March 25, 2013
Dear Members and Others,
We forward on to you an excellent in-depth article from the Courthouse News, by reporter Maria Dinzeo, concerning the AOC’s trailer bill language which would assess a $10 dollar fee per case file requested by media and other persons. This article is replete with numerous links and is a must read for those who are concerned with open government.
The Alliance opposes this “pay for view” plan as it will most assuredly result in less transparency and may well, in fact, silence those in the media who have expended considerable resources unmasking the wasteful proclivities of the Judicial Council and its central office planners at the AOC.
One last observation concerning this article: the highly-paid staff that populate the opulent headquarters in San Francisco are unable to offer a single coherent or consistent explanation to justify this onerous fee, nor can they estimate the revenue it would generate. From those who stress the importance of “speaking with one voice” we see yet another example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
This lack of internal consistency by branch leaders is reminiscent of their past blunders. How much would CCMS actually have cost and when would it have been finished? How many are employed at the AOC? How many “temporary” workers are also employed? Who wrote the trailer bill stripping local courts of their rights to elect their own presiding judges? These and many other issues, including court construction and maintenance, need to be explored by the same media apparently being targeted by this overreaching trailer bill.
Again, the Alliance wishes to thank Senators Noreen Evans and Loni Hancock for standing up for open courts and the First Amendment. We also extend our gratitude to all of those on the bench and in the media who have taken heat for exposing the malfeasance of judicial branch leaders.
Directors,
Alliance of California Judges
________________________________________
Tide 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 senator, a democrat from Santa Rosa, is also a member of the courts’ rule-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 of the Courts, the same bureaucracy that is pushing the new search fee. Evans’ opposition is a strong indicator of legislative wind direction on the trailer bill that would enact the fee. The senator 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 Senate budget subcommittee vetting the trailer bill, 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 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. Members of the courts’ administrative bureaucracy 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 simply said they do not have stop watches — to measure the ten minutes required under current law to trigger a search charge. Most searches are quick and come back in much less time. But, as the judges and legislators pointed out, the new fee would 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, a newspaper reporter reviewing the day’s newly filed 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.”
Press Coverage
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.” The Santa Rosa Press Democrat published a story titled, “State wants to charge citizens to see public court records,” followed by an editorial titled, “Price-gouging plan to fund state courts.” Underneath a photo of the chief justice, the newspaper’s editorial contrasted the chief’s call for “equal justice for all” in this month’s State of the Judiciary address with the actions of her staff in proposing the fee. The newspaper described the fee 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.” “Arbitrary and excessive fees would put some information services out of business,” the newspaper’s editorial added. “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 the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee and TV stations KPBS, NBC affiliate KCRA in Sacramento and ABC Channel 10 in San Diego. ABC noted the concession by the courts’ head administrator that the fee was bad 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.” The most powerful newspaper in the state, the Los Angeles Times, has yet to weigh in.Confusion over the story has also been inadvertently spread by the administrative office and the Judicial Council. The Press Democrat said in its story, “The search fee alone would generate $6 million, said a spokesman for the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the courts.” That estimate was in turn picked up in an Associated Press story published by the Fresno Bee, saying, “A spokesman for the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the courts, tells the Santa Rosa Press Democrat the search fee would generate $6 million annually.” 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 report by 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 not been consistent. He then pointed to 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,” wrote 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 limit their copy charges to a flat fee of $10, which is what the finance department’s 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.”
`Pull Down the Shades’
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 Judge White. “It would make court operations more inaccessible.” “One has to question the purpose of this,” he continued. “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 group that has campaigned for reform of the powerful and insular administrative office. The latest proposal from that office provided an opportunity for the Alliance to review the 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,” she added, “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.”
The reference to Howle involved a devastating analysis two years ago of the Court Case Management Software project, saying it had been mismanaged by the administrative office and its projected cost had been underestimated by hundreds of millions of dollars. In a report last week, the state auditor again criticized the ability of the courts’ central bureaucracy to accurately account for public funds. The Administrative Office of the Courts is required to report to the Legislature and the state auditor twice a year on spending in the state’s trial courts. “The AOC’s semiannual report was neither accurate nor complete with respect to data from the superior courts,” said Howle in her report to the Legislature. In addition, said Howle, the administrative office had left financial numbers out of its report that should have been included.
In Judge Gilliard’s statement last week, she ticked off the controversies involving the administrative office, saying they would not have come to light but for inquiry from legislators, judges and the media. “If not for the dogged determination of the entities listed above,” she wrote, “we would not have been informed about the true cost of CCMS; the pension perk provided to the top 30 highest paid central office staff; AOC staff telecommuting from outside our state and country; 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.”
Related articles
- AOC in Woodshed over LB – Chief re-appoints three to Judicial Council – From the desk of JCW (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- AOC’s misguided ‘pay-per-view’ draws fire from all directions (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Audit: California courts’ statewide financial report incomplete (blogs.sacbee.com)
Wendy Darling
March 27, 2013
The real motto of 455 Golden Gate Avenue: Access to justice – for the right price.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
March 27, 2013
The private message window is revealing that the New Funding Methodology Subcommittee of the Trial Court Funding Working Group has pushed forth their proposal to re-allocate funds
The alleged big losers are: San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Orange and San Diego.
The alleged big winners are: Riverside and San Bernardino
Though we can’t tell for sure because it isn’t official, it appears that San Joaquin didn’t send enough sycophants to San Francisco to win a cut of that pie…..
unionman575
March 27, 2013
Thanks for the heads up JCW.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/fundingworkgroup.htm
The Trial Court Funding Workgroup
Meeting: Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26-27, 2013
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
March 27, 2013
That makes it official. The document speaks to a reallocation of existing funds and future funds changing the allocation methodology for both which would include San Joaquin.
When fully implemented, it appears to guarantee each court about 50% of their current allocations. The other 50% appears to be up for grabs based on workload, with all future funding above todays baseline based on workload. While this does address the needs of cow counties, a quick trip around the block with a calculator indicates this could be devastating to the alleged big losers without significant additional funding and it will be these politically powerful counties that will scream loudest when their current funds are reallocated.
One has to question why current fund allocations were touched at all when it appears that by manipulating any and all future allocations would cause courts to eventually drift into parity without rocking the boat.
Nathaniel Woodhull
March 27, 2013
Everyone should be forced to read Laurie Earl’s cover letter to Harry Hull and Mr. Isenberg dated March 21, 2013, along with the six-page report on “funding methodology”. One word stands out in the report, which accurately describes the entire work of the TCBWG and its “subcommittee”. That word is CLUSTER. What we are all facing is a clusterf-ck!
Whichever bureaucrat at the AOC wrote this missive for Judge Earl should go to the head of the class when it comes to composing nonsensical jabberwocky. Lewis Carroll would have been proud. The following are some highlights with translation for the
“The Subcommittee has developed a proposed workload based funding model that involves a step by step budget development and allocation process which allows each of the 58 trial courts to determine their baseline funding needs.” TRANSLATION: Each County will lose money on every deal, but you’ll be able to make it up in volume!
“Access to Justice is a concept that resists simple definition.” TRANSLATION: Whatever common sense thoughts you might have should be checked at the door. Welcome to Wonderland.
“The absence of a trial court budget process for the past 15 years has resulted in a crippling lack of transparency about the fiscal situations of the trial courts an significant disparities in court services for California’s court user. The barrier is our own and the proposed workload based funding model is a significant step in eliminating it.” TRANSLATION: We don’t know our a-s from a hole in the ground.
In 1689, John Locke apparently foretold the management strategy of the JC/AOC. He noted in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: “Another way that men (people) ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.” In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
God save us all.
The OBT
March 27, 2013
This” pay for view” fee idea is an outrage. This is what your taxpayer dollars pay for, free access to the justice system which under the constitution belongs to the people , not HRH 2 and her allies at the JC and AOC. The next thing you know, the insiders at 455 Golden Gate will want to charge a user fee for individuals showing up and watching their courts at work. Here is a novel thought for the insiders to consider. Instead of charging more fees which undermine access to courts , how about implementing the cost saving measures that the SEC report recommends starting with moving out of the crystal palace .
unionman575
March 27, 2013
“The next thing you know, the insiders at 455 Golden Gate will want to charge a user fee for individuals showing up and watching their courts at work.”
How about a $19.99 per day pass or a platinum AOC annual pass for only $455? The $455 is offered with a wink and a smile…
😉
unionman575
March 27, 2013
135 pages of pure rubbish…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/5year1314.pdf
Judicial Branch
AB 1473 Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan
Fiscal Year 2013–2014
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
SUPERIOR COURTS OF CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADOPTED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL:
OCTOBER 26, 2012, AND BASED ON
JUDICIAL COUNCIL DIRECTION ON
JANUARY 17 AND FEBRUARY 26, 2013
SUBMITTED TO
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE:
MARCH 11, 2013
😉
R. Campomadera
March 27, 2013
This whole fee debacle is further evidence, as if any were needed,of the inept leadership provided by Director Jahr. Either he knew this was a bad idea, but thought it would give the judiciary some leverage in budget negotiations (he’s more or less admitted that, although, notably, with the benefit of hindsight), or he was clueless about what the reaction would be. Or both.
Anyone with adequate experience leading large complex organizations would have done his/her staff work to determine, first, the fiscal impact of this proposal, i.e. how much revenue it would raise, and two, the impact such a fee would have on all potential users. And finally, anyone with more than an ounce of experience in public administration would have remembered Mark Twain’s famous quote: “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel”.
This episode is a classic example of someone who is so far in over his head that it buggers the imagination. But what do you expect from someone whose only “executive” experience was a short stint as a PJ in a dysfunctional small court.
Oh wait…that can’t be right…“After reviewing candidates from all over the country, we eventually found the very best candidate in our own backyard,” said Justice Hull. “Judge Jahr is well known and well liked by many judges throughout the state. I’m happy that my colleagues on the Judicial Council felt the same way our committee members did.”
As if being “well known and well liked” is a qualification for anything.
And let’s not forget what the CJ said: “As chair of the Judicial Council, I am enormously pleased that Judge Jahr has agreed to accept this critical position…the depth of his experience in the judicial branch—as a trial court judge, as a presiding judge, and as a participant in statewide judicial branch initiatives—makes him an ideal choice.”
Depth? Are you kidding me?
Good grief. What an object lesson in mediocrity breeding mediocrity…is this really the best we can do?
Don’t the people of California deserve better?
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2013
I think the comments about the fee being a leverage tool for budget negotiations are right on. What terrible public policy this idea was and it was never debated in the Judicial Council. Again the AOC is making policy for the branch instead of being staff to the the JC. The cart in front of the horse again. How is this implementing the SEC Report (aka “Bible”)?
There is another tactic involved with this fee that I think the AOC tried to use. By threatening to charge the press this fee they knew the press would get outraged and scream bloody murder in many newspaper articles. The press became a pawn of the AOC as almost all of the stories lambasted the cuts to the courts giving the AOC the free press they wanted about the awful budget for the CA Courts. The AOC does not want to raise fees and Jahr admits it’s bad policy. They just want more money from the legislature and they’ll go to any lengths to get it so long as it does not involve cuts to the AOC.
I hope the other branches are on to them. The Chief said the AOC is 5% of the budget for the branch. Before more fees are raised on the press or the public I think the other branches should call the AOC’s bluff and agree this fee is not a good idea. But the solution should be the AOC will be cut diectly and the savings used to offset the loss of funding this fee might have generated for the trial courts. We may not know how much this fee would raise but we know for sure cutting the AOC saves 5% because that is what the Chief said in her State of the Judiciary address just a few weeks ago.
Wendy Darling
March 27, 2013
Published March 26, from Legal Pad, the legal blog of The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Is New Funding Formula Key to Governor’s Judicial Happiness?
[Cheryl Miller]
In the quest to answer Governor Jerry Brown’s call to make trial court funding more equitable, a group of judges and court executives may have come up with a solution.
The Funding Methodology Subcommittee, a Judicial Council bunch led by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Laurie Earl, has unveiled a model that purports to link individual court allocations with their workloads, not their historical — and historically unequal — funding levels.
The formula is complex and a little wonky, and it still has some holes. It would be phased in through 2018. Bottom line, some-better off courts would lose money under the plan while others that have gone begging would gain. But Earl and her subcommittee colleagues aren’t making public yet the full list of winners and losers.
“It’s a very, very rough draft, and there’s more tweaking to be done,” she said Tuesday after briefing the Trial Court Funding Working Group. (That’s the panel appointed by the governor and chief justice to analyze the success of 16 years of state funding for courts).
She did say her own court would lose funding under the plan. So would Santa Clara County Superior Court. Courts in Riverside, San Bernardino, Kings, Riverside and Los Angeles would also benefit, at least under the formula’s first draft.
In addition to tweaking its model, Earl’s group has a formidable sales job ahead of it. Will judges from courts that would lose money still back the plan? Will organized labor?
The group’s best hope may be convincing the governor that the funding formula is fair, or at least more fair than the current method. A satisfied governor may be more inclined to restore branch funding, and that should mean more money for everyone. That may be why the proposal seems to have some momentum behind it.
Earl’s subcommittee is presenting its model to judges and court executives in private meetings around the state. The Sacramento judge said she expects to make the proposal final before it goes to the Judicial Council in late April.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/03/is-new-funding-formula-key-to-governors-judicial-happiness.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
March 27, 2013
Basing funding on historical levels is nuts…the rich remain rich and the poor, as usual, stay poor. Using formula driven allocations based on weighted case filings/workload is clearly the way to go and there is ample precedent for it…it’s the way the federal courts have been funded for decades.
This is so obvious I can’t believe there is any controversy over it. But, of course, the rich always seem to protect themselves at the expense of the poor…we’ve got ours and you can go screw yourself.
That’s why what PJ Earl is proposing is so refreshing…she deserves huge kudos for supporting something that would disadvantage her own court for the greater good.
If only more of our leaders would champion what’s best for the system!! Three cheers for Judge Earl!!
unionman575
March 27, 2013
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130329793
• Court cutbacks will force higher volume in Ridgecrest
• Kern County Superior Court system faces reduction of services as a whole.
o
• By Jack Barnwell
jbarwnell@ridgecresca.com
Mar. 27, 2013 1:23 pm
•
•
• Significant budget cuts to the Kern County Superior Court System were confirmed Tuesday in a news release sent out by the court’s chief administrative officer.
According to Terry McNally, the court CAO, the Kern River Valley courthouse in Lake Isabella will be effectively shuttered and all cases diverted to either Bakersfield or Ridgecrest.
“The Regional Court located in Lake Isabella, 7046 Lake Isabella Blvd, has been reduced to one court day per week,” McNally stated in his news release. “Budget reductions do not allow continued operation of this part time court location.”
The changes go into effect June 10.
The cuts come in response to budget reductions at the state level. According to McNally the county court system “has realized significant, permanent budget reductions of $9.7 Million or 27 percent of base funding since 2008.”
McNally stated the most recent cuts to impact the system would total $3.7 million.
“In the past, the Court has been able to utilize savings from local cost cutting measures to balance the annual budget deficits to date. 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,” McNally stated.
All Kern River cases pertaining to misdemeanor matters, in-custody and out-of-custody, civil matters up to $25,000, small claims and unlawful matters will be diverted to the Ridgecrest Branch.
Kern River traffic infractions will be shunted to the Metropolitan Traffic Division, 3131 Arrow Street, Bakersfield.
The courthouse in Taft will remain open Fridays for limited civil matters and traffic infractions. All other cases will be redirected to Lamont’s two courthouses, the news release states.
All California Highway Patrol infractions will be transferred to Lamont, along with felony and misdemeanor hearings.
General court counter and phone hours for all locations will be reduced to 3 p.m. Monday – Thursday and to noon on Fridays. Courtrooms remain unaffected and will remain open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
In addition Bakersfield court reporter services provided by the county court will be impacted as well.
All court reporter services for family law and unlimited civil trials will be discontinued with the exception of those pertaining to matters of contempts, domestic violence and abandonments, McNally’s news release states.
Parties may use their own court reporters, with the cost coming from their pockets.
The county court system will have a protocol for use of contract court reporters in place by June 1.
• Most locations will have a drop box to file necessary legal documents by 5 p.m. Lake Isabella will be the only courthouse without a drop box.
Presiding Judge Colette M. Humphrey called the services lamentable but necessary.
“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 Humphrey in a news release. “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.”
The court system will likely shave between 20 and 25 positions from system, on top of a 24 percent employee vacancy, requiring the drastic moves to cut services that has occurred over the years.
“It is an unfortunate aspect of five years of budget cuts,” said First District Supervisor Mick Gleason on Tuesday.
He said while the budget cuts were necessary, he expressed optimism that some Kern River cases to the Ridgecrest and Bakersfield courts “would minimize the impact.”
However, he said it would affect four employees at the Lake Isabella courthouse.
“The worst part is trying to work with three full-time and one part-time employees we are trying to help find places for,” Gleason said. “That is the biggest concern for me, those 3 ½ positions.”
😉
MaxRebo5
March 27, 2013
Nice to read about a court exec who expresses concern for the employees who were laid off. My CEO didn’t thank me for 9 years of service to his court.
Hopefully those 4 employees get some recognition in Kern County from the judges too for their service to CA Courts. Also the JC should honor all court employees cut by the budget. The best way they could do that is to rename the JC conference center.
Lastly,every employee at the AOC should be grateful to have a job because operations staff in the trial courts are losing their jobs while you folks in administration jobs in SF keep yours. I think that is wrong but at least show some class and speak out too about the errors from the top there with Team George. There should not be additional director positions in your ranks at the AOC as reported here on JCW. It is shameful.
unionman575
March 27, 2013
My, my, my what have we here?
And now a word from Steve Nash former AOC Money Man and current San Bernardino CEO…
It does pay to hire an AOC guy after all…
The California Judicial Council has come up with some couch-cushion money from a statewide reserve, and the $1.2 million in emergency funds will allow one courtroom in the Barstow Courthouse to stay in business three days a week, through June 2014.
http://blog.pe.com/crime-blotter/2013/03/27/san-bernardino-county-one-barstow-courtroom-will-remain-open-with-emergency-funding/
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: One Barstow courtroom will remain open with emergency funding
Posted on | March 27, 2013
San Bernardino County Superior Court has become the poster-child for budget cuts to the state court system, with May 6 shutdowns scheduled for its courthouses in Barstow, Needles and Big Bear.
But now a small bit of good news.
The California Judicial Council has come up with some couch-cushion money from a statewide reserve, and the $1.2 million in emergency funds will allow one courtroom in the Barstow Courthouse to stay in business three days a week, through June 2014.
The court announced the funding Wednesday, March 27.
The action will allow the court in Barstow to hear traffic, landlord-tenant, small claims and domestic violence cases. Civil, family law and criminal cases will still have to be heard elsewhere.
Those who get their cases heard in Barstow will be spared a 32-highway-mile, one-way drive to the nearest fulltime court in Victorville. Needles residents whose cases fit the limited Barstow docket will get 30 miles cut from their 174-mile, one-way drive to Victorville.
The money is a one-time-only, temporary fix.
“During the next 15 months, court leaders will continue to partner with city and county officials, and work with state judicial, legislative and executive branch leaders to identify funding solutions, the court said in a statement.
“We must do all in our power to prevent whole communities from being effectively disenfranchised from participation in the court system,” said San Bernardino County Superior Court Presiding Judge Marsha Slough in a prepared statement. “The Court has an opportunity to keep some doors open and we are doing it.”
The action of keeping open the one courtroom in Barstow will save 10 of the 44 jobs the court planned to cut with the shutdowns.
In addition to the May court closures, San Bernardino County Superior Court already has closed courts in in Redlands, Twin Peaks and Chino and curtailed services in Joshua Tree.
In her State of the Judiciary speech to the California Legislature earlier this month that criticized what she called a billion-dollar cut to the court system, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye described the difficulties presented to citizens by closing far-flung courts in 20,000-square-mile San Bernardino County.
“A litigant now has to travel two hours one way to have his or her day in court,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “That means she has to have, A, transportation, B, a job that permits her to be free for the day, C, child card, and D, has to hope that the court, with the other pressing business, will be able to resolve her case in one day,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
San Bernardino County court officials anticipate an ongoing shortfall in excess of $10 million annually beginning in fiscal 2014-15. The court has a current annual budget of $105.1 million, projected to decline to $89.7 million by July 1, 2014.
😉
Wendy Darling
March 27, 2013
“Couch-cushion money” – that is so ironic on so many levels.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
March 27, 2013
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/03/get-ready-for-court-funding-cuts/
Get Ready for Court Funding Cuts
By Tom Scott
Executive Director, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Wednesday, March 27th, 2013
The Los Angeles County Superior Court recently announced plans to eliminate 511 positions by June in a sweeping cost cutting effort to close an $85 million dollar budget shortfall by the beginning of the next fiscal year.
The Presiding Judge, David Wesley, said all of the cuts are necessary. Including cuts made over the past four years, the court has lost 24 percent of its employees. Meanwhile the workload continues to increase.
Nearly 50 judges and staff spent 5 months coming up with a cost-cutting plan. This involved caseload analysis, study of court facilities and discussions with attorneys and stakeholders. The cuts will result in court closures, higher court fees and longer waits for cases to be heard.
During the State of the Judiciary speech to state legislators this year, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye pleaded with lawmakers to restore some of the funding. She stated that our court system, which is the largest in the country, is facing a “crisis in civil rights” because of the cuts.
In the near future, LA Superior Courts plan to close eight regional courthouses and create “trial hubs” for eviction, small claims, personal injury and other cases. The courts will also be eliminating their alternative dispute center, which provides arbitration, mediation and settlement conferences as an option to litigation. While they are at it, they are also going to reduce the use of court-employed court reporters.
These are serious cuts. California is a state with more than 1 million civil cases filed each year – and that does not even count our criminal cases or family law. Statewide, the funding for California’s court system has been cut by $1.2 billion – more than 24 percent – over the past five years. Without judges and courthouses, our civil justice system is unable to apply and interpret all the laws we pass in California. What’s more, with fewer judges and courtrooms, abusive lawsuits can further clog our court system and delay justice for those who deserve it.
These decisions will have impacts that last for decades. Adequate funding to our courts is critical and it behooves all of us to engage in this process.
😉
unionman575
March 27, 2013
Smile you are on candid camera in Fresno Superior …
Court..http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/03/26/3231463/virtual-traffic-court-to-start.html
Virtual traffic court to start in rural Fresno County cities
By Kurtis Alexander – The Fresno Bee
Tuesday, Mar. 26, 2013 | 06:37 PM
Starting next week, traffic judges in downtown Fresno will use video-conferencing to hold court at two remote locations, a technological innovation that court officials are billing as the first of its kind in California and possibly the nation.
Drivers who are cited for traffic violations 15 miles or more from Fresno’s downtown traffic court, like Meraz’s aunt, will have the option of disputing their tickets in virtual courtrooms in either Coalinga or Mendota.
“It would be much better if it were out here,” said Meraz, noting that her 45-minute drive would shrink to eight minutes with the option of going to Mendota. “A lot of people used to go to court out here. Now they have to drive all the way to Fresno to get their business done.”
The remote proceedings will not only make life easier for residents, but save time and money for rural police departments. Officers now commonly travel to Fresno to testify, eating up gas money as well as several hours of their day, which others have to cover for.
Coalinga Mayor Ron Lander called the ordeal a “significant strain” on his city’s budget.
The situation is the result of statewide budget cuts. The satellite courts were closed last summer — and consolidated in Fresno — to save a projected $500,000 annually.
The move shuttered courtrooms in Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Sanger, Selma, Kingsburg and Clovis.
“We recognized that there would be hardships in these communities,” said Superior Court Presiding Judge Gary Hoff. “We were open to any possibilities that would ease their burden.”
Since the closures, county court officials worked with the state Judicial Council to amend California’s court procedures to allow for video-conferencing. The Fresno County Superior Court was given two years to test the new program and, if it works as planned, can seek to make the virtual courtrooms permanent.
“This will be the first of its kind in California and possibly the country,” Hoff said. “All eyes will be on Fresno County.”
Remote court will handle only traffic cases, but that could change as court officials work out their growing pains and potentially find room to deal with other matters, Hoff said.
On Tuesday, the remote court was turned on for the media to see.
Hoff was joined by Judge Arlan Harrell on the dais, and the courtroom was projected to Coalinga’s old courthouse on a big screen and through speakers.
There, it’s expected that drivers will state their cases just like they would in a regular courtroom.
A court assistant will swear them in, make sure they can see and hear the judge — more than 60 miles away — and fax over any evidence.
Conversely, Fresno judges can watch what is going on in Coalinga.
The cost of equipping each site for video-conferencing was about $3,000, court officials said.
Coalinga plans to hold its remote court every Wednesday; Mendota will do it every Tuesday. Both cities are scheduled to start next week.
Drivers cited for traffic violations have had the option of scheduling a remote hearing since the beginning of March. This will continue.
😉