March 27, 2013
Dear Members and Others,
We attach an editorial penned by Bill Girdner of the Courthouse News. Suffice it to say, our branch leaders have gotten the attention of those in the media who report on court cases and who believe in open government. The author voices a concern that we share — some of the reporting on the “$10 pay for view” proposal has appeared to cast blame on the Governor or his Department of Finance for this assault on the First Amendment and open government. That could not be further from the truth.
A Report to the Judicial Council (link) dated December 14, 2012, lays out the council’s legislative priorities for 2013. On page 12 you will find language drafted by AOC staff amending the Government Code to charge the public $10 to view a “name, file, or other information for which a search is requested.” Our branch leaders standing by silently while the Governor and his Department of Finance are unfairly criticized for this gaffe hearkens back to the last time the AOC was caught attempting to gut Government Code sections concerning the management of the local trial courts. Then AOC staff affirmatively blamed the Department of Finance. Now, they seem content to allow a misleading impression to be made regarding the authorship of this misguided proposal.
We encourage you to read this report in its entirety, as it sheds additional light on what our handpicked leaders believe is essential in this year’s legislative session. We will point out only one additional item. On pages 7 and 8, the AOC proposes to defer audits for compliance with the Public Contracting Code unless specific funding is provided to the judicial branch to offset the cost for these audits.
As you know, the State Auditor recently released her audit findings of the first six local courts that were chosen to be audited. We learned from this audit that the AOC was up to its old tricks by providing incorrect data and excluding information required by the auditors. The six local courts were found to be substantially in compliance with the code. Ending the audits now would stop the State Auditor from auditing the “AOC and other judicial branch entities” as is required by December 15 of this year. It appears that the six local courts had the funds to pay for audits last year, but this year the central office appears to be broke and unable to afford an audit unless the General Fund provides the resources to do so. How convenient.
The Alliance believes that auditing the AOC is not a luxury that should only occur if extra funding is secured. Rather we believe it is of utmost importance that respected State Auditor Elaine Howle undertake this audit immediately. For those on the Judicial Council who champion and repeatedly claim that a new regime has embraced “greater transparency,” this proposal to kill off an audit speaks to their definition of transparency when it comes to their own operations.
As always, we will continue to keep you informed on matters concerning our branch.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
________________________________________________
Courthouse News Service
3/26/2012
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 single 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.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 27, 2013
Note to self: Preview before posting-
Explanation: Email subscribers, yenwire subscribers and syndicated connections received the above post as one large paragraph. Had we previewed, we would have caught the mistake, which we eventually did after reviewing what was posted. Not before 500+ recipients received one large paragraph…
unionman575
March 27, 2013
Another slam dunk ACJ & JCW.
😉
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2013
Great work JCW. This fee on court records was another PR disaster for CA Courts brought on by the so called “leaders” of the branch in the AOC. It never needed to happen. The Chief needs a new leadership team at the AOC. Jahr is new and deserves a shot but clean house with all of theTeam George leftovers (Jody, Curt, and Curt). They gotta go at this point. Only then will the AOC be on a path to regaining some credibility with the other branches. The longer the Chief holds on to these three the worse it will be for all of CA Courts. She also needs to get behind democratizing the Judicial Council. It’s the right thing to do. Thanks to the ACJ for fighting for positive change in the JC and honorable leadership at the AOC. It is a pleasure to see.
The OBT
March 28, 2013
I think I finally figured something out. HRH 2, the JC and AOC all want the trial courts to fail. This explains HRH 2’s tepid response to the massive cutbacks that are decimating our trial courts. Judge Earl’s plan just enhances this process as it will be particularly harsh on the small and mid-level trial courts. To maintain viability the JC and AOC will rush in and claim that their management ” Directors” can save dollars and better run the trial courts with a regional management structure. The irony? This was HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey’s plan all along.
unionman575
March 28, 2013
“To maintain viability the JC and AOC will rush in and claim that their management ” Directors” can save dollars and better run the trial courts with a regional management structure. The irony? This was HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey’s plan all along.”
That IS the AOC Plan.
😉
Michael Paul
March 28, 2013
Just as the AOC falls in the cross-hairs of a BSA audit this year, just as they’re about to add 39 employees and two million dollars to their budget, it appears that they’re suggesting they won’t be able to afford to cooperate unless Sacramento gives them more money.
They have buckets of money and millions hidden in couch-cushions for their various projects but not enough money for their core function. How convenient indeed.
One has to wonder as we all sit at our computers gazing for over four years at sea of red flags upon the horizon, how many other people don’t see those red flags?
Eric Holder testified to congress that he didn’t want to prosecute the banksters because he did not wish to shake the world’s conscience about the health of wall street. Similarly, it appears everyone wants to pretend that the public isn’t getting ripped off by judicial branch leadership.
Stuart MIchael
March 28, 2013
The phrase I’m hearing more & more from otherwise mild-mannered trial court judges (and some not so mild-mannered ones as well) is:
“I HATE the AOC”.
Judicial thoughts about the C.J. – although not as vehement – are still very negative.
The Judicial Council is seen as little more than a bobbing-heads gaggle of stooges and dupes stuffed with milk and cookies (and fine wines & munchies after 5pm.)
These harsh attitudes are coming from judges who have been active in local court management, as well as from many who’ve been focused up until now only on what’s happening in their courtrooms or at the public counters.
“Hate” is a strong word coming from judges – but it reflects the real feelings of many (judges & staff alike) who are on the front-lines of the not so slow strangling perpetrated by the Golden Gate House of Horrors on courtrooms and clerk’s offices throughout the state – and on the public they’re here to serve.
Now IS the time for a constitutional amendment, and also for the many statutory changes to branch governance that are sorely needed.
If the Executive and Legislative Branches don’t at long last see the crying need – with all the past, present, and future mis/mal and non-feasance emanating from the house that Ron & Bill built – they never will.
Hopefully, now that they’re really PO’d at the CJ & AOC for trying to put the blame on them for this latest AOC fiasco and PR nightmare, they will finally get behind real change.
But it must come from the judges themselves leading the charge. They really have to storm out of their courthouses and hit the road to Sacto.
Guest
March 28, 2013
What’s no to hate? The AOC has become an exclusive insiders club of incompetents. There only skill is protecting their club. Judges have to be involved because the administrators they keep recycling are nitwits. Patel, Soderlund, Child, Yamasaki, Roddy, Torre and Turner as the “leaders” of the Branch = no chance. Carlson is very good but is neutered by the aforementioned gang of asses. Jack Clarke was one of the only strong administrators who constantly called BS on the AOC but they shut him out and now he is gone. Then the CJ tries to fool the state judges by hiring a retired judge as an “administrator” and now he makes real judges look bad at leading the branch. Meanwhile the real judges, the real administrators and the real workers are forced to make the public suffer because if the incompetence of the Club.
So what’s to hate about the AOC?
Wendy Darling
March 28, 2013
“The Judicial Council is seen as little more than a bobbing-heads gaggle of stooges and dupes stuffed with milk and cookies (and fine wines & munchies after 5pm.)”
Actually, that’s a very accurate description, Stuart Michael. A bobbing-heads gaggle of stooges and dupes. Yep. Very accurate, indeed. And this is the branch “leadership” that is supposed be setting an example for others to follow.
Stooges and dupes. Apparently, that’s the example that the Office of the Chief Justice and 455 Golden Gate Avenue is going for.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
March 28, 2013
Well I am glad the judges are finally getting it. I have been saying (and many others have too including AOC employees) I hate and do not TRUST the AOC for years and judges would look askance at me like I had an axe to grind or something. It is about time they woke up and smelled the coffee….or in the AOCs case, shit.
courtflea
March 28, 2013
and thank you ACJ for keeping the judges informed.
YoloanR
March 28, 2013
Comment scrubbed at authors request which can be found below-
-JCW
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2013
I googled Victor Bucher, the Rosenbergs, and Progress Ranch. wow, tangled webs.
Progress Ranch is a “six-bed home” for troubled boys between the ages of 6 and 12. According to various websites, it appears to charge $150-250 per day per boy to attend (roughly $27,000-$45,000 a month for six children.) The charges are apparently paid from “government funds”. In addition, this place asks for lots of ONGOING donations for clothing and supplies (including x-box games for “educational” purposes), and much of the work is done by interns and volunteers.
Does Progress Ranch really have an $800,000 contract with the county?
Add in fundraisers, volunteer labor and private donations of cash and supplies and what do you have?
BIG BUSINESS. Lots of money and hype generated off of six little boys.
From what I understand, this is not unusual. . .
JusticeCalifornia
March 29, 2013
just imagine if our public schools had this kind of fed/state publicly funded support. . . .$4,500 per month and up per “troubled” child? Hahahahaha.
Yeah right, that concept would be supported by the taxpaying public. . . ..
Ummmm……NO.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/04/16/california-ranks-no-5-for-annual-pay.html
Ridiculous.
Follow the money.
unionman575
March 28, 2013
Editorial: Charging to view court files a poor budget remedy
Marin Independent Journal Editorial
Posted: 03/28/2013 05:53:00 AM PDT
GOVERNMENT is big business in California.
It is so big that officials often look for ways they can make money on what government produces.
In some cases, that product is paper — public records.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget calls for letting state courts — which have been hit hard by state budget cuts — start charging the public, businesses and the media a search fee for looking up criminal and court filings.
The proposed fee would be $10 per search. On top of that, Brown’s budget plan would double the existing photocopying charge from 50 cents to $1 a page.
Court officials say the fee would help them recoup their costs in meeting public-record demands of so-called data miners, commercial enterprises that ask for large numbers of files, extract commercially viable information and then sell that information.
The proposed fee replaces a charge of $15 for searches that take longer than 10 minutes. It’s unlikely that charge covers the cost of having a clerk track down dozens or hundreds of files for data miners.
It also sounds as if the state, as the producer and provider, wants a bigger piece of that action. Brown and the courts are looking for ways to reverse a recent trend of budget cuts that have led to closing courtrooms, shortening hours and laying off workers.
While officials say the fee is needed to recover costs associated with large-volume requests, the charge does not differentiate between users.
That’s the problem Sen. Loni Hancock of Berkeley has with the proposal. She calls it another step toward “a fee-for-justice system,” where people who cannot afford the fee don’t have access to the information they need in their pursuit of justice.
The same goes for the media. Reporters, including IJ staffers, often comb through courthouse records in their reporting of local news. The proposed charge puts a chill on access to public records, especially hampering smaller papers that have to work on smaller budgets.
For the IJ, the charge, as presented, could run $800 or more every week.
In its current iteration, the charge would not apply to people seeking files regarding cases in which they are personally involved.
But the question of fair and open access to public records looms heavily over this proposed fee. In addition, there’s a question about the fee being commensurate with the cost of the service, whether someone is asking for one file or hundreds.
Lawmakers, who have to approve the proposed fee, should demand the courts detail the dollars-and-cents costs of handling requests for files, both for small and large searches.
In a recent speech, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, “What we once counted on — that courts would be open, available and ready to dispense prompt justice, is no longer the case in California.”
That is a sad indictment of the state of California’s courts. But making court records — public information — less accessible by making them more costly to review and copy doesn’t seem to be a logical remedy to fixing what’s wrong with our courts.
unionman575
March 28, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/28/56167.htm
Thursday, March 28, 2013Last Update: 4:10 PM PT
Judge Rejects Challenge to Court Closures
By MATT REYNOLDS
LOS ANGELES (CN) – A federal court has thrown out the claims of community groups opposed to the closure of courthouses for landlord-tenant disputes.
Last week, several community groups sought to enjoin Los Angeles Superior Court consolidation plan, which went into effect on Monday. Under the plan, the court closed 21 of its 26 courtrooms for eviction hearings.
Plaintiffs include nonprofits Union de Vecinos, the Coalition for Economic Survival, People Organized for Westside Renewal, and the Independent Living Center of Southern California. They say the court closures will place an unfair burden on the poor and disabled, adding hours more to travel times.
In their lawsuit the say consolidation illegally “shuts the courthouse doors on many of the county’s most vulnerable residents.”
The eviction cases, known as unlawful detainer cases, must now be filed either in the downtown Stanley Mosk Courthouse, or in Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, or Antelope Valley.
Last year 67,182 unlawful detainers complaints were filed by landlords in Los Angeles County, according to court spokeswoman Mary Hearn. Unlawful detainers are filed when a tenant refuses to leave an apartment or leased property after receiving an eviction notice.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter dismissed the lawsuit, and abstained from considering its merits.
Plaintiffs’ representative Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County Executive Director Neal Dudovitz said he was “disappointed with the ruling” but said the case was far from over.
“The issue raised in the case: the impact of Superior’s Court’s consolidation plan on poor people who are respondents in unlawful detainer cases remains a serious problem,” Dudovitz said. “We can’t leave the plan in place because of its dramatic impact on poor people and the disabled. It effectively slams the courthouse door on them.”
Neighborhood Legal Services may take the claims to state court or appeal the ruling to the federal court of appeals, said Dudovitz.
He emphasized that Judge Hatter did “not reach any of the merits of the case,” and said the judge had invited the group to take its claims to state court.
The Superior Court will close eight courthouses and cut 511 jobs to cut the last $85 million from its $195 million budget shortfall for this fiscal year.
It will relocate criminal, traffic, juvenile, small claims, eviction disputes, and civil collections to other courts.
Richard Power
March 31, 2013
Technology could quite likely ameliorate the situation. Not a total solution but it could rescue the situation from the disaster level up to a mere annoyance level. And at minimal cost. But first these folks are likely to try filing a lawsuit in every court they can think of. That’s sad because 1) they are likely to fail with all the lawsuits, and 2) the litigants are the ones who are going to get hurt in the meantime.
The warring parties in this court sytem need to get together soon on solutions.
unionman575
April 1, 2013
There’s nothing like trial court cash DIRECT to the trial courts via the Legislature without AOC clawbacks.
As you can see tech is not #1 on my list especially after CCMS.
😉
Richard Power
April 1, 2013
Good morning, UnionMan575.
I certainly understand your reticence to embrace technology solutions in the wake of the CCMS project failure. You have only seen poor technology. However, that situation itself is a major part of the problem. It gives people the idea that technology is a poor solution. Consider an alternative world.
I regularly sell data management software to people all over the country (as far away as Puerto Rico). Most customers find my Web site, request a demo of whichever item interests them, then purchase the complete application if they find it suits their needs. They don’t have to deal with bugs because there aren’t any.
You, and others on this blog, are certainly welcome to come by here anytime and look at what modern data management software looks like and try it out hands-on. And this includes a number of prototypes for court system use. I keep all identities confidential based on my association with a legal newspaper for which I write technology columns, and the provisions of Evidence Code §1070. Just contact me privately if you are interested. And I can arrange demos over the Internet as well although you would be limited to the features included in the demos, which are, in some cases, feature-limited to get the demo inside the 25 MB Inbox limit. And there are no demo versions of a few items. Lest you think these applications are somehow simple, consider that the two most complex each have master files that are over 40 MB in size. One, which has two new modules currently undergoing beta testing in Las Vegas, has over 7,000,000 lines of code. That application alone has more code than all of the CCMS components combined.
I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to learn what can be done. We’re all in this together and the situation is getting really serious.
unionman575
March 28, 2013
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22895758/editorial-budget-proposal-would-restrict-access-court-records
Editorial: Budget proposal would restrict access to court records
By Sentinel Editorial Board
Santa Cruz Sentinel
Posted: 03/28/2013 05:50:29 PM PDT
Gov. Jerry Brown, ostensibly in the name of saving money and shoring up the justice system, has come up with a really bad proposal.
In his new budget, the governor is seeking to charge $10 for each public records search. The governor has a coherent purpose to the proposal: raising about $30 million a year to help offset budget cuts for the state court system. Courts have lost about $1 billion through cuts and fund transfers over the past five years and the result has been higher fees, along with fewer courtrooms and construction delays.
But here’s the rub: Imposing a fee will almost certainly put a damper on requests for access to files the public has a legal right to see. If information is only available to those who can pay for it, it’s not really public.
While organizations or individuals with deeper pockets will be able to afford the $10-a-search fee, not all journalists or members of the public will be able to cover the cost, especially when multiple requests are made. Currently, there is no charge to search a court file, although courts can charge $15 to look up cases that take a government employee at least 10 minutes for the search. Brown’s proposal would allow free access for people searching for a case in which they’re a party, but then $10 for each additional search, even if that research is connected to their case.
Costs could mount. Newspaper reporters, for instance, working on an investigative story, or backgrounding legal rulings on a major court case, might search for 30 or 40 files a day. Reporters, judicial system watchdogs or neighborhood activists trying to understand what is happening on the streets where they live would need to have hefty bank accounts to seek out significant court information.
And here’s another ramification: Background checks now required to get most jobs, loans or rentals include court checks. Imposing this fee would add to the costs of running a business, or mean that some agencies or firms will simply forgo background checks — not a good idea in jobs such as working with children.
We also wonder, if this proposal flies, whether local governments seeking additional sources of revenue will consider a similar fee.
We won’t argue courts need more money than the state is providing. Cutbacks have meant the wheels of the justice system are not only moving slowly, but sometimes seem like they’re not turning at all. But this isn’t the answer. Jim Ewert, general counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the current system already allows the judicial system to recoup costs from large data-mining firms without restricting public access.
At the same time, the Legislature has faltered in its attempt to make bills and voting information available digitally. Reform groups have criticized the state and local governments for posting data on spending that is mostly incomprehensible, and the court system spent $500 million on an online system so bad it had to be abandoned.
In 2004 the state’s voters overwhelmingly amended the state constitution to open access to the mechanisms of government. And the state Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that open access to government records is a fundamental principle in the state.
Which is why restricting access to court records based on ability to pay is an idea that should be quickly judged as violating both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Lando
March 28, 2013
Following up on OBT’s fears, it is evident that these new allocations Judge Earl and Justice Hull are working on will attempt to reallocate court funds but they can’t reallocate judges given the fact that each trial judge is an elected constitutional officer. However I learned recently that there has been talk behind the scenes at 455 Golden Gate about what can be done to transfer judges to meet the new allocation formula. HRH 1 used the broad powers of Article 6 to assign judges to Riverside due to an emergency backlog of cases in 2007. Using this same ” authority” , the current insiders could mandate the movement of judges around the state to match the new allocations they order. The development and implementation of new funding allocations may just allow HRH 2 and her allies at the crystal palace , the power to end local control of the trial courts once and for all, making Ronald George’s quest for total centralized control of the trial courts, a reality. Scary times ahead everyone unless Woodhull’s amendment gets adopted.
courtflea
March 28, 2013
Lando, not a suprise, since courts are closing courtrooms and laying off staff, that they would figure that those judges that don’t have a courtroom or staff could “travel”. The evil empire will use any means to take over anything and everything. If nothing else you have to admit they have brilliant strategists at the AOC. too bad they use it for evil rather than good. We need some inglorious basterds.
wearyant
March 29, 2013
Instead we have vainglorious bastards. God help us!
So now, courtflea, the judges will be treated as if they were in a pool, much like secretaries and stenographers (noble professions these are, but treated like cattle) and moved about like checkers on a checkerboard, thus dehumanized and degraded.
I miss the good ol’, bad ol’ days.
YoloanR
March 29, 2013
Dear Editor of Judicial Council Watcher:
If not a bother, will it be possible for you to please delete my prior comment from this column. The comment contains inaccurate and incomplete information. For example, although yesterday I believed Barbara Sommer was the president of Yolo County Grand Jury, upon further research I discovered an error. Namely, that she is actually the President of Yolo Chapter California Grand Jurors’ Association. She did serve as grand juror/foreperson from 2008-2010.
Also, upon reflection, my comment of yesterday may create the wrong impression in the mind of your readers that I contacted the District Attorney of Yolo County for the sole purpose of reporting a crime by Judge David Rosenberg, Lea Rosenberg, and Barbara Sommer.
In fact, the Yolo DA was primarily contacted to simply alert him of my plan to seek information directly from Lea Rosenberg and/or David Rosenberg due to their extensive (and in my opinion — suspicious) involvement with various non-profits as not to run afoul of rules pertaining to ex-parte communications.
As you know from reading parts of Dydzak’s lawsuit, after I unearthed various schemes including, for example, by Judicial Council / Voice of OC members Joe Dunn and Thomas Girardi (i.e. CaliforniaALL ), and after I reported Voice of OC to the IRS, members of the State Bar of California Board of Governors (i.e. Joe Dunn, Jon Streeter of Keker & Van Nest — colleague of Chris Young who was a behind the scene actor of CaliforniaALL) pressed criminal charges against me with the Yolo DA “on behalf” of the entire “State Bar of California”
Since I strongly suspect Judicial Council members Mark Robinson (also part of CaliforniaALL scheme in his capacity as director of UC Irvine Foundation – where Joe Dunn serves as Chairman of the Audit Committee, and where CaliforniaALL forwarded all funds — including funds obtained from the California Bar Foundation), Tani Cantil-Sakauye (friend of Ruthe Ashley — CaliforniaALL executive director), and David Rosenberg are also somehow involved in provoking the Yolo DA , I begun to examine the background of David Rosenberg .
Lando
March 30, 2013
JCW we need to please be fair on this blog. I respectfully disagree with some of Judge Rosenberg’s positions in support of the AOC and he may tend to be too long winded at times but the post about him above isn’t right. While we disagree on policy matters he should not be the subject of attacks on his honesty and character on this website. We need to focus on the issue at hand, the reformation of the Judicial Council and reduction of the AOC budget. To that end does anyone know what the CJA’s official position is on Woodhull’s or any similar proposal to democratize 455 Golden Gate ? I would think this is a perfect issue for the ACJ and CJA to come together on. Have a nice Easter everyone.
The OBT
March 30, 2013
I was at a meeting within the last two weeks which included a number of local lawyers. I was very impressed with how concerned they were with branch budget cutbacks and their perceptions that the leadership of the branch, particularly the Chief Justice wasn’t doing enough to protect the trial courts. Unprompted they also relayed their views that the Chief is an ineffective leader, which has contributed to our problems. My guess is that many of the trial lawyers out in the trenches all across the state feel the same way. The lawyers I spoke with further felt the AOC given the millions wasted on the CCMS debacle needs to be radically reduced in size and restructured. Given that, we should act to get the Woodhull proposal on the ballot for the June 2014 election. I remain willing to meet in a remote and secure location at any time to help make this reform a reality.
unionman575
March 30, 2013
http://www.sb-court.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rmItl1Spe0c%3d&tabid=40&mid=395
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
PUBLIC NOTICE
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 68106
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: March 29, 2013
CASE SUBSCRIPTION FEE
EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 2013
The Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino intends to implement a new Internet Service for Case Subscriptions. This service will allow subscribers to receive automatic e-mail notifications when a hearing is scheduled, or a document is filed, in civil and criminal cases. The service will eliminate the need to manually inquire regarding actions taking place in these cases.
Please note that family law and juvenile cases are excluded from this program.
Proposed Fee Schedule:
$100.00 – Up to 25 cases
$250.00 – Up to 100 cases
Funds received will offset a portion of the cost of storing and maintaining the electronic documents, information and infrastructure necessary to provide this service.
This notice has been posted on the Court’s website at http://www.sb-court.org.
All public comments must be sent via e-mail to the Superior Court at:
Notice_Comments@sb-court.org .
Comments must be received by May 31, 2013.
This notice has been posted on the Court’s website at http://www.sb-court.org.
# # #
Michael Paul
March 30, 2013
Milo Mindbender would be proud…..
unionman575
March 30, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder
😉
unionman575
March 30, 2013
http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_22900366/editorial-courts-need-new-funding-model
Editorial: Courts need new funding model
Published by The Reporter
Posted: 03/29/2013 10:29:37 AM PDT
The old saying that justice delayed is justice denied is more relevant than ever in California’s court system.
In her recent State of the Judiciary speech, California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye passionately spoke about ongoing cuts and how they imperil the basic right that all Americans get a fair chance in court.
“To have your day in court, you need a courtroom,” she said. “And I must say that what we once counted on, that courts would be open and ready and available to deliver prompt justice, is no longer true in California.”
State budget deficits and subsequent cuts to court funding across the state have left many courtrooms closed, services reduced or eliminated, and a backlog of cases that continues to grow. Solano County has not been immune, with reduced civil and criminal clerk office hours, furloughs and a growing backlog in civil court.
In California, the courts receive about 1 percent of the state General Fund. In the past, it was traditionally about 2 percent. In dollars, that means the courts have taken about a $1 billion cut in the past five years.
On top of that, courts are now required to reduce local reserves to 1 percent of the annual state allocation. In Solano County, that means a fund balance of slightly more than $2 million will be reduced to less than $100,000 in fiscal 2014-15, according to Court Executive Officer Brian Taylor. One computer system crash or other unexpected funding emergency would wipe that out.
Cantil-Sakauye has urged Gov. Jerry Brown to restore some judicial funding with new revenue being generated as a result of Proposition 30, the ballot initiative that increased state sales and income taxes.
Instead, the governor has proposed a $200 million reduction, expects the courts to make up the difference by dipping into reserves and includes another monumentally bad idea: to have a $10-per-file service fee. In other words, access to court files would be free only for people directly involved in a case. Journalists, investigators and other citizens wanting to do research or simply follow a case would be charged an arbitrary and excessive fee. This would throw the idea of transparency out the window, or at least provide it only to those who can afford to pay. It’s a desperation move and a step backward that should be rejected.
Better hope for getting the wheels of justice turning again lies with a working group of judges that has been meeting to develop a new funding model for the state court system.
Judges have historically complained that the current model leaves some counties underfunded and gives too much to others. The working group is looking at a model that would take into account the complex nature of filings in each county court, as well as labor statistics on local government employee wages and unique factors for each court, such as high numbers of particular types of cases.
The group is expected to present its full plan to the Judicial Council in April.
😉
unionman575
March 30, 2013
In 2010, for example, the Oklahoma state Supreme Court struck down court fees as unconstitutional because the state was using them to support non-court related activities.
http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-risks-of-raising-non-tax-revenue.html
The Risks of Relying on User Fees
In the past three years, states and cities have brought in billions of dollars in additional user fees. But there are pitfalls to this form of revenue boost.
BY: KATHERINE BARRETT & RICHARD GREENE | APRIL 2013
Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene are national experts in government management and policy.
The political debate that pits the desire to generate new revenues against the drive to cut costs has become a central part of discourse at all levels of government. We’re not going to weigh in here on the merits of the two approaches. We think some combination makes sense for most governments, and we’ll leave the rest of the argument to the people who measure their success at the ballot box.
But one thing is uncontestable. In managing a state or locality, it’s never easy to raise taxes. Nobody wants to pay more taxes. Really. We sure don’t. And the people who say they do are often the people with so much money that they can spare it. (Sorry, Mr. Buffett.)
No wonder, then, so many state and local governments have turned to an alternative that brings in money like a tax but isn’t a tax. We’re talking about user fees.
For years, we thought of fees as the province of extra special amenities, like municipal golf courses or tennis courts. But these days, the range of activities to which they’re applied is huge. Easton, Pa., for example, has construction code building fees, plumbing inspection fees, permit fees for moving a household, fees for zoning hearings for a variance, fees for pushcart vendors’ licenses, and so on. Some places are even charging fees for various kinds of fire service.
“Politicians who won’t cut spending to meet a revenue shortfall are always looking for ways to pluck more feathers from the goose,” says Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education. “They can sometimes get them with less squawking through a quiet hike in user fees.”
In the past three years, states alone brought in some $1.5 billion in additional user fees, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. Of course, the numbers vary from state to state. Georgia, at an extreme, raised its fees by a remarkable $264 million for fiscal 2013.
As for cities, a long-term trend is clear: Two in 5 city officers reported that their entity raised fees in 2011. The National League of Cities also found that the assessing of or raising of fees has been going on for much of the last two decades — in good times and bad.
Supporters of such fees argue, sensibly, that they can help acquaint taxpayers with an important reality: The idea that services actually cost something, and that they don’t drop from the heavens like Old Testament manna on hungry Israelites.
So have states and cities discovered the proverbial free lunch? Not really. And it’s probably beneficial for managers who are considering this route to take into account some of the pitfalls.
For one thing, there’s the question of their potentially regressive nature: “The rationales for having user fees,” says Matthew Gardner, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “is the benefits principle.” He’s talking about the idea that he who benefits should pay. But, as Gardner explains, “that principle runs head on into the ability-to-pay principle. Low-income families don’t have the same ability to pay. The $20 you use to register your car is going to be a much bigger deal for a family below the poverty line.” Of course, this can be ameliorated with means testing.
Then there are legal principles dictating that user fees be used for the service provided — not just dumped into the general fund. The National Conference of State Legislatures warned about this more than a decade ago when it stated, “If user charges exceed the cost of providing services, or if separate accounting is not used, governments are vulnerable to court rulings that such charges are taxes.”
In 2010, for example, the Oklahoma state Supreme Court struck down court fees as unconstitutional because the state was using them to support non-court related activities.
From a simple fiscal point of view, there’s a nearly inexorable pressure for the cost of services to go up each year. Does that mean that states and cities that rely on fees are going to have to continue pushing them upward periodically? That’s certainly a problem. “Politically, the long-term difficulty is encapsulated in the idea that when I get paid the same $20 next year, it won’t buy the same amount of public service,” says Gardner. “They are, by definition, a nongrowing revenue source.”
Taking all this into account, does that mean there’s a likelihood of a backlash against more user fees. particularly as fees take cash out of the pockets of a growing number of citizens?
That’s our bet.
A little evidence: Back in August, California residents passed Proposition 26. It mandated that any new user fees require a two-thirds vote of the legislature. And as California history teaches us, those supermajority requirements can be a giant red stop sign to change. Says Tim Eyman, a conservative political activist, “Prop 26 was a good canary in the coal mine message: If you guys abuse your authority and say we’re going to call it a fee but it is a really a tax … that will obviously provoke a citizen response.”
😉
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-risks-of-raising-non-tax-revenue.html
unionman575
March 30, 2013
OCCM will keep building new courthouses as EXISTING courthouses continue to be closed and trial court staff laid off…
My, my, my…what fucked up priorities @ the Death Star…
Tsk, tsk…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21454.htm
New Yuba City Courthouse, RFQ# JBCP-2013-01-BR
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Judicial Branch Capital Program Office, seeks to pre-qualify a pool of qualified General Contractors from which to solicit bids for the construction of the new Yuba City Courthouse. Firms selected for pre-qualification will be given the opportunity to submit bids for the construction of the Project as described in Article 3 of the RFQ. Subject to the conditions prescribed by the AOC and provided herein, the AOC is hereby soliciting qualifications for the Project. Selection will be made on the basis of qualifications. The AOC intends to pre-qualify a group of General Contractors in a timely manner, and solicit construction bids from them shortly thereafter.
The new Courthouse for the Superior Court of California, Sutter County will be situated in Yuba City. The courthouse is sited on approximately 4.1 acres and is located at the South East corner of Civic Center Blvd. and Veterans Memorial Circle. The site is situated in a municipal center including Yuba City Hall to the north, Sutter County Jail to the south and Sutter County Public Health to the east.
This facility will consist of six multi-use courtrooms, along with support spaces, and totals approximately 73,326 square feet. Space for a seventh court-set is left unfinished. The courthouse will be three stories in height and a basement in-custody secured holding area. The structure is a steel moment frame system on spread footings, complying with the ‘progressive collapse’ design guidelines.
In responding to this RFQ, all Proposers are required to adhere to all of AOC requirements provided herein. All Proposers must hold a type B general contractor license from the State of California.
Mandatory Pre-Prequalification Submittal Conference at 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400, Sacramento, 95833, California on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 2 P.M.
Requests for clarifications or modifications must be submitted to: capitalprogramssolicitations@jud.ca.gov by no later than 5 P.M. on Friday, April 12, 2013.
Pre-Qualification Submittals must be received no later than 2 P.M. on Monday, April 22, 2013.
Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Donna Ignacio/RFQ#JBCP-2013-01-BR, Pre-Qualification of General Contractors, New Yuba City Courthouse
2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95833
Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in RFQ: JBCP-2013-01-BR
unionman575
March 30, 2013
The Superior Court of California
County of Imperial
NOTICE OF REDUCED DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION
ON THE IMMINENT REDUCTION OF DAYS AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE WINTERHAVEN BRANCH COURT
The State of California’s fiscal crisis has caused all government agencies to closely examine all
operations and expenditures, and to evaluate cost efficiencies and effectiveness, wherever
necessary. Despite the Superior Court’s history of prudent fiscal planning, effective cost-cutting
measures, and revenue generating strategies, the Court now faces an immediate deficit of over $1 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year that starts on July 1, 2013. Simply stated, this is the most severe fiscal crisis that the Court has ever faced and well beyond anything that could have been anticipated. In light of such a drastic situation and with three months until the start of the fiscal year, the Court has had to quickly explore options for reducing costs and increase efficiency.
Due to the urgency of the situation, it was necessary to make difficult decisions. The Court
concluded that reducing the days of operation of the Winterhaven branch court would realize a
significant and immediate cost savings and operation would improve efficiency.
Therefore, pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 10.620(e) & (f), the Superior Court of California, County of Imperial is hereby giving urgent notice that the court in Winterhaven will have a reduction in days of operation effective May 22, 2013.
The Winterhaven Court will be open Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 9:00 am
to 3:00 pm (California time) and will be closed on Mondays and Fridays. Infraction and
current misdemeanor calendars will continue to be heard at the regularly scheduled time at this
location.
The Court will do its best to minimize the overall impact and make the transition as easy as
possible. Any interested person or entity who wishes to comment in writing may do so by any of the following methods:
Email: infodesk@imperial.courts.ca.gov
– OR –
Correspondence: Superior Court of California
County of Imperial
ATTN: Kristine S. Kussman, CEO
939 West Main Street
El Centro, CA 92243
As required by California Rule of Court, Rule 10.620 all public input received shall be provided
to the person or persons making these difficult decisions.
unionman575
March 30, 2013
http://www.inyocourt.ca.gov/
The Superior Court of California, County of Inyo is closed on Thursday, July 4, 2013 for the Independence Day holiday and will not be staffed.
Please also be advised that the Superior Court of California, County of Inyo will be dark/will not conduct court calendars on Friday, July 5, 2013. A small number of staff will be present in Bishop and Independence for filings and phone calls, and a Judge will be available for emergencies, time-sensitive court proceedings, and urgent filings. However, no court calendars will be scheduled.
unionman575
March 30, 2013
Judicial Council Watcher
April 5, 2013
To our readers new and old-
Oftentimes we get anonymous messages sent to us via our private, secure and untraceable message window at https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher. Yesterday we received a curious message that demonstrates that the AOC is far from being reformed but instead has not changed a thing about running the branch and the Judicial Council is just along for the bobble-headed ride.
____________________________________________________________
At yesterday’s Assembly Budget subcommittee hearing,the representative from the Council’s PJ’s advisory committee testified that the “efficiency proposals” were developed by the PJ’s committee w/ the expectation that they would get into bills to be heard by legislative policy committees and stated that he was surprised they turned up in the Governor’s budget and thus are in front of the budget committee.
The State Department of Finance’s representative then rebutted that assertion by testifying that the AOC presented the proposals to the Governor specifically for possible inclusion in the budget and stated that they are appropriate for consideration by budget committees since every one that is not adopted will result in further strains on court budgets.
unionman575
April 5, 2013
Nice work JCW.
😉