Let’s start out with proposed laws: Bob Wieckowski as proposed AB 666 which is being referred to in some circles as “The Devil’s Bill” because it strips the responsibility of adjudicating red light camera cases from the courts and makes them administrative hearings in front of the town that put the cameras up, much like parking tickets. The upside? It depends on who you ask….. More revenue for cottage industries that are lobbying heavily to have the cameras turned back on so that they can resume that revenue split with the city that put them up. Red light cameras also wouldn’t count as a moving violation on your record anymore either. The downside is more erosion of due process for citizens. This bill puts red light cameras in the same category as parking tickets and we know how that works – You’re guilty even if you can prove your innocence.
Then there is SB 289 by Senator Lou Correa. In an effort to give law enforcement better guidance on what constitutes as driving under the influence, Mr. Correa has defined any detectable amount of any drug in your system as driving under the influence. This winner will be producing revenue for years to come when people are arrested for having eaten poppy seed bagels and charged with DUI when those trace amount of opiates show up in drug screening.
Are you a prop. 215 patient?
Mr. Correa seeks to ensure that you prop 215 people never get behind the wheel again because if you medicated at any time in the last month, you will test DUI under his bill. There’s a saying that people that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Zero tolerance drug laws are what filled our prisons to begin with. This time, there are those cottage industries, the auto insurance industry and law enforcement from around the state that would benefit from that revenue split that sponsor this bill. Soon you will see new and improved blow-and-go ignition interlocks that test for more than just alcohol. And of course we can’t forget that a DUI triples your auto insurance premiums for five years. Then again there are all of those out-of-work lawyers who can’t prosecute civil cases anymore because there are no civil courtrooms left. They too can jump in on Correa’s cash bonanza and start defending the third of Californians who took a hit off a joint in the last thirty days. Now if this law had a twice-annual random substance testing provision for those who enforce the laws I think we might see the public back this bill – and watch law enforcement kill it.
Last, we have Senator Ellen Corbett and SB 123 who wants to create special land use courts to manage the California Environmental Quality Act within our overburdened, under-resourced court system. So what is a land use court? They get to decide if your construction project will impact environmental quality. Well, it’s something that California Judges already do but Corbett aims to have a certain amount of judges hearing only CEQA cases so that these cases are less of an impediment to progress and that these cases move through the judicial system on a fast track of sorts. Imagine, soon one of the three judges hearing civil cases in Los Angeles might be taken off the job to hear only CEQA cases. Or one of the two judges in Alpine County would only hear CEQA cases. Corbett is a reliable source for thoughtless legislation.
Seen any other winners that would undermine due processes or overburden our courts? Tell us about it as we intend to start these new laws on our soon to be deployed legislative watch tab.
_______________________________________________
Ever heard of the Feinstein invasion? Neither did we until a few days ago. You see the theory behind the Feinstein invasion is that if you’re going to invade the United States from the pacific coast, you concentrate your landings from Santa Barbara to Crescent City. The reason? Alaska has no gun laws. Washington and Oregon have few gun laws. There’s a significant military presence in Southern California and every gangbanger in L.A. has assault rifles despite the gun laws. So you hit the area where your forces can push in a few hundred miles with limited resistance. As our nation continues to debate stricter gun laws, let’s not forget that no one enforces the current laws on the books now and that represents a majority of the problem. With sabre-rattling from North Korea and talks of invading and nuking the United States, perhaps we should be reconsidering that marked lack of military presence from Santa Barbara north and permit law-abiding citizens to be well armed while strictly enforcing the existing laws on the books so that the Feinstein invasion never becomes a reality.
______________________________________________
A little bird is whispering to us that it’s appearing that another boondoggle might be taking form in San Diego. This boondoggle has to do with false commitments, tunnels, bridges and the tearing down of old, asbestos laden courthouses.
- From Judge Kenneth So, June 14, 2012 “The State of California will pay for the tunnel because it was part of the negotiations to obtain the land for the courthouse from the County. The tunnel is included in the budget for the courthouse project.”
- Notes of an AOC Memorandum to the City of Long Beach, August 2012 “The State was firm in their decision that they would not finance the construction of the tunnel, as they view prisoner
transportation as a local responsibility, whether prisoners come from long beach, the county of communities like Signal Hill
.”
- The Michael Roddy report that went out to judges in San Diego in August 2012 reiterates the AOC’s policy by indicating that there is no tunnel planned from the county jail to the courthouse. There isn’t a bridge from the HOJ to the new courthouse. Conveniently, it leaves out who will pay to tear down the old courthouse like it is not on anyones’ radar, yet the proposed prisoner tunnel was penciled in (as part of the sales pitch) to go under the existing courthouse after it was raised. Except you can’t use SB1407 funds to build prisoner transport and they can only be used to tear down buildings when a new courthouse is going up in place of the old courthouse on the same plot of land.
Another case of the insiders bamboozling the rest of us to win construction approval?
I wonder what a CEQA court would say about all the downtown air pollution generated by busing prisoners two blocks.
This courthouse was initially slated to cost 1.2 billion dollars by the AOC. In the last two years they’ve tossed about figures of between 554 million and 640 million. Yet what no longer appears as part of the project is the reason the land deal went down in the first place – a direct connection to the county jail. Instead, the AOC wishes to build their own holding facilities (the most expensive part of any courthouse with the least in it) and have prisoners transported to an area where no parking exists. If there will be no tunnel, the AOC should take advantage and move the courthouse out of the congested downtown area and save everyone – including themselves – some cash.
Related articles
- Environmentalists and unions band together to fight CEQA changes (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
- AOC’s misguided ‘pay-per-view’ draws fire from all directions (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- ‘Devil’s Bill’: California considers red-light camera tickets that you can’t fight (usnews.nbcnews.com)
- Devil’s Red Light Camera Bill Is Bait and Switch for the Benefit of Red Light Camera Vendors (onecitizenspeaking.com)
- Another Evil California Scheme to Fleece Motorists (economicpolicyjournal.com)
unionman575
April 1, 2013
More fine work JCW.
😉
The OBT
April 2, 2013
Thanks JCW for reporting on Boondoggles. The new proposed San Diego courthouse has all the the potential for becoming another Long Beach fiasco but please don’t overlook the San Diego Court of Appeal which is parked in a high rise tower downtown at highly inflated rental rates. I guess it would have been beneath J McConnell to vacate the tower and work out of a brand new Superior Courthouse including the one the taxpayers will be paying for for decades.
Lando
April 2, 2013
Sorry but I don’t demand anything in contrast to J So’s wanting the taxpayers to pay for more than a courthouse. I also don’t understand how the Court of Appeal in San Diego works in a luxury downtown office tower while I work in a building that is so old no one can control the heat or cold. My last trial the jurors were using their notebooks as fans to try and keep cool. The trial before it was so cold that the jurors kept their coats on , while my staff huddled in the hallway at every recess while we waited to get AOC approval for someone to come and correct the problem. The reality is that the anti-democratic Judicial Council/ AOC has blundered their way though the management of all of this just like they do pretty much everything else.
unionman575
April 2, 2013
I can relate to the “freeze or fry” dliemma in my dlliapidated court building as well Lando. It’s either 58 degress or 90 degrees, pick a winner,.
😉
unionman575
April 2, 2013
Why not close EXISTING COURTHOUSES and BUILD a NEW ONE? Yeah that’s the ticket!
😉
Locally the Corning Court is scheduled to close its doors for good in June and will be consolidated with the other three Courts already located in Red Bluff.
From that point on Corning and South County residents will have to drive to Red Bluff whenever they have any business before the Courts.
http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/ci_22922126/judge-speaks-corning-exchange-club
J
udge speaks to Corning Exchange Club
Special to the Daily News
Updated: 04/02/2013 07:14:35 AM PDT
Superior Court Judge Jonathan Skillman was the guest speaker at the Corning Exchange Club meeting held on March 18 at the Iron Skillet.
Speaker’s Chairman Bucky Bowen introduced the speaker by filling Club members in on Judge Skillman’s professional background. Judge Skillman began working in the Tehama County District Attorney’s office as a law clerk in 1991.
In 1995 he became a Deputy District Attorney following his graduation from the Northern School of Law in Chico.
He worked for four District Attorneys; and at one point was also associated with the Law Firm of McGlynn and McGlynn.
In 1999 he was appointed as Tehama County Assistant District Attorney and served in that position for ten years. He prosecuted many high profile cases including the DNA cold case murder and torture of Heidi Fredette. Heidi was abducted from Plumas County in 1984 and was found near Paynes Creek. At the time he prosecuted the case, Jonathan indicated “it was a painful process but it felt good to help give closure to a family who had been grieving for nearly 20 years over the loss of their young girl.”
Judge Skillman gave a detailed report to Exchange Club members regarding the status of the court system in Tehama County and throughout California due to budgetary shortfalls, and especially the problems rising from the requirement to now keep more criminals in the local jail system instead of sending them to State prison.
Interestingly in larger counties Judges tend to specialize and in their formative years on the bench only handle misdemeanors, probate and similar cases; and only after many years on the bench begin hearing felony cases.
Tehama County judges are required to handle all manner of cases including felonies from day one on the bench.
Locally the Corning Court is scheduled to close its doors for good in June and will be consolidated with the other three Courts already located in Red Bluff.
From that point on Corning and South County residents will have to drive to Red Bluff whenever they have any business before the Courts.
In spite of State budget shortfalls, that the State’s stand alone construction budget will shortly fund the construction of a new court complex in Red Bluff on a site on Walnut Street.
This was good news because the County Courts need larger facilities to handle its work load efficiently.
A number of Exchange Club members expressed surprise that at a time when the State is cutting operating budgets of local courts, it can still find money in a stand alone construction budget to build a new court complex.
Judge Skillman and his wife Angie have three daughters along with a 2 – 1/2 year old son.
The family enjoys spending time participating in sports and playing music. They are members of the Old Time Fiddle Association.
The Corning Exchange Club is very appreciative that Judge Skillman came and spoke to us and thanked him for his service to the residents of Tehama County.
disgusted
April 2, 2013
And there’s Donald Wagner’s AB251………….
“CCRA ALERT
CCRA vs. ER!
Dear xxxx,
Your action needed today, now, ASAP!!
CCRA takes direct action to fight against Assembly Bill 251 introduced by Orange County Assembly Member Donald Wagner.
Wagner’s bill to allow electronic recording in family law cases, where some of the most confidential and emotional litigation occurs, is alarming.
In a practice of law that sees many indigent litigants, the concept of preserving the only record by means of an oftentimes unintelligible electronic recording is IRRESPONSIBLE. By creating a two-tiered justice system — those that can afford a proper record and those that cannot — California has created an abyss of discrimination between the rich and the poor. Those that can afford to litigate issues, including family law, child custody, and financial support issues, are left with an easily manipulated, unregulated, poor record of proceedings. Appellate review will be increasingly difficult, thus allowing speculation as to what occurred in court proceedings.
Whose rights are being trampled upon? The public, whose access to justice is being denied.
Californians should demand a court reporter in family law proceedings!
Make no mistake about it. This is a quick and dirty fix that shows little foresight into the PROTECTION of rights of the unintended victims, litigants, attorneys and the court. It is irresponsible to preserve the only record in the hands of electronic recording.
CCRA has assembled our team of experts, lobbyists, legislative analysts and legal experts to face this head on. Strategy plans and meetings are taking place with key legislators that need to hear the message loud and clear: AB 251 is IRRESPONSIBLE. Court funding must be restored to the Justice System to adequately protect the rights of the public.
CCRA is working with key justice partners and unions, as well as meeting with legislators to help restore court funding to our courts.
We need you to act now by following the instructions below. Please join us in ensuring justice for all.
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE
IS BEING DENIED.
Please take a few minutes today to complete and fax an opposition letter on AB 251 to the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, who will be voting on this bill, urging a NO vote. Please click here to see if you are a constituent of the Assembly Judiciary Committee members listed below. Please click here for an example letter if you are a constituent or
click here if you are not a constituent. Please be sure to add your address to the letter.
Ask your friends and family to write letters in opposition as well.
FAX TODAY ASAP:
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER, DISTRICT NO. AND FAX NO.:
Bob Wieckowski (Chair) (25) 916-319-2125
Luis Alejo (30) 916-319-2130
Edwin Chau (49) 916-319-2149
Roger Dickinson (7) 916-319-2107
Cristina Garcia (58) 916-319-2158
Jeff Gorell (44) 916-319-2144
Brian Maienschein (77) 916-319-2177
Al Muratsuchi (66) 916-319-2166
Mark Stone (29) 916-319-2129
JOIN CCRA’S FIGHT TODAY.
LINKS
Home
About
Join CCRA Now
California Court Reporters Association
65 Enterprise
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949-715-4682 949-715-6931 fax
info@cal-ccra.org
http://www.cal-ccra.org “
unionman575
April 2, 2013
Already sent one to my assemblyperson Jeff Gorell this morning.
😉
wearyant
April 9, 2013
Jeff Gorell proved rather disappointing today in the Assembly’s subcommittee on the judiciary. I’m wondering if the evil empire got to him and scared the ethics right outta his body. He started out well when he was new to the assembly, seemed concerned about the AOC using unlicensed contractors, then got his bill beat up by the allegedly brain-tumored, proven-guilty shoplifter, said crazed lady now gone from the legislative scene. Maybe the AOC has whispered in his ear that they have the power to send him back to Afghanistan. I don’t understand why the reversal in his attitude from the white hats to the black hats. He voted for the Wagner bill 251 that would cheapen the court system by allowing electronic recording in family court. He apparently supports the JC/AOC stance for privatizing, said discussion in another bill, and thus cheapening the trial courts system to all our detriment since we all know and have proved the AOC can’t manage their way out of a wet paper bag, they don’t know the value of a dollar, are no match for the private sector and most likely would do even more kickbacking and slipping jobs to their buddies and their partners in slime. I’m just on the other side of the line from his district so I’m not sure he’ll give a damn what I think. Maybe the Unionman575 can bring some sense back into this guy’s noggin. I just may subject this newbie, this tyro, to my old-time wisdom. I thought this guy would be a shinin’ star. Very dejected.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 3, 2013
Yes, AB251 undermines due process and should be included.
After reading the Roddy report of Aug ’12 a correction is in order-
Mike Roddy’s August report does indeed have the tunnel laced in as a part of the plan.
It is apparently the AOC themselves under the leadership of Clifford Ham, their builders and designers that have upped the estimated price tag of the 330 foot tunnel from 3-5 million dollars to 25 million dollars and penciled in a tunnel as future use and not a part of the courthouse build or the plans for the courthouse.
The issue is that they’re not formally announcing that there will be no tunnel but that the tunnel simply isn’t a part of the project despite all of the rhetoric coming from San Diego court leadership that there will be a tunnel.
We’re told that this situation is quite different from long beach insofar as the land was given to the AOC so that there would be a direct connection from the jail to the courthouse. We’re looking into allegations that the tunnel was a condition of the land agreement and that the AOC intends to breach that agreement.
unionman575
April 3, 2013
Grewal said the new lawsuit challenges the validity of the policy.
😉
http://www.dailybulletin.com/breakingnews/ci_22929072/state-appeals-court-tapped-reverse-courtroom-closures-citing
State Appeals Court tapped to reverse courtroom closures, citing need for greater access to eviction courts
By Christina Villacorte
christina.villacorte@ dailynews.com @LADNvillacorte on Twitter
Posted: 04/02/2013 05:00:04 PM PDT
Updated: 04/02/2013 05:00:54 PM PDT
After a setback in federal court, legal aid and community organizations asked the state Court of Appeal Tuesday to invalidate the Los Angeles Superior Court’s new policy that severely reduced the number of courthouses hearing eviction cases.
Maria Palomares, a lawyer with Neighborhood Legal Services, said the appeals court should act urgently to reverse the policy, implemented March 18, that would cram the county’s 70,000 annual eviction cases into just five courtrooms.
Last year, tenants could go to 21 courthouses to try to avoid being kicked out of their homes. Drastic state budget cuts, however, forced the Superior Court to consolidate services in fewer courthouses.
Palomares argued this creates a hardship for tenants who would have to commute for hours to courthouses as far as 60 miles away to fight eviction.
“These barriers will be insurmountable for many low-income tenants, particularly elderly tenants, families with children and tenants with disabilities,” she said in her petition.
“As a result, many low-income tenants will become homeless, not because of the merits of their cases, but because the Superior Court has effectively shut the courtroom doors on them,” she added.
The organizations, including the Coalition for Economic Survival and Union de Vecinos, sued both the Superior Court and the state of California in federal court last month.
US District Judge Terry Hatter, however, dismissed the lawsuit days later without considering its merits. By abstaining, he indicated a different court should hear the case.
Navneet Grewal, a lawyer with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said plaintiffs intend to cover all their bases by filing the new lawsuit in the state Court of Appeal, and also appealing the federal decision later.
“We’re pushing forward because we know that our clients are really being harmed by this,” she said. “Our clients are daily losing access to the courts, and losing their homes. ”
Grewal said the new lawsuit challenges the validity of the policy.
“The Superior Court went ahead with the court consolidations and closures without ever consulting the stakeholders and, under state law, they really had a duty to go through a much more in-depth and rigorous process first,” she said.
unionman575
April 3, 2013
And now a word from the Ministry of Truth…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21457.htm
Fact Check: Common Misperceptions about the New Long Beach Courthouse Project
The new Long Beach court building will be completed this fall, providing a much-needed replacement for one of the worst courthouses in the state. By contracting with a private firm, the state was able to complete this large new court building on a fast track, without having to pay up front for design or construction.
Several recent reports have repeated misconceptions about the project.
Claim: The project is over budget.
The state’s maximum costs for the entire 35-year life of the agreement have been known since 2010, when the project agreement was approved and signed.
The state will only begin payment on the courthouse when it is finished and occupied. The private project company assumes all risks for any cost overruns during construction, but so far the project is actually running slightly under budget (and ahead of schedule). Change orders have been minimal, approximately 1 percent of the construction budget, which is well within the agreement’s allowances for changes, and the operational impacts of these changes are known today.
The state’s actual annual fee will depend on how well the building is run. The state will deduct for any outage or failure that affects building operations. The maximum costs included estimates for inflation, but actual inflation could be less, and inflation affects less than a third of the service payment. These are actually two of the benefits of the performance-based infrastructure delivery method: predictable costs and a performance guarantee.
Claim: The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) concluded that the state paid $160 million too much for the building.
Not accurate. The LAO report focused on the state’s practices in selecting and evaluating these kinds of projects. It looked specifically at the value-for-money analysis, which was used, among other criteria, to evaluate different procurement models before the state committed to the project. The value-for-money analysis underwent rigorous and regular reviews by the state Department of Finance—pursuant to the authorizing legislation—before the project was approved.
Years after the project was approved, the LAO took issue with some of the underlying assumptions of the analysis and asserted that changing those assumptions could have changed the result of the analysis “by as much as $160 million in net present value terms.”
The LAO’s assessment is theoretical only; it is not an evaluation of the project’s actual costs. In the same report, the LAO took similar issue with a Caltrans value-for-money analysis, indicating that the state is just starting to gain experience evaluating these kinds of projects. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) maintains that the Long Beach analysis followed best industry practices and proved the project’s value for the state. The AOC believes it is premature to evaluate the project’s actual costs and intends to do a full analysis after the court has occupied the building for a couple of years. More information
Claim: The courthouse will cost the state $2.3 billion.
This statement mischaracterizes the project’s cost, for three reasons:
1. The total project cost is for much more than the initial design and construction of the court building and the garage, which is costing about $343 million. It is a service contract for the private party to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the courthouse for 35 years.
A good analogy would be for an all-inclusive package deal for a brand-new house and a separate garage, in which the monthly mortgage payment covers not only the house itself and the cost of financing over 35 years, but also utilities and all repairs and maintenance, including life-cycle replacements for all appliances and things like carpeting, and even small purchases like lightbulbs, as well as upkeep such as landscaping and window-washing, to keep the house in top shape for 35 years.
2. This figure, which comes from adding up the maximum service fee payment for 35 years, makes no allowance for a basic economic principle: the present value of money. It assumes that a dollar 30 years from now will be worth the same as a dollar today, with no allowance for inflation. The more appropriate way to evaluate a long-term capital budgeting item like this is with its net present cost. The net present cost of the Long Beach project is $725 million. The state owns the building throughout, but it will be turned over to the state in top condition at the end of the 35-year term.
3. Because the payments are performance-based, the annual service fees spelled out in the project agreement are the maximum the state will pay. If there are problems in the building, the state will deduct, so the fee could be less, but not more, than what is specified in the project agreement.
Claim: The private partner bears no risk in this arrangement.
Inaccurate. Under the project agreement, the private project company bears significant design, construction, and operating risk. The private company must cover all risks related to design and construction–such as any additional work needed to pass building code agency reviews and receive permits, any costs related to construction delays, and even latent defects in the architectural or engineering design. As noted before, the project agreement includes a performance guarantee for the entire 35 years: deductions will be made when court spaces are unavailable or specified operational performance standards are not met.
April 2013
😉
Long Beach is still a clusterfuck supreme despite the above “Fact Check.”
Judicial Council Watcher
April 4, 2013
If the net present cost is 725 million, why did they cancel about twice that amount of money in new courthouses to pay for Long Beach? You gotta love those people at the Ministry of Truth and Public Enlightenment – spending millions of your tax dollars every year spinning corruption, greed, graft and self-dealing into “an investment into the future”
The fact check fails to mention that the costs of maintaining this one courthouse whose maintenance payments are built into the rent costs more than the total costs of maintaining the other 500+ court owned buildings.
This building falls under Ken Kachold’s maintenance district once complete. As you might recall, Ken Kachold is known for giving glowing vendor reports and firing staff that fail to produce glowing vendor reports regardless of the facts on the ground. Regardless of vendor performance, you can rest assured that Mr. Kachold will consistently ensure that the vendor always receives their performance based initiatives much like he has done with current and former maintenance vendors he manages.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
I love ’em JCW. Like the plague.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 4, 2013
Hmm, I really love the AOC “fact check” memos. Ask yourself, why are these “facts”? Because the Ministry of Truth tells you that they are. Sounds to me like the Crystal Palace is employing the standard practices used in a confidence scheme; aka: con game, scam, grift, hustle, bunko, swindle, flimflam, gaffle or bamboozle. They think that we are all marks or suckers.
Look out for the following schemes soon to be launched by the AOC:
1. A new generation of Victor Lustig’s ‘money printing machine’. For a mere $100,000 per, the AOC will sell each trial court a machine that will make perfect copies of $100 bills.
2. Spanish Prisoner scam, updated to include the Nigerian scam. Now I heard that both Curt Child and Jody Patel have a mutual friend that has inherited $500 Million here in California! Unfortunately, the person is stuck in North Korea. If you could front the two of them $50,000, they will be able to convince officials there to smuggle the person out of North Korea. When the beneficiary arrives in California, they will collect the inheritance and split the $500 Million with you, Curt and Jody.
3. The author of the Fact Check memorandums also is a licensed fortune teller. They called and told me that my computer has a virus in it which they can remove for a mere $25,000. I’m getting right on that one!
4. High level managers at the AOC are being trained in how to make change for the members of the Legislature. The AOC will buy paperclips from the Legislature for $1 per box. The AOC give the Speaker a $10 bill and gets nine $1 bills in return. The AOC then asks for a $10 bill for ten $1 bills. The Speaker gives the AOC the $10 bill, without the AOC having turned over the $1 bills. The AOC immediately tells the Speaker: “Here, take these $1’s and the $10 bill, give me a $20 bill and we’ll call it even”. (It worked when they practiced it on Mr. Jahr.) Lose money on every deal, make it up in volume.
🙂
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Very nice General!
😉
unionman575
April 3, 2013
courtflea
April 3, 2013
sounds like the word put out on the Long Beach project by JC watcher and the ACJ is getting enough under the AOCs skin that the had to do a “fact check”. keep it up guys.
Is it just me but I hate the way the AOC attempts to “explain” things. Bureaucratic speak on steroids. Kinda like trying to dazzle the reader with bullshit.
unionman575
April 3, 2013
Yep Flea, it’s is an attempt to dazzle the reader with AOC bullshit.
😉
unionman575
April 3, 2013
One moment Flea while I prepare to review the Long Beach project..
Now that’s better!
😉
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2013
It’s “Wonderland” speak, Flea. Where everything is actually the opposite of what is said.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
April 4, 2013
Nice observation courtflea. The AOC used to put out “fact” checks on CCMS and we all knew that was a bunch of BS and spin. The AOC likes to pretend they are this body of experts and neutral staff (sort of like the Legislative Analyst) but they are really advocates.
I remember listening to Bill Vickrey recite back to the JC what they had voted on and told him to do. He would remind them of their policies, which should not have been necessary if they had made them on their own, and it was clear he was pretending to just be their servant. Kinda like Chancelor Palpatine/the Emperor in Star Wars pretends he is just serving the senate when he really controls it (I still like this blogs old Star Wars roots).
The joke was/still is on the CA public because every member on the JC was put there by Ron George and they had all just rubber stamped the proposal the AOC (Bill Vickrey) had recommended. It was a total shell game (fraud). I say this is still going on with the new Chief too (perhaps not as blatently) because the JC is still not democratically elected and Team George leaders mostly still run the show there behind the front of Jahr.
When the AOC states “facts” I consider it the same as the NRA stating the facts on the massacre at newtown. They may indeed be actual facts but there are also large ommisions, things not stated, and a slant to those facts. There is also an arrogance that they alone have a command of the real facts. This is all smart lawyering/advocacy but like all of you I am tired of this BS and really want it to end. The AOC still never admits to mistakes and shows contrition for failed leadership. This is why I keep stressing the need for Team George to be gone from the AOC and a whole new culture of management brought in to CA Courts.
We will know there is a change of culture at the AOC and the JC when there is a vote to rename the JC conference center after someone the legislature did not demand be fired. Till then, I know nothing has changed and it is business as usual.
unionman575
April 3, 2013
Yeah just keep on building NEW courthouses while dozens of EXISTING courthouses close and hundereds of trial court staff are laid off…
Get me a bucket…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21454.htm
Pre-Qualification of General Contractors, New Yuba City Courthouse, RFQ#JBCP-2013-01-BR
Wendy Darling
April 3, 2013
At least one person in the State Assembly still speaks the plain truth and calls it like it is. Published today, Wednesday, April 3, from the Legal Pad at The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Budget Chair Slams Courts for ‘Irresponsible’ Spending
[Cheryl Miller]
Wednesday’s hearing of the subcommittee overseeing California courts started off like so many others have -– with another sad recital of the suffering that years of budget cuts have brought to the judiciary.
And then Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield crashed the party.
Blumenfield, D-Van Nuys, is not a regular member of the Assembly budget subcommittee no. 5. He is, however, chairman of the full budget committee. So if he drops in on a subcommittee hearing, he’s going to get people’s attention. And that he did when he told the assembled leaders that their past decisions are not forgotten.
While the state grappled with a budget crisis, court administrators sometimes have acted fiscally irresponsible even though fiscal responsibility was the mantra of the day, “ Blumenfield said. “We’ve seen a failed computer system with years of cost overruns and nearly $500 million wasted. In the process, the courts took millions from trial courts — sacrificing access to justice — to keep the failed computer project running. This year, the court system will likely enter an agreement and spend $100 million more than we should to build a new courthouse in Long Beach.”
Blumenfield said he isn’t pleased with Los Angeles County Superior Court’s decision to close courthouses and consolidate services either.
“The Legislature has acted to keep court budgeting stable through fees and other solutions,” he continued. “But the court’s requested increases demand an assessment of how responsibly existing budget levels have been used.”
Branch leaders, who didn’t respond to Blumenfield at Wednesday’s hearing, will surely argue that funding has been anything but stable with the significant loss of state general fund dollars. And they would say -– they have said -– that the chief justice and Judicial Council have turned a page on the spending decisions of the past.
But reading between the lines, the Assembly’s top budget official seemed to be saying that if the Legislature does restore any judicial funding, it’s going to come with some serious strings attached. What those conditions might be aren’t clear yet, but they’d probably include requirements that money be spent on increased trial court staffing and re-opened courthouses, things that labor would surely like to see, and not case management systems or electronic recording.
Blumenfield said he also wanted to hear more cost-saving ideas from the branch. “My only request is that your proposals focus on maintaining or improving access to justice,” he said.
http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/04/cheryl-miller-wednesdays-hearing-of-the-subcommittee-overseeing-california-courts-started-off-like-so-many-others-have.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+legalpad_feed+%28Legal+Pad%29
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Wendy this sounds really good to me:
“But reading between the lines, the Assembly’s top budget official seemed to be saying that if the Legislature does restore any judicial funding, it’s going to come with some serious strings attached. What those conditions might be aren’t clear yet, but they’d probably include requirements that money be spent on increased trial court staffing and re-opened courthouses, things that labor would surely like to see, and not case management systems or electronic recording.”.
Hmm open, staffed EXISTING courthouses…what a novel idea…the Legislautre ought to look into that idea further….NOW.
😉
unionman575
April 4, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc–california-court-funding-20130403,0,2907656.story
Lawmaker panel approves some court funding
By Chris Megerian
April 3, 2013, 6:42 p.m.
SACRAMENTO — An Assembly subcommittee voted Wednesday to restore $418 million to California’s judiciary, but not before one lawmaker shared some tough words for the state’s court system.
“While the state grappled with a budget crisis, court administrators sometimes have acted fiscally irresponsible,” Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) said in his statement.
He noted that the judiciary spent almost half a billion dollars upgrading the database for court records, then abandoned the struggling project.
The funding increase, part of Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal, is intended to reverse some of the recent cuts that have been suffered by the courts.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brown’s Department of Finance, said almost half of the increase comes from transferring money from court construction to operations.
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye has sharply criticized reduced state funding, saying it has cut hours at some courts and caused others to close.
“What we once counted on — that courts would be open, available and ready to dispense prompt justice — no longer exists in California,” she said last month.
Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point) said she was concerned about years of budget cuts to the courts.
“By eliminating the funding like we’re doing, we’re eliminating the third branch of government,” she said. “I don’t think that’s a good way to run the state.”
😉
unionman575
April 4, 2013
The trend in government — especially in the era of widespread Internet access — should be toward more information being publicly accessible.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/jerry-brown-s-proposed-fees-public-information-are-dreadful-idea
Jerry Brown’s proposed fees for public information are a dreadful idea
By:SF Examiner Editorial | 04/03/13 6:36 PM
SF Examiner Editorial
A few ideas in Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent budget proposal would be so damaging to the free flow of information in California that they should be scrapped immediately.
The first is a proposal to charge citizens $10 for virtually every record they look up at a county courthouse. Those records are currently free to access, and they are used by any number of people to ensure that information from legal filings comes to light. Journalists routinely browse through public records for information and background about matters that directly affect residents of cities, counties and the state.
When people sue governments, officials or businesses, major facts about possible malfeasance can be brought to light through the court records. But charging people just to access these records will significantly reduce the number of cases news organizations are able to cover. At many times, such records are the only information available during the legal process, since parties to a lawsuit often cannot talk about pending litigation. In addition to the search fee contemplated, the budget proposal also is asking for the cost of copying court records to increase from 50 cents per page to $1.
Yes, our state’s court system has lost more than $1 billion over four years, which has led to staff cuts, reduced services and courtroom closures.
But the budget balancing should not be done on the back of the public’s right to know. In fact, the economic plight of our court systems should prompt a serious reconsideration of California’s entire judicial and penal system.
If the proposed court fee would not be enough of a blow to the free flow of information in the state, two other cuts in the governor’s budget would be even worse, reducing access to public records.
When people want information from government agencies, they are able to file public-records requests. Existing rules dictate how soon government agencies must respond to these requests and how they should help members of the public understand how to reform their requests to gain access to the information they seek. Brown’s budget would strip away the mandate for agencies to offer such assistance and remove the prompt notification of denials to records.
The removal of these two mandates would make it much more difficult to access records that are now used to hold government employees and agencies accountable by finding such things as spending reports and officials’ communications. Officials can deny a request simply because it is not worded correctly. But as it stands now, a government agency needs to promptly inform the person making the request about the denial and help him or her revise it to find the information being sought. Under the governor’s proposal, people might not know for some time, if ever, that their requests had been denied. Then they would have no way of knowing what to do to fix their request and obtain the information they seek.
The trend in government — especially in the era of widespread Internet access — should be toward more information being publicly accessible.
Brown’s budget proposals are a move in the wrong direction, and every resident of this state would be worse off if they pass.
😉
unionman575
April 4, 2013
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/prisons-realignment-the-california/content?oid=9479837
Prisons, realignment and the California rehab racket
California realigned its prison system more than two years ago, but rehabilitation is still out of whack
unionman575
April 4, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/04/56387.htm
Thursday, April 04, 2013Last Update: 12:17 PM PT
Assembly Budget Chair Sends Message to Court Officials on Transparency and Spending Habits
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
SACRAMENTO (CN) – An Assembly subcommittee working on California’s next budget recommended spending $418 million from California’s general fund to help the beleaguered trial court system. The vote was put in context by the overall budget chair who entered the hearing room briefly to deliver a message, telling judges and court officials that the courts need to be transparent and spend money responsibly.
“This discussion needs to be about the performance of the courts and fiscal irresponsibility,” said Assembly budget chair Bob Blumenfield, a democrat from the San Fernando Valley, who had harsh words for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council.
He cited a half-billion dollars wasted on the now-defunct Court Case Management System (CCMS) and the approval of a new $2 billion courthouse in Long Beach which he said appears to include excess spending of $100 million.
After he entered from a door in back of the subcomittee’s table and took a seat, Blumenfield noted that he normally keeps track of the subcommittee hearings in his office via video. He then launched into a statement noting that court officials were often talking about transparency but needed to deliver on that issue, pivoting to a discussion of spending mistakes by court administrators and the need for responsible handling of public funds.
The budget process is lengthy and lasts for another two months. Blumenfield’s role as head of the Assembly’s budget committee is central. His committee must agree with the Senate’s budget committee before the 2013-2014 budget can be approved by the Legislature, and individual allocations can shift in the process.
On a related issue tied to overall court funding, an official from Governor Jerry Brown’s administration, along with a representative from the Legislative Analyst’s Office argued before the subcommittee that funding for the courts had in fact remained roughly stable over recent years, although the amount of money coming from the state’s general fund has dropped drastically.
Jay Sturges for the California Department of Finance said the overall judicial budget remains “relatively flat.”
He also questioned how individual trial courts were spending funds, saying that some courts are both closing courthouses but at the same time giving pay increases to the staff. “We identified inconsistencies at the trial court level – closing courts but providing pay increases to employees,” Sturges told the subcommittee.
“The state’s budget is balanced, but by a thin margin,” he warned. “There will therefore be no money for a restoration of cuts.”
Orange County’s presiding judge, Tom Borris, contested that description of court funding, saying that much of the replacement funds came from construction money and individual trial court reserve funds, and that funds to operate the courts had in fact dropped sharply.
In a public comment period, Michelle Castro with the Service Employees International Union that represents a majority of court workers denied the statement that court workers were given raises, saying no employees were given raises. She has also in recent weeks questioned the ratio of administrators retained to court workers laid off.
Officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts backed by judges and other officials from San Bernardino County traveled to the hearing room in Sacramento to testify before Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 5 on Public Safety, chaired by freshman Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a democrat from South Los Angeles.
The administrative office director, Steven Jahr, said legislative decisions made in the 1990s and paltry state spending on the judiciary have brought the state’s courts “to the tipping point.”
San Bernardino County has been especially hard-hit by cuts to the judiciary. In terms of land mass, the largest county in the lower 48 states has completely closed seven facilities and currently only has five courts left open to serve 2 million people, according Judge Marsha Slough, the county’s presiding judge.
“It has had a devastating impact on justice in our county,” Slough said. “And justice comes close to being shut down if the status quo continues.”
The vast county’s outlying areas have borne the brunt of the cuts, where the court closure in the desert town of Needles now means driving to San Bernardino-a 440-mile drive round trip.
Contra Costa County’s presiding judge Barry Goode questioned Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget figures showing the state’s spending on the judiciary have remained flat in recent years.
“If the expenditures remained flat, why have we made these cuts,” Goode asked the committee. “Because the budget summary mixes operations costs with capital costs, something no business in the U.S. would ever do. The real number is not flat, it’s a 21 percent cut.”
“There’s nothing left to cut-that’s why we’ve fallen off the cliff this year,” Goode told the committee. “This is not why I became a judge, to close courts and make these hateful decisions.”
Ultimately however, the committee chair, Jones-Sawyer called for a vote on the agenda item to restore $418 million to the courts from the general fund. All committee members, including Diane Harkey, a republican from Orange County, Melissa Melendez, a republican from Murrieta, Anthony Rendon, a democrat from South Gate and Mark Stone, a democrat from Monterey Bay voted in favor of the motion.
The committee also recommended the approval of just three efficiency proposals devised by the AOC, largely to generate revenue for the courts. The closed-session group originally came up with 17 ideas, later whittled down to 11 – five that would have reduced trial court workload and operating costs and six that would have increased court user fees.
If the Assembly approves the sub-committee’s recommendation, trial courts will no longer have to provide social security numbers for individuals involved in court-ordered debt collection. Instead, the Franchise Tax Board will use its authority to obtain the information through the Department of Motor Vehicles, reducing court costs.
Fee increase recommendations for exemplification of records-a triple certification of record authenticity required by many states-and small-claims mailing service also went to the Assembly for approval in the final budget, which is due June 15.
The subcommittee declined to act on an AOC recommendation to charge a $10 per file search fee for file requests. The California Newspaper Publishers Association and a host of individual news organizations, including Courthouse News, the Monterey County Herald, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee oppose the charge, which is not predicted to raise funds.
Jim Ewert, with the newspaper publishers noted that the news reporters covering a courthouse could easily look over 200 files a month in researching news stories and would as a result have to fork over $2,000 monthly to do their work.
“‘Search’ is a misnomer, because it applies to same-day filings and will reduce news coverage of our courts,” Terry Francke told the committee. Francke heads the open-government group Californians Aware.
“The administration of justice has to be observable,” he concluded.
Wendy Darling
April 4, 2013
“Fact check”: it’s a fact that 455 Golden Gate Avenue has zero credibility in Sacramento. Published today, Thursday, April 4, from Courthouse News Service, by William Dotinga:
Budget Chair Sends Message to Court Officials on Transparency and Spending Habits
By WILLIAM DOTINGA
SACRAMENTO (CN) – An Assembly subcommittee working on California’s next budget recommended spending $418 million from California’s general fund to help the beleaguered trial court system. The vote was put in context by the overall budget chair who entered the hearing room briefly to deliver a message, telling judges and court officials that the courts need to be transparent and spend money responsibly.
“This discussion needs to be about the performance of the courts and fiscal irresponsibility,” said Assembly budget chair Bob Blumenfield, a democrat from the San Fernando Valley, who had harsh words for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judicial Council.
He cited a half-billion dollars wasted on the now-defunct Court Case Management System (CCMS) and the approval of a new $2 billion courthouse in Long Beach which he said appears to include excess spending of $100 million.
After he entered from a door in back of the subcomittee’s table and took a seat, Blumenfield noted that he normally keeps track of the subcommittee hearings in his office via video. He then launched into a statement noting that court officials were often talking about transparency but needed to deliver on that issue, pivoting to a discussion of spending mistakes by court administrators and the need for responsible handling of public funds.
The budget process is lengthy and lasts for another two months. Blumenfield’s role as head of the Assembly’s budget committee is central. His committee must agree with the Senate’s budget committee before the 2013-2014 budget can be approved by the Legislature, and individual allocations can shift in the process.
On a related issue tied to overall court funding, an official from Governor Jerry Brown’s administration, along with a representative from the Legislative Analyst’s Office argued before the subcomittee that funding for the courts had in fact remained roughly stable over recent years, although the amount of money coming from the state’s general fund has dropped drastically.
Jay Sturges for the California Department of Finance said the overall judicial budget remains “relatively flat.”
He also questioned how individual trial courts were spending funds, saying that some courts are closing courthouses but at the same time giving pay increases to the staff. “We identified inconsistencies at the trial court level – closing courts but providing pay increases to employees,” Sturges told the subcommittee.
“The state’s budget is balanced, but by a thin margin,” he warned. “There will therefore be no money for a restoration of cuts.”
Orange County’s presiding judge, Tom Borris, contested that description of court funding, saying that much of the replacement funds came from construction money and individual trial court reserve funds, and that funds to operate the courts had in fact dropped sharply.
In a public comment period, Michelle Castro with the Service Employees International Union that represents a majority of court workers also contested the statement from Sturges, saying no court employees were given raises. She has also in recent weeks questioned the ratio of administrators retained to court workers laid off.
Officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts backed by judges and other officials from San Bernardino County traveled to Sacramento to plead their case before Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 5 on Public Safety, chaired by freshman Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a democrat from South Los Angeles.
The administrative office director, Steven Jahr, said legislative decisions made in the 1990s and paltry state spending on the judiciary have brought the state’s courts “to the tipping point.”
San Bernardino County has been especially hard-hit by cuts to the judiciary. The largest county in the lower 48 states, in terms of land mass, has closed seven facilities and currently only has five courts left open to serve 2 million people, according Judge Marsha Slough, the county’s presiding judge.
“It has had a devastating impact on justice in our county,” Slough said. “And justice comes close to being shut down if the status quo continues.”
The vast county’s outlying areas have borne the brunt of the cuts, where the court closure in the desert town of Needles now means driving to San Bernardino-a 440-mile drive round trip.
Contra Costa County’s presiding judge Barry Goode also questioned the Department of Finance figures showing the state’s spending on the judiciary have remained flat in recent years.
“If the expenditures remained flat, why have we made these cuts,” Goode asked the committee. “Because the budget summary mixes operations costs with capital costs, something no business in the U.S. would ever do. The real number is not flat, it’s a 21 percent cut.”
“There’s nothing left to cut-that’s why we’ve fallen off the cliff this year,” Goode told the committee. “This is not why I became a judge, to close courts and make these hateful decisions.”
Ultimately however, the committee chair, Jones-Sawyer called for a vote on the agenda item to restore $418 million to the courts from the general fund. Committee members Diane Harkey, a republican from Orange County, Melissa Melendez, a republican from Murrieta, Anthony Rendon, a democrat from South Gate and Mark Stone, a democrat from Monterey Bay, all voted in favor of the motion.
The committee also recommended the approval of just three efficiency proposals devised by the AOC, largely to generate revenue for the courts. The closed-session group originally came up with 17 ideas, later whittled down to 11 — five that would have reduced trial court workload and operating costs and six that would have increased court user fees.
If the Assembly approves the sub-committee’s recommendation, trial courts will no longer have to provide social security numbers for individuals involved in court-ordered debt collection. Instead, the Franchise Tax Board will use its authority to obtain the information through the Department of Motor Vehicles, reducing court costs.
Fee increase recommendations for exemplification of records-a triple certification of record authenticity required by many states-and small-claims mailing service also went to the Assembly for approval in the final budget, which is due June 15.
The subcommittee declined to act on an AOC recommendation to charge a $10 per file search fee for file requests. The California Newspaper Publishers Association and a host of individual news organizations, including Courthouse News, the Monterey County Herald, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, San Jose Mercury News and the Sacramento Bee oppose the charge.
The Judicial Council committee that recommended the charge could not estimate any fiscal impact. Newspaper comments have said that very few will be able to pay the exorbitant charge that would result from research of court files.
Jim Ewert, with the newspaper publishers, noted that the news reporters covering a courthouse could easily look over 200 files a month in researching news stories and would as a result have to fork over $2,000 monthly to do their work.
“‘Search’ is a misnomer, because it applies to same-day filings and will reduce news coverage of our courts,” Terry Francke told the committee. Francke heads the open-government group Californians Aware.
“The administration of justice has to be observable,” he concluded.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/04/56387.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/crimjust/2013/Judicial-Branch-Overview-Assembly-Version.pdf
Overview of the Judicial Branch Budget
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I C E
Presented to:
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety
Hon. Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
April 3, 2013
MaxRebo5
April 4, 2013
I still think the fee on the press was pushed by the AOC just to get free publicity in every local newspaper in the state about the cuts to CA Courts. Helps get more legislative support. The AOC never wanted it to pass and as the article said they didn’t even have an estimate for how much money it would potentially raise. Pure politics/lobbying by the AOC.
Press, you have been played by smart people. Welcome to the club. Hopefully you’ll be far more skeptical of the AOC leadership in the future. They are bad apples who will do most anything (save make cuts to their salaries, FTE’s, building, or budgets).
I think this comment was mistaken as well : There’s nothing left to cut-that’s why we’ve fallen off the cliff this year,” Goode told the committee.
That statement may be true for the local trial courts but what about cuts up higher at the AOC? There are cuts that could be made to the “branch” which is what this hearing was about. The AOC is 5% of the CA Courts budget. Cuts could be made to the AOC to provide “access to justice” at the trial court level where it is needed. What do you think about that Goode? When is this idea debated by the Judicial Council? It never was. Shouldn’t the policy making body for the branch debate publicly the pros and cons of cuts to the AOC before going the the public’s elected representatives in the Legislature asking for more money out of the General Fund? That seems sort of the prerequisite for th Exec Branch why not the Judicial Branch? Get your house in order before coming hat in hand to the legislature.
I also like the comments by Michelle Castro when she asked how many administrators are being laid off compared to court workers? This should be looked at in every trial court. We have local administrations that could be cut but not before the AOC gets cut because that is a level of administration even further removed from serving the public.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Max got the order right: 1) AOC management first and then 2) Top heavy local trial court management second.
😉
wearyant
April 4, 2013
Yesterday, April 3, 1860, was the purported debut of the Pony Express. We should hang our heads in shame that we all forgot this important anniversary. Our good wishes and apologies to J Harry Hull! Um, I guess he may not see this apology. Maybe I’ll send it by carrier pigeon.
MaxRebo5
April 4, 2013
LOL. I got that one wearyant. Nice.
courtflea
April 4, 2013
MaxRebo5, you really hit the nail on the head. the AOC’s arrogance that they alone know the real facts. Irritates the shit outa me. there where so many times in mettings with them when I wanted to say say what?! but then you think you must be the only one in the room that does not understand their bullshit because all of the koolaide drinkers are shaking their heads in agreement. You are right, an excellent strategy.
courtflea
April 4, 2013
I meant of course in meetings with the AOC.
Richard Power
April 4, 2013
All of the problems I am seeing described here are subject to tremendous amelioration through the use of current technology. I have set up more complex technology in days but then I had a high degree of cooperation from highly motivated people. Enhanced software that is being completed now has more code than all of the components of CCMS COMBINED. There is nothing even complicated about solutions for the courts. I reiterate my invitation to the curious that you can stop by any time and try out current technology hands-on. You can’t possibly know what is possible until you see it in front of you.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
All I see are EXISTING courthouses closing and court staff being laid off.
Richard Power
April 5, 2013
I hear you, Unionman. Ultimately, I think the answer lies in the courts operating under a different model than in the past. The courts have resisted change for a long time as the world of computerized efficient business has marched on. The disconnect is now very large. That means that changes that would bring the court system efficiency up to current business standards would be very wrenching. And not necessarily to the liking (at least at first) of some of the players. Computerization of the courts would now be a fairly simple process from a technical standpoint. Business and sports (which is also a business operation) now have computerized operations that handle data that is far more complex than court data, which is actually fairly simple. I have dealt with many people across the country, including a number who were not very proficient with computers. While there is sometimes an introductory shock process, people from all walks of life seem to get comfortable with computerized data management fairly quickly when everything runs smoothly. Change is difficult for some people. Make it easy and they try it. Then many wonder why they resisted for so long.
unionman575
April 6, 2013
“While there is sometimes an introductory shock process, people from all walks of life seem to get comfortable with computerized data management fairly quickly when everything runs smoothly. ”
Stop lecturing me – I used to work on Wall St. before becoming a public servant. I do understand the need for change that goes far beyond your tunnel vision focus on IT only.
Further stop advertising your services here. I get it. You are an IT guy. My best friend is a private sector IT consultant. Look at how the JC/AOC is setup and you will see the big picture. You have arrived late to the party. Better late than never, I suppose.
We have severe disfunction by our elected officials from the CJ down, and in the AOC ranks from Jahr and the rest of the AOC top tier.
courtflea
April 4, 2013
I hear ya Richard but I did not like that your last post forced me to go to your website. I hate that.
Richard Power
April 5, 2013
Well contact me privately, courtflea. If you’re anywhere around the Sacramento area, stop by and take a look at current technology. If not, give me a buzz and I will show you a taste over the Internet of what could be done. Several subject areas of law such as family law and evictions (note the problems in LA) are particularly susceptible to cost reductions. I’m guessing that 70-80% of the problems in those areas could be virtually eliminated in short order.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Build, build, build…
What the hell…
…as EXISTING courthouses continue to be closed and trial court line staff are laid off…
http://www.spwb.ca.gov/archives/agendas/documents/4-15-13_10-Day.pdf
Meeting Notice of the April 2013 State Public Works Board Meeting
The next meeting of the State Public Works Board (Board) will be held on Monday, April 15, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in State Capitol Room 113, Sacramento, California.
Please contact Greg Rogers, Executive Director, with any questions about this meeting or the agenda.
BOND ITEM
2013 SERIES D
JUDICIAL COUNCIL (0250)
YUBA CITY COURTHOUSE SUTTER COUNTY
Estimated Project Costs to be Financed $59,684,000
Estimated Par Value of Bonds to be Issued $60,140,000
“Not To Exceed” Par Amount $69,040,000
😉
ACTION ITEM—1
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (0250)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
NEW YUBA CITY COURTHOUSE
SUTTER COUNTY
Authority: Sections 70371.5 and 70371.7 of the Government Code
Chapter 1, Statutes of 2009, Third Extraordinary Session, as amended by
Chapter 1, Statutes of 2009, Fourth Extraordinary Session,
Item 0250-301-3138 (10)
Chapter 33, Statutes of 2011, Item 0250-301-3138 (16)
Chapter 21 and 29, Statutes of 2012, Item 0250-301-0668 (3)
Consider recognizing a scope change
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Oh boy don’t miss this!
Swing by Woodland at noon on Friday to see “Uncle Dave” for the ceremonies…
I hear the coffee is free at the event…
“Rosenberg, a former presiding judge who worked for years to win approval of the project, has said the current Courthouse is outdated and not up to the task.”
My, my, my, he sure does take pride in this project…
😉
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22945753/groundbreaking-set-friday-new-yolo-courthouse
Groundbreaking set Friday for new Yolo courthouse
By DON FRANCES/dfrances@dailydemocrat.com
Created: 04/04/2013 12:31:06 AM PDT
A groundbreaking is scheduled for noon Friday in Woodland at the site of the new Yolo County Courthouse in downtown, between Sixth and Fifth streets, south of Main Street. (Courtesy)
Two years from now, the first gavel will sound in a courtroom on the 1000 block of Main Street.
That now-empty lot is where the judicial branch will make its home once the new Yolo County courthouse is complete — currently anticipated for March 2015.
The 14-courtroom, 163,000-square-foot structure will replace the historic Courthouse nearby on Court Street — a much-needed upgrade, say advocates like Superior Court Judge Dave Rosenberg.
Construction will cost an estimated $161.4 million. About $133.8 million in lease-revenue construction bonds were sold late last year, to be repaid over a 25-year period through court user fees and penalties.
Rosenberg, a former presiding judge who worked for years to win approval of the project, has said the current Courthouse is outdated and not up to the task. The new one — featuring tall windows and a Grecian entryway — was designed by Fentress Architects with Dreyfuss & Blackford and will be built by Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
It will be the largest construction project in Woodland since the late 1980s, when County Fair Mall was built. Planners say more than 450 workers are expected to take part in the project.
But before construction there must be a groundbreaking ceremony. And planners have a big one scheduled for noon Friday.
The event will be attended by a huge number of city, county and state officials. The list of judges alone takes up half a page. Rosenberg will be there, along with Presiding Judge Steven Basha and most of the other Yolo County Superior Court judges.
California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye will speak, as will state Sen. Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, among others.
To feed all those people — there are city council members coming from every town in Yolo — refreshments will be provided by downtown Woodland restaurants.
Follow Don Frances at twitter.com/donjfran
Richard Power
April 5, 2013
$990 per square foot. What building materials cost that much?
Wendy Darling
April 5, 2013
“$990 per square foot. What building materials cost that much?”
Answer: Building materials with kickbacks.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 4, 2013
Here’s part 2 of my Uncle Dave Special…
“Once the new structure is completed — possibly in mid-2015 — the historic courthouse will pass back into the county’s hands.
So far, county officials have no plan for what to do with it. Ideas floated have included museum, movie theater, brew pub and rental space for weddings and other events. “
Really?
How about the AOC OCCM pays for a little shindig at the old courthouse for ALL THE UNEMPLOYED TRIAL COURT WORKERS ACROSS CA WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED BY THIS MONSTER BUREAUCRACY THAT ANSWERS TO NO ONE.
Got it over there in the Legislature? I hope so.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_22945754/old-yolo-courthouse-called-most-beautiful-california
Old Yolo courthouse called ‘most beautiful in California’
By DON FRANCES/dfrances@dailydemocrat.com
Created: 04/04/2013 12:31:08 AM PDT
The existing Yolo County Courthouse has been called one of the most beautiful in California. It is being replaced by a new structure to be built in downtown Woodland. (
“Every historical building has a story behind it, and the Yolo County Courthouse is no exception.”
So begins a history of the old courthouse as told by the Yolo County Superior Court. According to this version, the city block on which the current courthouse sits, at 725 Court St., was given to the county in 1862 by Franklin Freeman, a Woodland founder.
Well, not exactly given: The county paid Freeman $300 for it.
The county proceeded to build its courthouse, a small but beautiful structure completed in 1864 for the also-low price of $27,858.40. But luck was not with the original structure after three successive earthquakes — the final one in 1906 — left it so badly damaged it had to be condemned.
Undeterred, the county tried again, this time making three attempts at getting voters to approve building a new courthouse. Eventually it succeeded, and William Weeks, a Canadian architect who also designed the Woodland Public Library, was tapped to draw up the plans.
Weeks is quoted as saying, “This courthouse is the most beautiful in California, and I have built and rebuilt many of them and have seen them all.”
The new structure — two stories with a large basement, totaling about 49,000 square feet — was completed in 1917. Considered an example of “Beaux Arts” architectural style, with its marble halls and ornate exterior, the building was renovated in the 1980s and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.
The Superior Court describes the structure this way: “The entry portico has a vaulted ceiling supported by square engaged columns with ornamental architrave and figurines enframing the space. All of the walls, stairs and floors of the rotunda and corridors are of cut and polished marble with richly decorated copper handrails and hand-blown egg shaped glass light fixtures.”
Originally the building had only two courtrooms, with other space used as administrative offices or as board chambers for county, city and school district officials. But as the county grew, so did the need for its criminal justice system — and in the 96 years since the courthouse was built, it has mostly been the place where justice is served.
But not for much longer. A new county courthouse is in the works, with its groundbreaking set for Friday. Once the new structure is completed — possibly in mid-2015 — the historic courthouse will pass back into the county’s hands.
So far, county officials have no plan for what to do with it. Ideas floated have included museum, movie theater, brew pub and rental space for weddings and other events.
Follow Don Frances at twitter.com/donjfran
R. Campomadera
April 5, 2013
Why not move the AOC to it for a downsized headquarters? Then use the dollars saved to rehire all the court employees who have lost their jobs due to AOC incompetence.
unionman575
April 5, 2013
Here are 4 prime sites for the new AOC HQ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yZfO1VcP74
😉
Meanwhile here is a nice tune while you make your selection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3QEKT2mk_Q
unionman575
April 5, 2013
ANOTHER FRIDAY NITE BLUE LIGHT SPECIAL FROM THE DEATHSTAR:
😉
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21518.htm
2013 Classification and Compensation Study RFP# HRSO-04-13-SS
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) seeks the services of a Contractor with expertise and experience in the public sector to conduct and/or assist in conducting a comprehensive, agency-wide classification, Fair Labor Standards Act, and compensation study.
The AOC has undergone a significant downsizing and restructuring, and has not conducted an in-depth, agency-wide review of the classification and compensation structure in recent years. The AOC seeks to consolidate classifications no longer deemed essential, with the goal of streamlining the classification system. Questions regarding the RFP should be submitted in writing to the AOC via solicitations@jud.ca.gov, no later than 3:00 p.m. (PDT) on April 19, 2013.
Proposals are due no later than 3:00 p.m. (PDT) on May 17, 2013.
R. Campomadera
April 5, 2013
They’re smoking something funny in SF…”Significant downsizing”? What downsizing? Show us the numbers.
And as to “restructuring”, all they’ve done is change titles and promote the very same people who created the mess in the first place. They must think we are pretty stupid.
wearyant
April 5, 2013
WTF??!!
“The AOC has undergone a significant downsizing and restructuring …”
Yeah, what ARE these people smoking?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 5, 2013
They printed a new org chart and new business cards. That’s the word from AOC employees. Nothing much has changed as we can all bare witness to today.
Now they want to have a third party justify why they should eliminate some management ranks and simply expand the top management ranks by promoting people.
If you have the AOC commission a classification and compensation study, you’re going to spend a buttload of money for a third party to produce what the AOC wants in a future ‘reorganization’.
This is not an independent effort commissioned by a third party, it’s a farce and the AOC does not need to pay a third party to commission a study for them that produces yet another predetermined result.
This is yet another example of the Judicial Council’s abdication of oversight.
Lando
April 5, 2013
I will volunteer to oversee the 2013 Classification and Compensation study ! I would be happy to tell the AOC which ” classifications (are ) no longer deemed essential”. That would roughly be 80% of the entire operation along with auctioning off the crystal palace.
wearyant
April 5, 2013
Lando, please do. I will volunteer to assist you with any office work.
Michael Paul
April 6, 2013
There is nothing preventing a certain judges organization from engaging a human resource consultancy or another state agency like the DPA and jointly responding to this RFP.
Letting this RFP move forward unchallenged would be a grave mistake.
The AOC utilizes studies such as this to bolster their positions and to support their conclusions by directing what should be the end result of study verbally to the vendor after the vendor is chosen. I watched AOC commissioned studies being used like this for eight years. None of them is credible in my eyes.
R. Campomadera
April 6, 2013
Michael Paul, that is exactly what the AOC hopes to do…commission a study that will give them cover for what they want to do in any event. Having participated in a number of judiciary based classification studies over the years, i have seen it happen more than once.
I would volunteer my services as a “subject matter expert” to that certain judges organization, if they wanted to submit a proposal. Of course, they would never get the contract, because that would foul up the intended purpose of the study, but that in and of itself would be instructive nonetheless.
unionman575
April 6, 2013
Another Friday nite blue lite special from the Death Star…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/21531.htm
Supreme Court committee provides guidance to judges seeking assistance from attorneys in mitigating cuts to the court system
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Cathal Conneely, Public Information Officer, 415-865-7738
April 5, 2013
Supreme Court committee provides guidance to judges seeking assistance from attorneys in mitigating cuts to the court system
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions adopts a formal opinion advising that meeting with attorneys about the impacts of budget cuts is permissible
SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics (CJEO) today announced adoption of a formal opinion advising judges that meeting with attorneys and asking for assistance in dealing with the impacts of court budget cuts is permissible under the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The committee has issued CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-001, which provides guidance to judges on the ethical standards they must consider when deciding who to invite and what to ask when convening budget cut meetings with groups of attorneys. The committee advises judges to consider whether the manner of the invitation or requests might convey an impression of favor or influence, appear to be coercive, or reasonably lead to disqualification.
In CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-001, the committee concludes that it is permissible and appropriate for judges to meet with groups of attorneys and ask for their assistance in communicating to the public and to the Legislature about the impacts of proposed budget cuts on court operations. The opinion provides the following guidance to judges when deciding whether the manner of the invitations or the assistance requested promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary:
• A judge’s activities relating to court budgets and appropriations fall within the scope of “measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.” (Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, canon 5D.)
• Access to justice is directly affected by budget shortfalls, and meeting with attorneys is a constructive way for judges to inform and involve those most affected.
• Speaking with groups of attorneys outside of court and asking for their assistance implicates ethical issues that judges are obligated to evaluate under the standards in the California Code of Judicial Ethics. (Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, Terminology, canons 2A, 4B, 5D.)
• When deciding who to invite and what to ask, judges should consider whether they are conveying the appearance of impropriety, conveying the impression of special influence, or creating a potential for disqualification or disclosure. (Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, Terminology, canons 2, 2A, 2B(1), 4A(4), 4B.)
• The circumstances in any given county will differ, but the standard all judges must apply is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s integrity and impartiality. (Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, canon 2A, advisory comm. com.)
The committee unanimously adopted CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-001 after inviting public comment on a draft opinion posted from October through December of 2012. The committee members carefully considered all of the public comments and revised the opinion.
CJEO is an independent committee appointed by the Supreme Court to help inform the judiciary and the public concerning judicial ethics topics. CJEO was established as part of the court’s constitutional responsibility to guide the conduct of judges and judicial candidates (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (m)). In making appointments to serve on CJEO, the court selects members of the bench with a strong background in judicial ethics and diverse courtroom experience. The current twelve CJEO members are justices, judges, a commissioner, and a retired bench officer who have served in courts of various sizes throughout the state.
CJEO publishes formal opinions, issues confidential informal opinions, and provides oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities (rule 9.80(e)(1)). CJEO acts independently of the Supreme Court, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and all other entities (rule 9.80(b)).
For more information about CJEO, visit the CJEO website, call toll-free at 1 (855) 854-5366, or email Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov.
The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions members are: Justice Ronald B. Robie of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (chair); Justice Douglas P. Miller of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (vice-chair); Justice Maria Rivera of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four; Justice Judith L. Haller of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One; Presiding Judge Suzanne N. Kingsbury of the Superior Court of El Dorado County; Presiding Judge Robert J. Trentacosta of the Superior Court of San Diego County; Judge Kenneth K. So of the Superior Court of San Diego County; Judge Michael Garcia (Ret.) of the Superior Court of Sacramento County; Judge Joanne B. O’Donnell of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Judge George J. Abdallah, Jr. of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County; Judge John S. Wiley, Jr. of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County; and Commissioner Lowell E. Richards of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.
###
😉
Michael Paul
April 6, 2013
Yeah but this blue light special reads like a gag order.
unionman575
April 6, 2013
It is a gag order.
😉
wearyant
April 6, 2013
A gag order that could gag maggots.
And nowhere is the subject mentioned of breathily whispering in one’s ear your wishes, hopes and dreams (of a party thrown to educate peers as to your selfish ends) or any mention of swag bags.
unionman575
April 6, 2013
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1766080&title=Before%20the%20Courts
Before the Courts
April 05, 2013, 05:00 AM By Susan Cohn Daily Journal
SAN MATEO COUNTY PRESIDING JUDGE WRITES AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE COURT BUDGET PLAN.
In a letter posted March 27 on the website of the San Mateo County Superior Court, Presiding Judge Robert Foiles said: “Over the past four years, our court, along with all of the courts throughout California, has experienced drastic state budget cuts that have caused the court to reduce court services to the public. In fiscal year 2013/2014 our court anticipates additional revenue reductions that will further impact the public’s access to the courts. In order to provide an open process and information to all court users, our court has developed a proposed plan that would reduce our court services to the level of our anticipated budget. … In September of 2012, we began sharing this information with our county justice partners, elected officials and police chiefs and we are continuing to do so with the hope that we can work with all in our court community to restore essential funding and minimize these actions, if at all possible. … We hope that the state’s revenue picture changes and that we do not have to implement any of these proposals. However, we believe that careful planning and input will allow our court to continue to provide the best court services possible under our severe budget constraints.”
Attached to Judge Foiles’s letter is a slide presentation that describes the budget situation, the actions the court has taken to date, and its proposed plan going forward if current state cuts are not eliminated.
The full text of the letter may be found at https://www.sanmateocourt.org/general_info/judges/pjmessage.php.
Susan E. Cohn is a member of the State Bar of California. She may be reached at susan@smdailyjournal.com.
😉