. We will always have plenty of judges since we are political appointees and this is a ‘plum’ to be awarded; however, the real muscle in a justice system are the nonjudicial employees which are always the first to be eliminated or laid off.
“Our staff (not the judges, of course) are facing a 10 percent pay cut by means of furlough and many positions have been eliminated. The end result is the taxpaying citizens are having to wait hours in long lines only to find the business office has been closed early.
“If blame is to be assessed, there is plenty to go around. Our leadership is intent on building a $200 million new and unnecessary downtown courthouse which will be nice but, of course, we have no employees to staff the building.
unionman575
March 22, 2013
“If blame is to be assessed, there is plenty to go around. Our leadership is intent on building a $200 million new and unnecessary downtown courthouse which will be nice but, of course, we have no employees to staff the building.
Michael Paul
March 22, 2013
I don’t mean to correct a judge but said judge is off by a factor of three.
San Diego’s new court will cost 620 million, they will have no employees to staff the building but worst of all, they probably won’t have enough cash to move in to the building and we know that the AOC doesn’t have the cash to maintain the building. Until they work out all of these details with the other two branches, courthouse construction should be frozen.
http://courts.ca.gov/facilities-sandiego.htm
Michael Paul
March 22, 2013
Then there is the onerous SB289 by Lou Correa. If this bill passes, over 50% of all drivers will be considered DUI because various surveys indicate that approximately that amount of people smoked a joint in the last 30 days.
Zero tolerance laws never work but this one will bring an end to the civil justice system that is on life support now. This is a dumb law that the people of California cannot afford. It will clog our already underfunded courts and will needlessly destroy peoples lives.
SB 289, as introduced, Correa. Vehicles: driving under the
influence: drugs.
Existing law prohibits a person who is under the influence of any
alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any
alcoholic beverage and drug, or who has 0.08% or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood, or who is addicted to the use of any
drug, to drive a vehicle. Existing law also makes it unlawful to
drive under the influence and cause bodily injury to another person.
This bill would make it unlawful for a person to drive a motor
vehicle if his or her blood contains any detectable amount of a drug
classified in Schedules I, II, III, or IV of the California Uniform
Controlled Substance Act, unless the drug was consumed in accordance
with a valid prescription issued to the person by a licensed health
care practitioner. By expanding the scope of the crime of driving
under the influence of a drug, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by
Section 2 of Chapter 753 of the Statutes of 2012, is amended to read:
23152. (a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person’s blood is based upon grams of alcohol
per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.
(c) It is unlawful for a person who is addicted to the use of any
drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person
who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved
pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of
Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(d) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor
vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.
(e) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any
drug to drive a vehicle.
(f) It is unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her
blood contains any detectable amount of a drug classified in Schedule
I, II, III, or IV under the California Uniform Controlled Substances
Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and
Safety Code), unless the drug was consumed in accordance with a valid
prescription issued to the person by a licensed health care
practitioner.
(f)
( g) It is unlawful for a person who is
under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to
drive a vehicle.
(g)
( h) This section shall become operative on
January 1, 2014.
SEC. 2. Section 23153 of the Vehicle Code, as amended by Section 5
of Chapter 753 of the Statutes of 2012, is amended to read:
23153. (a) It is unlawful for a person, while under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any
act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving
the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to
any person other than the driver.
(b) It is unlawful for a person, while having 0.08 percent or
more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle
and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty
imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect
proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after driving.
(c) In proving the person neglected any duty imposed by law in
driving the vehicle, it is not necessary to prove that any specific
section of this code was violated.
(d) It is unlawful for a person, while having 0.04 percent or
more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial
motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, and concurrently to do
any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in
driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily
injury to any person other than the driver.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of performance of a chemical test within three
hours after driving.
(e) It is unlawful for a person, while under the influence of any
drug, to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by
law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which
act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other
than the driver.
(f) It is unlawful for a person to drive a vehicle if his or her
blood contains any detectable amount of a drug classified in Schedule
I, II, III, or IV under the California Uniform Controlled Substances
Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and
Safety Code), unless the drug was consumed in accordance with a valid
prescription issued to the person by a licensed health care
practitioner.
(f)
( g) It is unlawful for a person, while
under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to
drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or
neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or
neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the
driver.
(g)
( h) This section shall become operative on
January 1, 2014.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
unionman575
March 22, 2013
you have mail
Michael Paul
March 22, 2013
P.S. PLEASE AUDIT the facilities construction and maintenance programs at the AOC.
courtflea
March 22, 2013
well well. Fasten your seat belt Mr. Judnick for a taste of your own medicine. But lucky for you Ms. Howle is a real auditor and knows what she is doing. Unlike you and the AOC and she does not conduct witch hunts.
Neo
March 22, 2013
Another solution would to be call back all the funds placed into offshore accounts, that has been taken off of the public at large and fill all the coffers until its topped off, reduce criminal charges against people that have no legislative enactments, and install State auditor as Chief of staff auditor for AOC, with no exceptions… A run away government is of no use to society and tax payers. running the Judicial Branch as a profit making machine is prohibited by Law/ and a conflict of interest to the job they are being paid to do.
Wendy Darling
March 22, 2013
Leave it to Maria Dinzeo to know how to start a weekend conversation. Published today, Friday, March 22, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Wave of Criticism Meets Court Admin Office Idea for New Fee
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – The California court bureaucracy’s campaign to assess a $10-per-file fee for every record request has brought a tide of criticism from key legislators, judges and newspapers, saying the proposed legislation would “bring the shades down” and “have a negative impact on our democracy.”
“When we use the judicial system like that we’re neutralizing the ability to enforce our laws, which will have a negative impact on our democracy,” said state Senator Noreen Evans, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “A document fee reduces transparency in government, denies access to public records and it also impacts journalists who cover the courts.”
The democrat from Santa Rosa is also a member of the courts’ policy making Judicial Council. She has been a staunch defender of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and supported many initiatives from the chief’s staff in the administrative office, the same bureaucracy that is pushing the new search fee. Evans’ opposition is a strong indicator of the way the wind is blowing on legislation to enact the fee.
Evans also slammed Governor Brown’s Department of Finance which is backing the proposal, saying the Brown administration is strong-arming the courts into become a fee-for-service branch of government. “The Department of Finance is forcing the courts to try to raise fees,” said Evans. “What the Department of Finance doesn’t understand is the judicial branch is not just another agency of government that can raise fees.”
A second key legislator, Senator Loni Hancock, who chairs the budget subcommittee vetting the bill to assess the fee, is also critical of the charge.
“Piecemeal fee increases can add up to a real lack of access for reporters, for low income and middle income people as they seek our justice system,” said Hancock in a recent interview. “So in the interest of transparency in a democracy as well as access to justice for all people, it’s of great concern to me to increase those fees.”
Under existing law in California, courts charge $15 for searches of court records that take over 10 minutes. The proposal put forward by the administrative office and backed by Brown would change the government code to charge $10 for every name, file or information that comes back on any search, regardless of the time spent.
The rationale behind the new fee has been varied and muddled.
The bureaucrats from the administrative office first said the fee was aimed at data miners but did not provide a definition of who they are. Then they said they needed money for the courts even though they cannot say what funds, if any, the fee would bring in. Then they said simply they did not have stop watches — to measure the ten minutes that the current law requires before a search triggers a fee.
Most searches are quick and come back in much less time. But, as the judges and legislators pointed out, the new fee would also cause anyone to think twice before asking to look at court records.
For news organizations that routinely review a large number of court files in their work, the new fee would quickly add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, newspaper reporter reviewing the new cases for news would be hit with a ten-dollar fee for every case reviewed, a sum that would add up to roughly $400 a day in San Jose’s superior court and $700 a day in San Francisco.
Judge Steve White in Sacramento described the proposed legislation as a “ham-handed” piece of work by the administrators for the courts.
“It would put almost anyone who covers court news out of business,” said White. “Whether that’s the intention or not, that would be the result. Through that lens you can appreciate that it’s not much different than asking a cover charge to watch the trials we preside over.”
Among the state’s newspapers and television stations, the fee idea has worked as a self-inflicted black eye for the courts’ administrative office.
SF Gate, for example, published a story about the $10 per file search fee entitled “Fee Would Sock Public for Court Records.”
An editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat was titled “Price-gouging plan to fund state courts.”
Underneath a photo of the chief justice, the newspaper contrasted the chief’s call for “equal justice for all” in her state of the courts address with the actions of her staffs in proposing the fee. The newspaper described it as “an astonishingly bad idea to raise money for the courts – charging $10 for so much as a peek at any file in any courthouse.”
The Press Democrat added, “Arbitrary and excessive fees would put some information services out of business. Just as important, they would be a deterrent to journalists and citizens wanting to do research or to simply follow a court case. Price gouging will only push the state further from her goal of justice for all.
The story has also been picked up by TV stations KPBS and ABC’s Channel 10 in San Diego.
ABC noted the statement the concession by the head administrator for the courts that the fee was not sound policy.
“Steven Jahr, administrative director of the courts, agrees that it’s not `sound policy’ and says the courts want the Legislature to restore funding,” said the ABC story “But he says the fee will be necessary if Brown and lawmakers do not increase the court budget.
Confusion over the story has also been inadvertently spread by the administrative office and the Judicial Council.
The Press Democrat’s story said, “The search fee alone would generate $6 million for the Judicial Council,” an estimate repeated by the Fresno Bee.
But the estimate is incorrect.
A separate proposal to raise copy fees from 50 cents a page to $1 a page is estimated to raise $ 6 million, according to the report of the Public Coordination Liaison Committee of the Judicial council. The search fee, however, does not have any estimated fiscal impact.
“The amount of revenue this proposal will bring in is impossible to estimate,” said the Judicial Council’s public coordination committee.
A spokesman for the governor’s finance department, H.D. Palmer, defended the inability of his department to predict any financial impact from the new fee by saying individual courts have been inconsistent. He then pointed to the different costs for copies of documents placed online by the courts in Sacramento and Orange County.
“As an example, our legal staff advise that Sacramento Superior County provides documents free of charge, whereas counties like Orange will charge,” said Palmer.
In fact, neither court charges for a search of its records. No court in California with online records charges for a search of those records.
Courts traditionally charge to make copies of documents. Sacramento provides online copies of the documents for no charge while Orange County charges between 7.50 and $40 for online copies of documents, depending on the number of pages. No judge or court clerk has so far suggested that Orange County or any other court should set a flat copy fee of $10 for document copies, which is what the call for consistency would suggest.
Senator Evans said she was disturbed by the lack of cogent analysis behind the search fee.
“If we’re going to go to the extent to force citizens to pay for access to justice, we’d better darn well know how much revenue it’s going to produce,” she said. “The fact that the Department of Finance doesn’t know how much revenue this is raising is disturbing.”
Most commentators argue that the fee is more likely to drive people away from court records than raise funds for the courts.
“If it’s the intention of this proposal to bring in revenues to keep courts open, that idea is larded with irony,” said White. “It would make court operations more inaccessible.”
“One has to question the purpose of this,” he said. “If something this extravagantly expensive and onerous were passed it wouldn’t bring in any revenues because it would shut down access to court documents. Some people suggest that that’s the idea behind the proposal, to pull the shade down instead of raising revenues.”
White is president of the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group that has campaigned for reform of the powerful and insular administrative office.
The latest proposal from the administrative office provided an opportunity for the Alliance to review the court administrative office’s history of gaffes.
“Our branch leaders have hit a new low by proposing stealth trailer bill language to charge media outlets and the public for access to court records,” wrote Judge Maryanne Gilliard. “It is another instance where access to justice is being denied by those who purport to be champions of the concept.”
“Members of the Alliance have been ridiculed and stonewalled, the integrity of respected State Auditor Elaine Howle was questioned after her audit report on CCMS was released, print and television reporters and their supervisors have been called and chastised by AOC staff, and legislators were insulted by condescending comments about their support for the Trial Court Bill of Rights.”
She noted that but for information brought out by the press, legislators and trial judges, the half-billion-dollar cost of the failed Court Case Management System would not have been revealed.
Nor would the generous pension for only the top 30 central office staff have been halted.
The judge went on to summarize the administrative office’s history of controversy: “the sneaky attempt to gut our local courts of the right to elect their own presiding judges; outrageous maintenance costs, including over $8,000 to remove gum and over $200 to replace light bulbs; the phony AOC furlough program that appeared to take away a work day but in fact replaced it with an extra day of vacation; a purported ‘hiring freeze,’ when in fact the AOC continued to hire; free iPad giveaways to 14 top-ranking individuals, including those responsible for CCMS; and the attempt to block the audit of CCMS by branch leaders, including then Chief Justice Ronald George.”
Gilliard added, “Not one of these revelations came without a fight.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/22/55992.htm
Thought for the day: “Among the state’s newspapers and television stations, the fee idea has worked as a self-inflicted black eye for the courts’ administrative office.” You know, 455 Golden Gate Avenue really has the self-inflicted black eye thing down to a fine art. In fact, it’s the only thing that they really excel at.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.
disgusted
March 22, 2013
“She noted that but for information brought out by the press, legislators and trial judges, the half-billion-dollar cost of the failed Court Case Management System would not have been revealed. Nor would the generous pension for only the top 30 central office staff have been halted.”
Makes you wonder what else we don’t know about!
unionman575
March 22, 2013
I’d say the ACJ just took another well deserved huge dump on the AOC.
‘)
R. Campomadera
March 22, 2013
Another fine example of the tone-deaf leadership of the California Judiciary. Well, maybe some of them aren’t tone deaf, just weasels…e.g.: “Steven Jahr, administrative director of the courts, agrees that it’s not `sound policy’ and says the courts want the Legislature to restore funding,” said the ABC story “But he says the fee will be necessary if Brown and lawmakers do not increase the court budget.
In other words, it’s just bureaucratic blackmail…you do this to us, and we’re going to do this to you. What a weasel. Some “grandslam home run” he is.
disgusted
March 22, 2013
Exactly, R. Campomadera, “In other words, it’s just bureaucratic blackmail…”
They think this is a big game of chicken they’re playing, but meanwhile hardworking staff and innocent public are all being hurt.
Wendy Darling
March 22, 2013
Deceit, trickery, and manipulation: apparently these were the “leadership” qualities that the Chief was going for in selecting Jahr as “administrative director.” No wonder current branch administration is the laughingstock of Sacramento.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
JusticeCalifornia
March 22, 2013
Sakauye and Jahr are demanding that the legislature restore funding for a failed regime that has taken down an entire branch at the expense of the public. . .or else? That’s funny.
After two years under Sakauye “rule” most of us are reading the handwriting on the wall. She and her handpicked Team George retreads are going under, gasping for breath, actually, and taking the branch down with them– while dutifully towing the failed Team George party line.
We are not quite but almost right back where we were in mid 2010, when EVERYONE (including George) knew the jig was up for George.
Meanwhile, yes, the state auditor should investigate the AOC’s Phoenix system and contractors, and the AOC court construction and maintenance system and contractors. Procurement. . . .an interesting word and concept when billions can be spent [wasted] with conveniently poor record keeping, bad planning and management, and no oversight.
JusticeCalifornia
March 22, 2013
A fascinating trip down memory lane. . . . 20 years ago. . . .a little something for everyone– thoughts on makeup of the judicial council, maintaining local court control, access of the press and public to court records, judicial performance evaluations.. . .etc. . . .etc.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2020.pdf
JusticeCalifornia
March 22, 2013
I think right around 1993 is when Team George (the Ron and Bill show) got caught up in this “wild card” vision, found on page 8 of the 1993 Report of the Commission on the Future of the California Courts:
“And there is the back-to-the-future scenario in which the judiciary looks and acts much as it does today, only better funded and organized. In one “wild card” future the judiciary is ascendant and has assumed responsibility for virtually all the functions of government. ”
Wow. Who the heck needs three branches of government and those pesky checks and balances?
Show the judicial branch the money and they will take it from there. . .
unionman575
March 22, 2013
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Keep-court-records-open-and-free-4377795.php
Keep court records open – and free
Updated 7:31 pm, Friday, March 22, 2013
California isn’t getting the justice it deserves when courts are forced to cut hours and services because of lost state funding. But hard-pressed legal officials are wrong to pass the bill back to the public with a misguided plan to charge $10 for access to court papers.
The fee undercuts the notion of open records, a transparent legal system and public accountability. The state’s Judicial Council, which oversees court operations, is pushing Gov. Jerry Brown to include the access fee in budget bills going before the Legislature. Both Brown and the courts should dump the idea.
It’s the wrong answer to the challenging issue of funding the state courts, which have lost $1.2 billion over four years as Sacramento slashed costs to meet a drop in recession-era tax collections. Under the plan – which wasn’t ever discussed publicly – a lawyer, journalist or average citizen must pay $10 to look at a legal docket, now available for free. Parties to a case wouldn’t be charged.
No question, the courts are hurting. Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye delivered a ringing warning earlier this month. “Justice requires a court,” she said. “But what we once counted on – that courts would be open, available and ready to dispense prompt justice – no longer exists in California.”
She’s right to describe budget cuts for what they truly are: a loss of equal justice. Courts have laid off staff, shortened hours and darkened courtrooms. A construction fund may be robbed to soften the cuts.
In this atmosphere, it’s not hard to see desperate administrators boosting small-sounding fees. Photocopying will jump from 50 cents to a $1 per page, and a staff-assisted hunt for records that takes longer than 15 minutes will cost extra. But the proposed fee to look at courthouse papers is a chilling affront to public access.
These charges diminish public trust and confidence. A surer, more stable source of funds must be found. In a series of interviews, Steven Jahr, the administrative director of the courts, suggested he doesn’t much like the list of extra charges either.
If the courts can’t find a sensible solution to their money woes, then it’s time for the Legislature and governor to make court finances a higher priority.
😉
Delilah
March 23, 2013
I have a couple of problems with the SF Chronicle editorial.
She’s right to describe budget cuts for what they truly are: a loss of equal justice. Courts have laid off staff, shortened hours and darkened courtrooms. A construction fund may be robbed to soften the cuts.
No mention or understanding, obviously, of who and what caused the “robbing” and why those funds had to be diverted; the fact that it is another self-inflicted black eye having to do with the AOC/JC’s own bad acts and/or ineptitude resulting from the Long Beach Courthouse fiasco. Not to mention that the AOC has been robbing the taxpayers and the trial courts blind in order to maintain its self-serving, gluttonous bloat, all with the blessing and complicity of the insular Judicial Council.
If the courts can’t find a sensible solution to their money woes, then it’s time for the Legislature and governor to make court finances a higher priority.
So all fault lies with the Legislature and the Gov? Um, it speaks for itself where the CJ and the AOC’s priorities lie. Yet they continue to be successful in getting some editorial boards and other apologists to point the finger anywhere but where it belongs. If only some journalist could do a mainstream newspaper series that tells the whole unvarnished story.
Readers would know it was true because, as Wendy points out, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Oh. And the empress has no clothes.
unionman575
March 22, 2013
Drum roll please…ladies and gentlemen mark your calendars for this very festive occasion on Friday April 5, 2013 in beautiful Woodland, CA .
Stop by for a cup of strong coffee with Uncle Dave..you are gonna it and/or a huge barf bucket…
Another Friday night blue light special from the AOC OCCM…AKA the House that Rosenberg built..
Groundbreaking: New Yolo County Courthouse
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Keby Boyer, 415-865-7740
March 22, 2013
Groundbreaking: New Yolo County Courthouse
What:
A groundbreaking ceremony will celebrate the much-anticipated start of construction to the New Yolo Courthouse for the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, in Woodland.
Who:
The ceremony will include remarks by California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Presiding Judge Steven M. Basha, Former Presiding Judge David Rosenberg, Assistant Presiding Judge Kathleen M. White, and Court Executive Officer, James B. Perry.
When:
Friday, April 5, 2013, 12 p.m.
Where:
1000 Main Street, Woodland, CA
Why:
The event commemorates the beginning of construction of the new Yolo County courthouse, which will include 14 courtrooms in 163,000 square feet. The court’s new home features significant improvements in security, with separate hallways for the public, staff, and in-custody defendants, as well as better safety, access, and efficiency for visitors and staff. It also solves the court’s current space shortfall, replaces obsolete buildings, and consolidates operations in a single building. The new five-story building will feature a curved façade at ground level, with a four-column portico entrance reminiscent of the old historic courthouse. Designed by the Fentress architectural firm, in association with Sacramento’s Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects, the new courthouse will be the most significant civic building constructed in Woodland in nearly a century. Yolo’s courthouse is the first new courthouse funded by Senate Bill 1407, through trial court user fees, to go into construction, which will be managed Hensel Phelps Construction.
Completion is scheduled for spring 2015, after which the county, which owns the current courthouse, will use the vacated court space for county agencies. For more information, visit the California Courts website at http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-yolo.htm.
Members of the media wishing to attend the ceremony should contact Rocio Vega at 530-406-6838, for directions, parking information, and other background information.
😉
unionman575
March 22, 2013
And the AOC bags another Court CEO slot with one of their very own…
LEAH WILSON SELECTED AS COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Oakland: The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, is pleased to announce the appointment of a new Court Executive Officer, Leah Wilson. Ms. Wilson, 40, succeeds Pat Sweeten, who retired on December 21, 2012 after a distinguished career as the Court Executive Officer in Alameda County. Ms. Wilson will assume her new duties by April 15, 2013.
Prior to joining Alameda County, Ms. Wilson was with the Administrative Office of the Courts. There, she oversaw juvenile court improvement initiatives, including a statewide program responsible for centralizing the fiscal and contractual administration of court-appointed dependency counsel services, and improving the quality of representation provided to children and families in the state’s dependency courts.
http://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/Resources/Documents/News%20Release%202013-03-08(3).pdf
———————————————————————-
😉
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/222790
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Leah Tamu Wilson – #222790
Current Status: Inactive
This member is inactive, but is eligible to become active.
Address:
Admin Ofc of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone Number:(415) 865-7977
e-mail: leah.wilson@jud.ca.gov
unionman575
March 22, 2013
Fasten your seatbelts and get ready…
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/Fiscal%20Services/Notice_of_intent_award.pdf
Superior Court of the State of California County of Kings
It is the intent of the Kings Superior Court to enter into a contract with Tyler Technologies, Inc.
Provided contract negotiations can be finalized, the above named vendor will be awarded a Contract as set forth in the Request for Proposal. This award is being made in accordance with the protest procedure set forth in the above referenced RFP, and in compliance with the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual.
The non-cost ranking of the three vendor proposals submitted in response to RFP # 4-12-KINGS is posted on the Courts website:
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/Fiscal%20Services/Fiscal_Services.asp
unionman575
March 22, 2013
Gotta pay for that new KING SUPERIOR COURT CMS somehow…how about shorter operating hours for the public to have access to Justice???
…yeah that’s the ticket!
And all this is occuring while we have a Yugo, oh excuse me, a Ferrari, parked in the JC CMS garage…that’s for you Michael Paul…OMG.. I have to refill my drink now…BRB…
😉
http://www.kings.courts.ca.gov/NEWS%20AND%20mEDIA/Proposed_Hrs_Corcoran.pdf
unionman575
March 22, 2013
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/publicnotice_desertregion_transcivprobate.pdf
And now a word from Riverside Superior Court re the Larson Justice Center…
Inland Empire folks are going to need a helicopter to get to court…
NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF CIVIL AND PROBATE CASES
FROM INDIO AND PALM SPRINGS
To: Attorneys, Litigants, and Court Users
Effective July 29, 2013, the Riverside Superior Court will no longer hear limited or unlimited civil matters, including unlawful detainers, in the Larson Justice Center in Indio. Effective July 29, 2013, the Riverside Superior Court will also no longer hear probate matters in the Palm Springs Court.
😉
unionman575
March 22, 2013
http://www.sanbenito.courts.ca.gov/
Live Webcam Feed of Court Construction:
http://108.220.212.221/refresh.web?d=2&i=0&h=720&q=7&p=1638400&s=0&r=5&w=960
The OBT
March 23, 2013
Oh my the “pay for view” is totally blowing up as it should. The taxpayers of California pay plenty in taxes and for that they should have access to court records free of charge. The media which covers the courts on a daily basis also needs access to court records without assessing a daily penalty so they can do their jobs to report to the public what is occurring in their courts. One of the problems here is that the ” insiders” at 455 Golden Gate don’t appear to respect the First Amendment and the rights that follow from it. Public information requests they don’t like get treated differently, sent to Justice Hull in an apparent effort to chill those requests. Under HRH 1 all attempts to speak to the Judicial Council were screened and needed prior approval. Now the “insiders” want to nickel and dime the media and public by charging a fee to find out what happened in an open court room further chilling public access to the courts they pay for. All of this stems from having our branch organized as a dictatorship to begin with, where dissent is discouraged at best and squashed and punished at worst. We need to get Woodhull’s proposal on the ballot . If we don’t we will just continue to watch the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate continue to ruin the once strong and independent California judicial branch.
Lando
March 23, 2013
It is all falling apart for HRH 2 and the ” leadership” she put in place at the the crystal palace. It reminds me of the story of Humpty Dumpty: ” Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again ” . Pretty much sums it up.
Lando
March 23, 2013
Thanks Wendy for posting Maria’s comprehensive article on the JC/AOC’s most recent litany of woes. I know that an increasing number of legislators are starting to become more vocal about their concerns regarding the continued mess at 455 Golden Gate. Now they need to please act to either urge the defunding of the AOC, real Tani and/ or bring democracy to the branch.
Lando
March 23, 2013
sorry it is getting late recall Tani .
courtflea
March 23, 2013
believe it or not in this flea’s career, the flea could get along with most folks, you know,being professional. But Leah Wilson? NOT! Unless that woman has changed in the last 10 years she is a total nit wit little bitch and has no trial court experience. Thus the AOC would think she is the perfect canidate for Alameda CEO. My lord, they are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. What do you want to bet she will be put on a bunch of committees making decisions and drafting stealth legislation about the trial courts right away? But most of all I feel for Alameda’s court staff. Ms.. Wilson will make Pat Sweeten look tame. Gag me.
unionman575
March 23, 2013
What do you want to bet she will be put on a bunch of committees making decisions and drafting stealth legislation about the trial courts right away?
Flea I can’t bet you on that – because you are 100% right.
Get me a bucket!
Wendy Darling
March 23, 2013
Hey flea, maybe Wilson will recruit Ernesto Fuentes as her Assistant CEO. If Fuentes is unavailable, then there’s always Sofa Man, aka, Ernie Jr.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 24, 2013
Wendy you got the samne info as I did…
Rumor has it that Fuentes will be hired as her Asst. CEO in Alameda. He was spotted there last Friday in Alameda. Watch.
😉
unionman575
March 23, 2013
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/article/20130323/NEWS/130329891
County courts hit with state budget cuts
Recent state budget cuts to the Kern County Superior Court may likely impact Lake Isabella’s courthouse on some level.
By Jack Barnwell
jbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com
Mar. 23, 2013 12:00 pm
Recent state budget cuts to the Kern County Superior Court may likely impact Lake Isabella’s courthouse on some level.
First District Supervisor Mick Gleason confirmed Friday that Lake Isabella was one of the courts impacted by recent state decisions to reduce funding.
Gleason said that he didn’t suspect higher-level crimes to be impacted, but other matters might suffer from the hit Isabella will take.
“It looks like it is going to have more of an impact on traffic cases and traffic court,” Gleason said. Those types of cases might be diverted to Bakersfield and/or Ridgecrest.
Lake Isabella’s courthouse falls in Kern County’s Eastern District, along with Ridgecrest and Mojave.
Kern County Superior Court is managed by the county but is funded by the state like all other superior courts in the 57 other counties.
Kern’s court system took a $9.9 million hit this fiscal year and will take at least another $3.5 million bath next year.
Friday, the Taft Midway Driller, the Daily Independent’s sister paper, reported the Taft courthouse would close down most operations and transferring all criminal and misdemeanor cases to Lamont.
People charged with misdemeanor crimes would be forced to travel to Lamont, which has two courthouses, the Driller reported. Taft’s courthouse would remain open on Fridays for civil matters, traffic hearings and small claims and juvenile courts.
The cuts would begin Sept. 1. Courts have taken hits state-wide, including an impact of services and increase in case loads, and a decision by the state Judicial Council to suspend court construction projects for the 2013-14 fiscal year.
“We are seeking the return of all or a portion of those funds that were raised from court users for the express purpose of building court facilities,” said Justice Brad Hill, chair of the Court Facilities Working Group and Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, in a Feb. 26 news release. “We understand the difficult fiscal environment the state is in, but further delay will imperil our vital infrastructure and compromise the safety of those citizens who use our courts.”
Supervisor Gleason said he would receive a full briefing Monday regarding the impact to the courts, but said the ones at Lake Isabella would affect only minor crimes.
“They are going to attempt to mitigate the impacts on the more egregious and high-level cases,” Gleason said.
wearyant
March 23, 2013
Folks, this looks to be a very scary senate bill from our friend Corbett:
==========================================================
SB 123 (Corbett D) Environmental and Land-Use Court.
Current Text: Introduced: 1/18/2013
Introduced: 1/18/2013
Status: 1/31/2013-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Location: 1/31/2013-S. JUD.
Summary:
Existing law establishes a statewide system of courts with a superior court of one or more judges in each county. Existing law requires the presiding judge of each superior court to distribute the business of the court among the judges, and to prescribe the order of business, subject to the rules of the Judicial Council. This bill would require the presiding judge of each superior court to establish an environmental and land-use division within the court to process civil proceedings brought pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or in specified subject areas, including air quality, biological resources, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, land use planning, and water quality. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by rule of court, to identify statutes in those specified areas that would be within the jurisdiction of the environmental and land-use court division. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by rule of court, to establish appropriate standards and protocols for the environmental and land-use court division to accomplish the objectives of consistency, expediency, and expertise, including educational requirements and other qualifications for specialized judges assigned to the division.
===================================================================
I think the JC/AOC/CJ should get OUT of the construction business. I sure as hell don’t want the AOC through their puppets to gain any more power over land use, water quality, air quality or anything else! God help us all if this happens!
Anonymous
March 24, 2013
This is really stupid and shows how little the Senator understands what trial courts do. All trial courts already do this. It is what our civil departments do. CEQA cases are filed every day in courts all around the state. Does she think the courts aren’t already devoting limited resources to handling these cases? Does she want every court to have a dedicated court to hear these environmental cases? Great, a two judge county has one judge doing this and the other judge doing everything else? A 10 judge court with one civil department is now to create another department out of thin air to devoted to only environmental cases. Large counties are to shut down already overcrowded courts (overcrowded because the good senator and the legislature has cut the budget so much there are no staff left to keep many of them open) in order to devote precious and dwindling courtrooms these issues only? What a dumb thing. I hear she wants to be a judge. God help us!
unionman575
March 24, 2013
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_22860665/governor-takes-one-step-back
Governor takes one step back
The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/24/2013 02:39:07 AM PDT
Updated: 03/24/2013 02:39:08 AM PDT
The latest unfortunate notion from Sacramento way finds itself tucked into Gov. Brown’s budget proposal, and the good news is that you don’t have to pay to see it — at least, not yet.
The governor wants our state’s strapped court system to start charging you for record searches: Ten bucks a pop.
While everyone can see that California’s overloaded court system is in crisis after five fiscal years of budget cuts totaling more than $1 billion, making the public pay a search fee for public information isn’t the way to bridge the gap. Current searches are, as they should be under the law and in the interest of open government, free; the courts only charge $15 if the search takes more than 10 minutes of staff time. Under Gov. Brown’s proposal, although a person could search for free for a case he or she was party to, each additional search would rack up a $10 charge.
For a system of justice that rests on precedent, it’s a crippling idea. For anyone interested in examining the workings of their own government — not a matter of idle curiosity in America, but a civic virtue — it’s a blinding one.
Sadly, this isn’t the first move by Gov. Brown to limit Californians’ access to government in the name of saving a buck. In 2011, the governor shut down the state’s centralized, searchable website that anyone could use to track state spending, saying that the information was available on other agencies’ sites. True, it was a move that saved the state $21,000, but at the cost of dramatically complicating the average citizen’s search for information.
In a 2012 report that graded states on openness in government spending by the California Public Interest Research Group, California scored a D-.
The Golden State can do better. Further hampering the ability of California’s court system to serve the public with prohibitive fees is no way to improve its performance. Surely there are better ways to return funds to the courts.
😉
courtflea
March 24, 2013
Wendy, Unionman, interesting info. Sounds like Alameda is going to be the AOC’s dumping ground.
JusticeCalifornia
March 24, 2013
LIke Santa Clara and Contra Costa before them. . . .with Kiri Torre?
Stocking courts with administrative party liners is a great way to keep tabs on those who do not speak with one voice, and eliminate independent-minded employees who know far too much. It is also a great way to manipulate records and outcomes (again: by tampering with records, destroying records, restricting access to records, targeting individuals for “special” administrative treatment including saying something time-sensitive was served but either never serving it, or saying it was served on a a certain date but waiting to mail it for several days.)
Just ask NCSC alum and former Sakauye Judicial Council darling Marin Court Executive Officer Kim Turner. Her office appears to be an expert at all of the above.
Turner bounced half of the Marin court staff when she became Marin CEO– her reported hit list was all those court employees who signed a document asking the court NOT to hire Turner to replace her corrupt friend and mentor, John Montgomery. Marin is infamous for administrative scandals, record keeping problems, and document destruction during state audits.
If what posters say about the new CEO is true, perhaps Alameda employees should VERY discreetly keep VERY good records about what happened in the past, and what happens next.
R. Campomadera
March 24, 2013
AOC: If those pesky independent courts won’t kowtow to us, we have another way of imposing our will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RS4cwl9Af4
Judicial Council Watcher
March 24, 2013
Isn’t that the crux of it? We know that every court that rings the San Francisco bay is the AOC’s bitch except San Mateo and parts of San Francisco and Alameda. Alameda is being hammered with AOC BS so they can hire any AOCer they want but it won’t change the facts on the ground and the facts are that we’re closer to Alameda courts than the AOC could ever hope to be. So Ms. Wilson must choose sides… the death star loyalty or us on her ass like white on rice.
but that’s just us…. our Alameda court contacts want to know about Wilson, so if you know. please share.
unionman575
March 25, 2013
“So Ms. Wilson must choose sides… the death star loyalty or us on her ass like white on rice.”
JCW it will be us on her ass like white on rice.
BTW that’s one of my favorite phrases too.
😉
Wendy Darling
March 24, 2013
Well, Flea, Alameda is, after all, where Ron “Tonto” Overholt came from.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
March 25, 2013
Planting AOC loyalists is just part of their strategy to take over the trial courts. If they could, they would just pick the CEOs and PJs. It makes it easier. Remember the trailer bill where the AOC tried to slip that power by everyone. To this day, no one at the crystal palace will admit to puling that stunt. So much for ” transparency” and change under HRH 2 . Hmm, come to think of it wasn’t the completely discredited ” insiders” “pay for view ” plan also proposed in a trailer bill ? I guess that would just be a coincidence ? You can’t make any of this up. Really. We need to get Woodhull’s proposal on the ballot and soon.
The OBT
March 25, 2013
Wendy in her totally insightful way says it best. The more things change at the JC/AOC the more they stay the same. They continue to sneak their self serving legislation through trailer bills , they continue to hire employees while they say there is a hiring freeze,they continue to allow telecommuting abuse despite the strong views of those surveyed in the SEC report,they continue to deny any responsibility for CCMS, Long Beach, and free retirement cash and prizes. The ultimate irony ? HRH 2 going to schools to talk about democracy when she actively maintains an insular dictatorship over our branch. What a total disgrace.
The OBT
March 25, 2013
I really like Woodhull’s proposed constitutional amendment. Perhaps some other things can be placed into his proposal. Members of the CJP should only be allowed to serve a total of three years. This could be called the McConnell rule in recognition of her decade long unfair tormenting of our hard working trial court judges.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2013
What they couldn’t get through the front door, they’re trying to get through the back door
.
One of the potential consequences for the fiscal disaster facing the local trial courts is going to be the inability to recruit and maintain a good executive management team. At some point, the fiscal pressure will be such that to keep the doors open, Presiding Judges will be focusing more on direct operations impacting the public. I can see where this is going. The JC/AOC is sadly going to try and force “management” down the throats of local trial courts under the guise that there is “no money” for local management teams. This will then allow the AOC to install “regional management” with one CEO overseeing operations in multiple courts and making local trial court managers direct reports to the AOC flunkies.
Be forewarned! I am afraid that this is coming…and coming soon. If we don’t democratize the Judicial Council soon, it will likely be too late. Why aren’t the ACJ and CJA coming on board for the proposed Constitutional Amendment???
JusticeCalifornia
March 25, 2013
“At some point, the fiscal pressure will be such that to keep the doors open, Presiding Judges will be focusing more on direct operations impacting the public. I can see where this is going. The JC/AOC is sadly going to try and force “management” down the throats of local trial courts under the guise that there is “no money” for local management teams. This will then allow the AOC to install “regional management” with one CEO overseeing operations in multiple courts and making local trial court managers direct reports to the AOC flunkies.”
This is precisely the goal of the National Center for State Courts. Economic disaster, according to them, presents an “opportunity” to “put everything on the table for discussion”, or words to that effect.
courtflea
March 25, 2013
N Woodhull, the AOC has been working toward the model you suggest since Vickery’s arrival in California. They have been taking the purse strings away from the local trial courts by eliminating discretionary funding, forcing the courts to use their financial system so the AOC now approves all expenditures, and conducting trial court witch hunts aka operational audits. So you are right, if all the “administrative work” is performed by the AOC who needs PJs and CEOs. So they think. The AOC has been planting CEOs in courts with either existing AOc employees or students fresh out of their Court Administration program at SAC state. They don’t want CEOs with a historical perspective that is for sure. So you are correct, the regional approach for local courts is the goal. Especially in the small to medium trial courts.
I was just wondering if the CJA and ACJ are taking a wait and see approach on your amendment to see where we here on this site are going to go with it. Or at least the Alliance will I hope. But doess the CJA have the political cajones to back it? humm. So anyhow, I have told Michael Paul of interest in helping with this project on a restricted website. I hope others do too that have not already. we need to get rolling on this, it is going to be a big job.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 25, 2013
You are correct courtflea! From his time in Utah, moving from being a probation officer to leading the investigation on a prison escape to being made the Executive Director of the Utah Court (of which there were a total of about 75 judges at the time for the entire state), Vickrey always demonstrated that he was an opportunist with a top-down management philosophy. As a probation officer, he wrote a report critical of the Utah prison system when they had allowed a violent inmate to escape. Then Governor Matheson read the report, fired the prison administrator and replaced him with Vickrey in 1982. In 1983, Vickrey got appointed to the newly created position of State Court Administrator. In Utah, Vickrey tried the same crap he did here, only it wasn’t as effect and he was dealing with an entire state court the size of one mid-size court in California. When he came here, Chief Justice Lucas was able to keep him in check, until the arrival of HRH-1, who as a fellow megalomaniac was only happy to go down the garden path laid by Vickrey and the NCSC.
Michael Paul
March 25, 2013
Vickrey and Jahr tried to fold probation and parole under the AOC’s wing too. Surprise, surprise.
courtflea
March 25, 2013
Wendy, Ron O was spawned out of San Diego before Alameda too. Well maybe San Diego is the devil’s spawning ground: Ron O, Roddy, Yamaskai…..Ms. Kiri being the exception 🙂 Sorry could not resist the jest.
unionman575
March 25, 2013
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=6&ved=0CDwQqQIoADAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fopinion%2Fci_22866949%2Fcalifornia-shouldnt-charge-public-records-mercury-news-editorial&ei=SeVQUb_mCemUiAKs0YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNF0821zImwexfOe9chh3Ro_Iih1LQ&bvm=bv.44342787,d.cGE
California shouldn’t charge for public records: Mercury News editorial
Mercury News Editorial
Posted: 03/25/2013 12:17:56 PM PDT
Updated: 03/25/2013 04:34:25 PM PDT
Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal for the courts to start charging $10 per public records search is a bad idea on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin.
Information that’s available only to those who can pay for it is not really public. The Legislature needs to reject this plan. Transparency is in the broadest public interest, and all taxpayers should pay the cost.
The courts themselves suggested this as one way to make up funding cut by the Legislature. Searches would be free only for people directly involved in a case. If they want to research other cases to better understand their own — ka-ching. Defendants unable to afford top lawyers would face another income-based handicap in the courts.
Officers of the San Francisco Peninsula Press club say a newspaper reporter on the legal beat might search 50 files in a day. That would cost $500 — likely to tally well over $100,000 in a year. Reporters and anyone else trying to understand what’s happening in their community will have to limit the amount of court information they seek unless they have unlimited cash. Nonprofits and community activists seeking information on businesses or people involved in local projects would be stymied.
Background checks now required to get most jobs, loans or apartments include court checks; this will add to costs of doing businesses and may lead some to skimp on the checks — hopefully, not for jobs that involve working with children.
Then there’s the discomfiting possibility that this could open floodgates to charging for record searches in cities and counties. Can cities mired in bankruptcy and desperate for money be far behind? Yet these are the cities most in need of public scrutiny.
The courts need more money than the Legislature is giving them. Fewer employees and shorter hours mean the wheels of justice turn more slowly, and this old saw happens to be true: Justice delayed really is justice denied. This affects people’s lives and the economy, with business decisions in limbo.
California overall is considered one of the best states for transparency in government, but that says more about the other 49 than it does about us.
The Sunlight Foundation just gave the Legislature a “D” for its lame attempts to make bill and voting information available online. In California Forward’s recent report, “The State of Transparency in California: 2013,” the reform group blasts state and local governments for, among other things, posting data on spending that’s incomprehensible to most people.
California Forward also wonders why the state that spawned Silicon Valley can’t make better use of technology for this purpose. Indeed, the court system has squandered $500 million on an online system it had to abandon.
There is no excuse for limiting access to public information based on income. Scratch this bad idea and look elsewhere to fund the courts.
😉
unionman575
March 25, 2013
http://www.redding.com/news/2013/mar/25/editorial-fees-to-access-records-would-be-bad/
State Sen. Loni Hancock, a Berkeley Democrat, drew the argument over a proposal to charge a $10 fee to search for court records in truly stark terms: Woodward and Bernstein, she said, would never have broken open the Watergate scandal if they’d faced such a high burden.
Hancock deserves a hand for her wholehearted support of a free press and open records, but that’s missing the point just a bit.
The reporters whose work ultimately brought down the Nixon administration worked for The Washington Post, then and now a major newspaper. It has the resources to cover a modest routine court fee. So do other media outlets including this one — though nobody relishes an extra expense.
Where the new fee will pinch more is among the average citizens with an interest in public records — to keep an eye on lawsuits involving City Hall or the school board or a development or crime in their own neighborhood. Every new fee is a new barrier that makes it harder for them to do their civic duty.
It is also an ugly precedent. Generally speaking, public-records laws in California allow agencies to charge per-page fees for printing or copying documents, or for the time involved in complex document searches. They do not, however, charge for routine requests. If the courts start billing just to ask to ask for a file, what’s next? A fee to read the City Council agenda? To take a peek at the plans for the new building around the corner that the Planning Commission might approve at its next meeting? To call the county with a question? (Such “service” is good enough for some businesses.) Where would it stop?
The courts have absorbed serious budget cuts, to be sure. Steven Jahr, administrative chief of the courts and a former Shasta County judge, said court administrators don’t think the fee is a good idea, so much as they’re just desperate. It’s “a simple impulse for self-preservation,” he told The Associated Press.
The financial squeeze is no joke, but if the state starts eroding access to public records in the name of budget cutting, the result will be a less-informed public and even less trust of our own government. There must be a better way.
courtflea
March 25, 2013
The better way Redding Searchlight Record is for the Administrative Office of the Court’s bloated bureaucracy to be cleansed from top to bottom, implement the SEC recommendations and the result will be their budget being cut and that funding going to the trial courts where it belongs.This would put and end to the idiotic funding ideas from the AOC. yeah, when hell freezes over and you can ice skate in Redding on Court Street in July. News media if you really want to know why such idiotic fees are being suggested, keep digging, follow the money. Stop the waste of taxpayer dollars on a useless self serving bureaucracy called the AOC
Michael Paul
March 25, 2013
The Redding paper doesn’t have a journalist covering the courts. If they did, they might be a bit more strenuous in their objections to the $10.00 fee.
Jahr got one thing correct. The fee is being suggested for self-preservation but it has little to do with court budgets. It has everything to do with covering up for a few bad apples.
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2013
Before you can charge search fees and per page fees, a file has to be available for someone to review.
Perhaps the Redding Searchlight should do a story on how hard it is for certain litigants to get their own files to review in Shasta County.
Perhaps Jahr and Baker should look into that too.
Certain Shasta County litigants are being severely prejudiced by not having their files available to review.
Wendy Darling
March 25, 2013
It is rumored in the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate Avenue today that after doing a belly flop at the last Judicial Council meeting, Jody Patel and Curt Soderlund have promoted Sofa Man, aka Ernie Jr., to a Director position. Rumor also has it that the inept “leadership” of the AOC is considering eliminating all of the Assistant Director positions, and promoting those people to Director.
Demonstrating once again that the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more things just really stay the same.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
March 25, 2013
Meaning, if the rumors are correct, that the CJ has absolutely no intention of implementing the SEC report and that it was all for show, in the vain hope that it would get her and the JC/AOC off the radar screen long enough that everyone would forget the controversies and life in the guilded halls of the “Crystal Palace” could go on as usual. I’m shocked, shocked!
courtflea
March 25, 2013
Geez, then these new “directors” will need assistants of course etc. etc. No doubt this move is a result of their class and comp study. Kinda like a broken record. Same ol same ol fucking bullshit. YOu know I am kinda starting to feel like a kid and adults don’t believe you when you are pointing out an obvious truth to them. How can we get this shit to end and for people to believe it is really happening?!
R. Campomadera
March 25, 2013
Oh, courtflea, you’re a piker…they’ll each need “deputy associate directors” who will supervise “deputy assistant directors”, who will supervise “special assistants to the deputy assistant directors” and so on, each with six figure salaries and fully paid pension benefits. You vastly underestimate the need for administrative overhead at the AOC. Oh, and they’ll telecommute.
Michael Paul
March 26, 2013
You haven’t had a google of lawyers look at this under a microscope and declare fraud, yet follow that up with “and unless the feds step in, they’re going to get away with it because they own the legal system”
courtflea:
I am kinda starting to feel like a kid and adults don’t believe you when you are pointing out an obvious truth to them.
The adults in the former legislature dismissed things out of hand and declared it a matter for federal law enforcement, assuming that the feds are well aware and are actively investigating matters, so they loathed to take on the judicial branch or the cash fueling this debacle in a targeted manner. Long Beach, for example, is a rental agreement the AOC could walk away from but they won’t walk away until forced to do so. They wouldn’t walk away at twice the price because they’re speaking with one voice in backing that dead horse. Their bluff has also been called on who is supposed to pay for Long Beach with the legislature and department of finance. There was no commitment to pay, only approval to build.
Now there is a new slate of 40 new legislators that need to be brought up to speed on the matters that concern us all. This is the challenge in taking a democratization initiative through the legislature at this particular moment. That leaves either 1) Time to re-educate new legislators and look for an initiative next legislative session or later….. 2) Get to the initiative process by collecting about 850,000 signatures and spending about 2.6+ million dollars to get it on the ballot.
courtflea
March 25, 2013
Crikey RC you are correct! those MFAs.
courtflea
March 26, 2013
Michael, well I guess I was being naive about a grass roots movement to get it on the ballot. We need a sugar daddy/momma!
JusticeCalifornia
March 26, 2013
Re Ken Couch, hiring freezes (lol–yeah right), etc.
If the comments above about Couch and promotions are true, yep, nothing has changed.
JCW, can you re-post Paula Negley’s opening appellate brief in her case describing the Fuentes/Couch horrific behavior in her case? Let’s all remind ourselves of how long misconduct at the highest levels has been facilitated and rewarded (on the public dime), and how long the AOC has been duping people about hiring freezes (on the public dime), and how long whistle blowers have been retaliated against by “top leadership” of the biggest judiciary in the Western World (on the public dime), and the type of people Tani is hand-picking for magnificent highly paid positions in her troubled administration (definitely on the public dime).
“Top leadership” ran amok a long time ago. It has been and is disgracing the branch, all the while setting itself up to take over complete control of the branch, NCSC style.
Sakauye and her compromised crew are demonstrating, each and every day, why the judicial governance structure of the branch must be changed.
We need to get that proposed Constitutional Amendment on the ballot.
Pronto.
Has anyone ever seen the CA courts in worse shape than right now, after decades of Team George “leadership”? Has the judiciary ever been so divided? Has the public ever had to suffer so much– A rapid, ongoing increase of backbreaking fees, fines, penalties, while basic court services are being denied? Has there ever been so many documented lies, misrepresentations, obfuscations, covering up such vast mismanagement that has indisputably cost the branch and the public billions?
Governor Brown, AG Harris, state oversight entities, and/or various members of the Legislature have witnessed, experienced, and/or been told for years (and in some cases decades) about high level misconduct in the branch that is costing billions.
At this point, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
The request to the legislature to put branch governance on the ballot should be framed as CHECKS AND BALANCES DUTY TO THE PUBLIC, NOT A FAVOR. The Executive and Legislative branches owe it to the public they serve to put this issue to a public vote.
And you know what else? Bar Associations and advocacy groups should also support putting branch governance to a public vote, because the public–who is paying everbody’s bills– is presently getting royally screwed.
unionman575
March 26, 2013
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_22871679/solano-county-courts-feel-pinch-belt-tightening
Solano County Courts feel pinch of belt-tightening
By Ryan Chalk/RChalk@TheReporter.com
Posted: 03/26/2013 01:03:55 AM PDT
Across the state, courtrooms have closed, services have been reduced or eliminated and a mounting backlog of civil cases continues with no sign of relief in the near future.
Those reductions have brought attention to California’s judicial branch — the largest in the nation — which is perhaps the most underfunded when compared to other states, something that Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye brought to the attention of lawmakers earlier this month during a joint session of the Legislature.
Her remarks called for a reinvestment in the state’s court system, something court officials statewide and locally say is desperately needed to avoid a looming “fiscal cliff.”
In California, the judicial branch receives about 1 percent of the state General Fund. That equates to about one penny for every dollar of general fund money, according to Cantil-Sakauye’s remarks.
“I submit to you, in the most diverse state in the union, that a penny on the dollar is insufficient to provide justice,” she told lawmakers.
The effects of a $1 billion cut to the judicial branch in the past five years can be seen in Solano County Superior Court.
Civil and criminal clerks offices began closing two hours earlier in fiscal year 2011-12. The reduction of an extra hour was added at the beginning of this year.
The self-help center turns away 20 to 25 people a day and a backlog in civil cases means that parties now wait up to four months for a hearing, according to officials.
The court will also observe 12 furlough days this year.
For Brian Taylor, court executive officer, two major issues facing the court are the lack of General Fund support from the state and a mandate that trial courts reduce local reserves to 1 percent of their annual state allocation by June 2014.
While the governor’s proposed 2013-14 budget will not create further reductions to trial court operations, the exhaustion of fund balances for all courts could realistically result in further reductions in services and, perhaps, courthouse closures.
For Solano County’s courts, which currently operate with a $22.4 million budget, the next fiscal year isn’t expected to bring any further reductions in services, despite a projected loss of $1.4 million.
There are no plans for furlough days in 2013-14, although a hiring freeze implemented in 2009 will remain in effect, Taylor said.
To cope, the court will make up the loss in funding by spending down its fund balance as mandated.
While the court currently maintains a fund balance of just over $2 million, it is projected to fall to less than $100,000 in 2014-15.
“It will be a statewide crisis,” Taylor said.
A court’s fund balance is often used to soften the blow of any budget cuts or emergency needs.
“It’s kind of a court’s rainy day fund. Well, it’s been raining the last five years,” he said.
However, beginning in July 1, 2014, with only 1 percent of the court’s budget allowed in its fund balance, court’s across the state will not reasonably be able to make up for any further cuts from the state. Also, should a computer system crash or an emergency facility need arise, local courts won’t have the money on hand to quickly respond, according to Taylor.
So far, Solano County has been fortunate it has not had to close a courthouse, as Fresno County has and Los Angeles County is planning to.
That is why court officials are making a push to lobby state lawmakers to reinvest in the judicial branch and restore funding.
Taylor said that Solano County Superior Court officials have already started the conversation with the court’s employee union, SEIU, and Assemblymembers Jim Frazier, D-Solano, and Susan Bonilla, D-Concord.
“We’re trying to work with anybody and everybody who has a vested interest in the court system so that we don’t see these types of reductions in court services,” Taylor said.
– – –
Follow Staff Writer Ryan Chalk at Twitter.com/RyanChalk1883.
😉
unionman575
March 26, 2013
http://www.taftmidwaydriller.com/article/20130326/NEWS/130329851/-1/sports
• Mar. 26, 2013 11:38 am
• It’s official: Nearly all Taft Court operations closing
• State cuts mean all criminal cases, many traffic cases will be heard in Lamont now. Taft court will be open just one day per week
• Superior Court officials on Tuesday confirmed what the Taft Midway Driller reported last week:
The Taft court will be open only one day per week, and all felony and misdemeanor cases will be heard in Lamont starting in September.
Kern County Superior Court Administrator Terry McNally issued a statement Tuesday morning outlining the cuts, which will affect Taft more than any other court in the county.
The Lake Isabella court will be closed, but criminal filings had been moved to other courts in the past and it has been open just one day per week.
Taft’s court will be open only on Fridays for traffic citations issued by Taft Police, small claims and limited civil actions.
People cited by the California Highway Patrol will have to appear in Lamont.
The severe cuts are the result of cuts in state funding, McNally said.
“The Superior Court, County of Kern, has realized significant, permanent budget reductions of $9.7 million or 27% of base funding since 2008,” McNally said in a written statement. “While the court has implemented a number of cost savings measures—reductions in staff, increased pass through of pension and health care benefits to court employees, reduction of controllable expenses in excess of $3 million—the court will have a structural deficit of $3.7 million in the upcoming 2013-2014 budget year.
“Not only are the cuts far-reaching, they will be long lasting,” McNally said.
“In the past, the court has been able to utilize savings from local cost cutting measures to balance the annual budget deficits to date,” McNally said. “However, these savings are required to be depleted by the end of the fiscal year; therefore, permanent service reductions are required to balance the Court’s budget.”
Taft’s court will be reduced to one court day per week starting Sept. 9.
These are the effects of the cuts in Taft:
• All felony filings will be filed and heard at the Arvin/Lamont Branch Arvin/Lamont Regional Court location, 12022 Main Street, Lamont;
• Misdemeanor filings will be heard at the Arvin/Lamont Branch;
• All CHP traffic infractions will be transferred to the Arvin/Lamont Branch;
• Limited civil, small claims and Taft City traffic infractions will be heard at the Taft facility.
• Court users may file documents at the Taft Regional Court facility when it is open, or at any other court location in Kern County during normal business hours.
A drop box will be available at the Taft Regional Court Facility.
Despite McNally’s dire warnings, Kern County Superior Court Presiding Judge Colette Humphrey said she is hopeful that at some point, the services being cut can be restored.
“The Kern Superior Court Judges believe court access is a fundamental component of fair and equitable justice and have approved these reductions reluctantly in the face of severe budget cuts over the past five years,” said Judge Colette M. Humphrey, Presiding Judge. “It is our hope that if future funding is restored to adequate levels, we can reinstate the services of the Court for those people that turn to us for justice.”
😉
Wendy Darling
March 26, 2013
Published today, Tuesday, March 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Bill Girdner:
Early and Right on the Search Fee
By BILL GIRDNER
Newspapers have gone through a great shakeout over the last couple decades. They are no longer the cash cows they were.
But a lot of them, particularly the smaller ones, are still kicking.
Like the Chico Enterprise-Record, Marysville Appeal Democrat, Hanford Sentinel, Lake County Record-Bee, Monterey County Herald, Porterville Recorder, Red Bluff Daily News, Redding Record Searchlight or the San Luis Obispo Tribune.
There are some 850 newspapers in California.
My aunt Carole reads the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the free weekly Good Times and both have published her letters.
My uncle Bill, who was among the original group of Silicon Valley nerds that started Hewlett-Packard, would find endless material for commentary and amusement in the Monterey Herald and Carmel Pine Cone, his local newspapers.
And while they may not pack the political punch they used to, those local newspapers are still strong voices in the state. And even though journalism has moved in many big papers to what I call armchair journalism, more dependent on press releases and tips than shoe leather and hustle, some of the small papers still practice the craft as it should be done.
At the beginning of March, our reporter in Monterey sent me an email with an editorial attached. “I figured you’d appreciate this fervent commentary by our stalwart local daily, without which I couldn’t possibly enjoy my morning coffee,” wrote Ward Lauren.
He had included an editorial from the Monterey County Herald.
That small, central coast newspaper was the first to sound the alarm on a fee pushed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, a fee that would in practice prevent reporters from looking through court records.
“A $10 fee would be devastating to newspapers and other news operations, especially relatively small ones such as The Herald. Newspapers this size review dozens of new court files each month in search of potential stories – many of them about important public business.”
“Most newspapers and TV stations in California would be forced to cut back significantly on their reporting of local matters,” said the paper, “meaning the public would receive much less information about ongoing court cases and newsworthy civil matters.”
Having been in the business, and seen the good and bad sides of it, I know that a reporter does not have a petty cash account from which to spend a hundred bucks looking at court files for a possible story. Even in flush times, but all the more so these days, the expense would first have to get OK’d by a news editor who generally would not approve an unbudgeted expense.
Instead, the reporter would be told to try to get the information some other way, whereupon both the editor and the reporter would move on to another story on the rapidly moving river of news.
The Monterey County Herald was early and right on a number of points.
The paper correctly identified the Administrative Office of the Courts as the source of the proposal.
News stories published later and in other newspapers said the fee was coming from Governor Brown’s financial department, but the governor’s people are simply going along with it. Without actually knowing what they are doing.
Asked about the search fee, the finance department lawyers talked about the need for consistency in online copy fees, a different beast altogether. Courts regularly charge varying amounts to provide copies of court documents, and they would be surprised to know the finance department believes they should consistently cap the copy fee at ten bucks.
The Monterey paper was also the first to correctly portray how the charge would work — as a ten dollar tax on every singe file that is handed across the counter for a journalist to review. Most other news reports have described the charge as a $10-per-search fee, when in fact the fee amount is a multiple of ten depending on the number of files handed across the counter.
“It could be argued that newspapers, TV stations and the like are commercial enterprises that should pay their own way,” said the Monterey paper’s editorial.
“That, however, ignores the reality that legislatures and the highest courts have long recognized that the legal system functions best when the public enjoys meaningful access to court records, and that journalists are attempting to perform a public service much greater than simple retailing of mass data.”
The newspaper concluded, “The effect of the Administrative Office’s proposal would be to greatly reduce the scrutiny of the legal system while doing little to help with the financial crisis in the courts.”
After all the reporting Courthouse News has done on this issue since the Monterey County Herald published its editorial, I still could not have said it better.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/26/56071.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
March 26, 2013
Courts are either closing or slashing services all over the State. Meanwhile, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, they’re handing out promotions and raises, while at the same time, their “new math” isn’t passing the smell test with the State Auditor.
You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Long live the ACJ.