By Larry Stiriling – a retired legislator and a retired judge
My court-unification effort has become a failure.
Most former politicians do not own up to their errors, but here is one that needs understanding and corrective action by the legislature. “Court unification” was an attractive concept that emerged from what was then known as “The El Cajon Experiment.”
The problem that the several El Cajon judges, who dreamed up the idea, was that California had three levels of trial courts which were both confusing and inefficient. The smallest were Justice Courts located through out rural areas which were presided over by a “justice of the peace” (JP) who in reality was the most popular local butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. A JP did not have to be a lawyer because he handled mostly traffic matters. With the advent of improved communications and finally the internet, distance became ever less important to the flow of information thereby making justice courts and even municipal courts obsolete.
The judges of the El Cajon Experiment arranged for themselves to be “cross designated” which allowed each judge to handle municipal and superior matters. This arrangement created substantial internal efficiencies to the benefit of the litigants and the taxpayers. Satisfied that they had found a solution that reduced bureaucracy, costs, and delays, the judges of the El Cajon Experiment asked me as their State Assembly Representative to initiate a constitutional amendment to enact their idea.
As a result, I successfully carried a constitutional amendment through the legislature and to the statewide ballot. In those days, I believed that good ideas sold themselves, so I did not mount a statewide campaign to pass the measure and it failed. There was one happy result and that was the ballot measure kicked off a state-wide discussion about the idea which began to gain wide acceptance.
As a result, State Bar asked me to start with the unification of the justice courts into municipals thereby giving rurals a substantially increased level of service with minimal cost increases. I carried that measure to the statewide ballot and it passed handily.
Later I took a seat on the municipal-court bench and saw with my own eyes how correct the El Cajon judges had been. My former colleague Bill Lockyer subsequently successfully passed a modified version of my first initial effort to unify the municipals and the superior courts. This time, I acted as state chairman of the campaign and promoted the idea far and wide and it passed in nearly every county with the highest plurality here in San Diego. The result was an immediate flurry of improvements in our local operations. Judges from the downtown court were moved to impacted courts, staffs were united, rules were unified, and the promised savings realized.
With unification, and other legislative support such as lawyer sanctions, fast track, judge voir dire in criminal cases, and improved automation, the San Diego courts were able to provide superlative service. The three-year backlog of civil cases that were ready for trial shrunk until as a civil judge, I could assign a case that was “at issue” on Friday to an open court- room the following Monday. Unfortunately lurking in San Francisco was an organization called the Judicial Council and its supporting staff organization called “The Administrative Offices of the Court (AOC).” Their presence should not have been a problem as their roles are constitutionally delineated as “advisory” to the courts and the legislature.
But for them, the siren song of “unification” meant that the historic relationship among themselves and trial courts were to be “reborn” as the current chief justice recently said. The very notion that local elected judges in the 54 counties operating their courts for over a hundred years in accordance with the Government Code but tailored to local needs was to them an unruly specter that needed to be reigned in.
“Unification” to the chief justice and his staff at the AOC meant an opportunity for a power grab by misrepresenting to the state legislature the purpose of unification. Nothing in the unification amendments authorized top-down control of local elected officials (judges) by unelected bureaucrats in San Francisco and Sacramento. More importantly, the operation of mighty Los Angeles County is vastly different from those of tiny Mariposa County. By honeyfuggling the legislature, the chief justice and his minions at the AOC siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars to grow a huge staff in San Francisco to “govern” the courts.
The result is that while AOC employees now number as many high-paid employees as there are judges, local courts have had to close, furlough employees and leave needed positions unfilled. The actions of the former and present chief justices and the AOC staff are unconstitutional and are grinding justice to a halt in California. Though neither the El Cajon judges, Senator Lockyer and certainly not myself intended for “unification” to cripple the state courts, sadly that is what has happened.
The legislature should make amends by defunding most of the AOC staff and directing available funds to the local courts as the constitution wisely intended.
unionman575
April 11, 2013
Thank you Larry Stiriling and JCW.
😉
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 11, 2013
I could not have said it better!
Another good idea that was ruined by two megalomaniacs, Ronald George and William Vickrey. Both started from the premise that everything being done at the local level was wrong and needed to be “fixed”. Both had an insatiable appetite for power and control. Both had an insatiable desire to be written about in history books as the “saviors” of the California Court System. What we are left with is a veritable wasteland of broken promises. People with no background or management abilities were put into positions of power, simply because they were “true believers” in HRH-1 and Vickrey.
Why doesn’t HRH-2 sue the Legislature and Governor demanding that a co-equal branch of government be properly funded. This could include the elimination of, or marked reduction in, the AOC, and the Legislature’s granting a return of power and control to the local trial courts where it belongs. Since 1996, HRH-1 stated that the Judicial Council “is” the policy making body of the trial courts. Wasn’t then, still isn’t. The Judicial Council simply recommends policy to local trial courts under Article VI, despite HRH-1’s multiple attempts over the years to change that basic tenant.
Members of the Legislature, please listen to Judge Larry Stirling (ret.) and do something about the problem.
Barbara Van Vliet
April 11, 2013
I couldn’t agree more about the California court system except that it should never have been consolidated EVER. The voting public were told that it wouldn’t cost anything to merge. Oh I beg to differ. First, every judge in the State of California got a huge pay raise which made them happy so their retirement was going to be huge. Most of the muni court judges had no idea how to handle superior court cases and they weren’t even voted in by the citizens to be a superior court judge. They had no experience. Then all staff in the muni courts were given pay raises to be superior court clerks and those people screwed up state prison commitments, minute orders, judgements of death, adoptions, probate matters, let alone just regular paper work. No training was given to the judges or clerks.
As a superior court clerk since 1984 (I retired in 1999 because I couldn’t stand the incompetence of management anymore) I found so many errors by judges on orders, expecially in domestic violence and dissolution cases. I truly feel that over 50% of the dissolutions in the state of California are not legal. I found that judges just signed orders without looking at them because their untrained clerk put the order in front of them. And the untrained judge doesn’t know any different either. Criminal cases are a disaster as clerks, who were muni clerks, were just use to doing a check list minute order. I would love to see a statistic of reversals done by the appellate courts of all the mistakes done by superior court judges or their clerks.
Then after consolidation was voted in there appeared to all of a sudden be more and more people promoted to management by the idiot Court administrator who would hire someone who kisses up to him/her and who would go by the admin’s way of doing things, not by hiree’s experience. I saw the Contra Costa County court system go downhill fast. Management berating the civil clerks with filings, berating court clerks for not finishing their work that day (a little hard when you are dealing with over 200 cases a day), making clerks work overtime without being paid, all done while management had nothing to do but play card games on their computers or getting ready for a so called meeting. Apparently after I retired I was told by a fellow union member that there was one manager for every 2 runts working. That is not only pathetic but a terrible way to use the taxpayers’ money. And then instead of judges being in charge of the courts, they let a court administrator run the courts. Someone who has no idea what they are doing.
The judicial system of the State of California has finally broken down and I thank God I am no longer a part of it.
wearyant
April 12, 2013
Barbara Van Vliet, I witnessed all you said also in another county. Very good recap of the part of the mess many did not see coming. I would have preferred to keep the municipal court level intact rather than losing a reviewing level, thus the weirdness of judges reviewing their own orders. The justice of the peace had already been absorbed. Oh, well.
De-fund the AOC!
courtflea
April 11, 2013
powerful stuff. I hope those that can make a difference heed Judge Stirling’s word. gut the AOC.
MaxRebo5
April 11, 2013
Yes! A wonderful voice of reason from my hometown of San Diego. This is so so nice to read. An absolute pleasure to see the logic of this man’s writing. Thank you for the article Mr. Stiriling and thanks to JCW for sharing it.
wearyant
April 11, 2013
Thanks, Hon. Stirling, for a heartfelt and no doubt difficult missive. Many will appreciate these facts you’ve set out.
And the General Woodhull has somehow outdone himself again! I love this statement:
“Since 1996, HRH-1 stated that the Judicial Council ‘is’ the policy making body of the trial courts. Wasn’t then, still isn’t. The Judicial Council simply recommends policy to local trial courts under Article VI, despite HRH-1′s multiple attempts over the years to change that basic tenant.”
No matter how many times the rotten pukes lie about their being the policy-makers for the courts, no matter how many times they plaster this misstatement on their business cards, letterhead, stationery, Internet or claim it, we know it is NOT TRUE.
Yes, Lando, it is a new day. The truth will out. Eventually.
courtflea
April 11, 2013
yeah wearyant, fuck the rotten pukes at the AOC. After all, tomorrow is another day!
Wendy Darling
April 11, 2013
“Though neither the El Cajon judges, Senator Lockyer and certainly not myself intended for “unification” to cripple the state courts, sadly that is what has happened.”
Yes, sadly, that is exactly what has happened. And that is exactly what the Office of the Chief Justice and Messrs. George, Vickrey, and Overholt intended — to cripple the state trial courts into subservience.
The AOC isn’t even fit to run itself. How could anyone think that it should be running the trial courts? Or anything else, for that matter.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
April 11, 2013
Larry Stirling is a man of great integrity and ethics. His intentions in unifying the courts were nothing but good. Many of us supported his efforts. Wendy and the General are right in their observations as well. Ronald George aided and abetted by Vickrey, J Huffman and their allies highjacked and used unification efforts to consolidate their power at the ultimate expense of the trial courts. Sadly we all now know the rest of the story. The Soviet like centralized planning model of judicial governance is a complete failure. Ask anyone who now has to wait in a long line in the clerks office. Ask a court reporter who has been fired . Ask the citizens who can’t access their local branch courts because they have been closed. Ask a lawyer who can’t get his civil case out to trial. Ask a Commissioner who was terminated due to lack of staff to support their courtroom work. Ask the public what they think of millions upon millions going up in smoke for a failed case management system, or a real bad thirty year courthouse lease. Ask our current Chief Justice why in light of all the above the Judicial Council shouldn’t be democratized.
unionman575
April 11, 2013
http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20130411-riverside-county-court-intends-to-lay-off-25-stenographers.ece
RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Court intends to lay off 25 stenographers
BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
Published: April 11, 2013; 04:57 PM
Riverside County Superior Court has sent a letter to court reporters — the stenographers who type the spoken-word record of court proceedings – that 25 of them will be laid off by late June as the court eliminates reporter services for civil, family law and probate proceedings in a cost-cutting move.
Court reporters are mandated for criminal and juvenile proceedings, and those are not affected. If the layoffs occur, civil litigants will have to hire reporters if they want a transcript of trials or other proceedings. Current costs for situations in which court reporters are hired per diem have a price tag of $518 a day.
San Bernardino County Superior Court is not eliminating court reporters in the civil, family law and probate categories.
“But we have announced court reporter reductions based upon implementing pooling of court reporters.
“Pooling relates to not directly assigning court reporters to a specific court room, but assigning them in a more flexible manner to courtrooms as needed,” Court Executive Officer Stephen Nash said in an email.
The pooling will start May 6.
Several other California counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno and San Diego counties have announced similar actions, or taken them already, to reduce costs. The courts pay the reporters’ salary and benefits.
The April 5 letter from Riverside County court executives to the reporters is a procedural notice to comply with the memorandum of understanding the court has with the Service Employees International Union Local 721. It informs the recipients that layoffs will be done in reverse order of total seniority outlined in the memorandum.
Court Executive Officer Sherri Carter said Thursday, April 11, that she could not comment on the letter because she had not yet met with union officials to discuss it. But she did outline the reasons behind it– the state’s reductions of allocations to the courts
“We anticipate a $20 million reduction (from the state) next year, but we only have a solution for half of that,” she said in a phone interview. “This cut will be too deep, and all of the prior actions we have taken are not enough.” Carter said attrition, department consolidation and elimination, and other efficiencies have dropped 250 employees from the court during the past five years.
“We have done everything we could to bring our spending down,” she said. Carter declined to say how much the layoffs would save, saying that was a matter for discussion with the SEIU.
SEIU Local 721 spokesman Ian Thompson also declined to comment on the April 5 letter, citing the pending meeting with the court.
“But our members are very concerned that the court intends to lay off 25 court reporters. Cutting staff means reducing public services, which is bad for everyone in Riverside County. A better course would be to partner with us to find alternatives that don’t hurt working families,” Thompson said in an emailed statement.
😉
The OBT
April 12, 2013
You know Woodhull really hit the nail on the head. Shortly after HRH 1 took over, it became quite apparent that he believed nothing worked at the trial courts and that he along with Mr Bill were going to “fix” everything. There was never any regard for local tradition, culture, innovation or history. Centralized control required we do everything as HRH-1 mandated, leading ultimately to the unnecessary and highly criticized court closures. All this was done in the guise of court unification and Article 6 of the California Constitution . Thanks Judge Stirling for the historical insights about how your outstanding idea was highjacked by those interested in creating and preserving power only for themselves .
unionman575
April 12, 2013
http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/ivp-three-courts-slated-to-close-20130412,0,5214221.story
Three courts slated to close
Justice System
By CHELCEY ADAMIStaff WriterImperial Valley Press
April 12, 2013
Facing severe state budget cuts and ongoing concerns for safety, Imperial County Superior Courts decided to close three of its seven courts Wednesday.
Following a 60-day public comment period, the Calexico and juvenile courts will be moved to El Centro while the jail court will be moved to Brawley, the Superior Court’s executive officer Kristine Kussman said.
Barring any drastic change in funding, these changes will occur in a staggered approach between June 15 and July 15.
The majority of court services are already offered via telephone or online, Kussman said, and added that she believes the courts will be able to provide better and more efficient customer service through the consolidation.
“We really model ourselves after a business and after those kinds of (questions) ‘What is the customer going to think?’” she said.
Regardless of where one receives a ticket, they can handle it at any court, and discussions are already underway regarding a potential pay-station or kiosk to be placed in a public Calexico building.
While the days the Winterhaven court is open have already been reduced to Tuesday through Thursday from five days a week, Kussman said she’s adamantly opposed to reducing hours at any other location.
“We’re not going to squeeze the public’s access to the court system over a location or a particular service that the public can get anywhere they want,” she said.
The decision comes shortly after members of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors said Tuesday that they would like to form an ad-hoc committee to be included in discussions of any court closures. Several county supervisors voiced concerns over the financial impact the closures would have on the county.
“I’m sure to the county it seems arbitrary, shortsighted, all those things, but it’s important to the community, it’s important to the world to preserve the integrity and the accessibility of the entire court system, not one location over another, but the global picture,” Kussman said. “If the county wants to say we’ll give you $400,000 to stay, we will consider it.”
However, while the move of the jail court will incur costs to the county, consolidation will also save money for it by moving the jail court to a place where it already has staff and is already providing the same types of services, Kussman said. Appointed or hired attorneys, officers and staff transferring files won’t have to travel as much between courts.
“In a perfect world, we wouldn’t like to incur costs on anybody, but this isn’t a perfect world,” she added.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s January budget proposed transferring $200 million from trial court reserves to support court operations.
This results in the Imperial County court using more than $4 million from its $9 million reserve funds, built up over 16 years, to balance its budget and Kussman estimates that by fiscal 2014-2015, it will no longer have a reserve fund.
Following years of budget reductions, the courts have already reduced staff, made departmental adjustments and technology improvements to become more efficient and save money.
Consolidating the Calexico courts will initially save about $450,000 while consolidating the jail and juvenile courts will save about $100,000 each. Reduction of the Winterhaven court hours saves about $58,000, but that still leaves a remaining $121,000 gap to cover.
Kussman said implementation of efficiencies through reduction in travel as well as reducing case appearances on court calendars will go toward covering that gap.
She said that the move spurred by financial concerns will address a long-standing belief that the jail and juvenile courts pose safety concerns since they don’t have the same entrance security in place as the other courts and potentially have more of a threat of violence.
The areas where jail and juvenile courts operate are county property and will go back to them. The Calexico court building will revert back to the city of Calexico after it’s declared vacated.
Imperial County follows a long list of court closures and consolidations around the state, Kussman said. More than 53 courthouses have closed statewide, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times, and a study by the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee reported that courts have lost about 65 percent of the state funding over the last five years.
Public comments can be emailed to infodesk@imperial.courts.ca.gov or mailed to Superior Court of California, County of Imperial, ATTN: Kristine S. Kussman, CEO, 939 W. Main St., El Centro, CA 92243
Staff Writer Chelcey Adami can be reached at 760-337-3452 or cadami@ivpressonline.com.
disgusted
April 12, 2013
JUST HAD TO http://www.theunion.com/news/localnews/6063002-113/trail-art-nevada-sculptures
“By Christopher Rosacker Staff Write
Local News
April 11, 2013
Follow Local News
Submit Your News
Golden poo sculptures ahead on trail outside Nevada City
Expand PhotoImage courtesy of Art on Site Sacramento artist Daniel Brickman proposes installing around a half dozen golden scultpures of dog poop that would be about 2-feet tall along the Tribute Trail that leads out of Nevada City.
Image courtesy of Art on Site Sacramento artist Daniel Brickman proposes installing around a half dozen golden scultpures of dog poop that would be about 2-feet tall along the Tribute Trail that leads out of Nevada City.
Among the seven teams of artists proposed to provide art along the Tribute Trail leading out of Nevada City is a Sacramento artist who envisions a half-dozen, 3-foot tall, gold-colored sculptures of dog poo. “Hopefully people get a chuckle, but hopefully it will have people step back and consider the environment and how we interface with it and our dogs,” said Nancy Fleming, who chairs the Art on Site project proposing the temporary art installations. The topic was broached during a presentation about portions of the project inside Nevada City limits to the City Council Wednesday night. And while the” …
wearyant
April 13, 2013
If I weren’t so lazy, I would love to grab those sculptures and place them elsewhere … somewhere VERY near and dear to the crystal palace. 😉
Ron Branson
April 14, 2013
I just finished reading “My Court Unification Efforts Have Become a Failure.” Having been involved in court improvements for years, I have written the following in April of 1995. The Californian Legislature must take a look at how it will improve our California Judicial System. It is as follows;
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.)
(California Initiative – Ver. 2-7-07)
Preamble. We, the People of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been greatly abused; that when judges abuse their power, the People are obliged – it is their duty – to correct that injury, for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. In order to ensure judicial accountability and domestic tranquility, we hereby amend our Constitution by adding the following provisions as Sec. 32 to Article I, which shall be known as “The J.A.I.L. Amendment.”
1. Definitions. To avoid absurd results, words shall be given their plain, ordinary and literal meanings; and where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice-versa. For purposes of this Amendment, the following terms shall mean:
Judge: A judicial officer hearing and adjudicating legal actions and proceedings within the judicial branch of government (to include arbitrator, mediator, or a private judge, any of whom is assigned by a court to hear involuntary proceedings). This definition shall not be construed to mean trial juror, prosecutor, or any administrative official.
Material allegations: Statements essential to the claim or defense presented in a pleading filed in court.
Blocking: Any unlawful act that impedes the lawful conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of an unlawful or void judgment or order.
Corporate litigant: A party holding a corporate charter, as distinguished from a business license.
Juror: A Special Grand Juror.
Strike: An adverse immunity decision or a criminal conviction against a judge.
2. Exclusions of immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the contrary, no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material allegations, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of California or the United States. The foregoing judicial misconduct shall not be construed to mean court decisions made within the authorized capacity of a judge.
3. Special Grand Juries. For the purpose of returning power to the People and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary, there are hereby created within this State three twenty-five member Special Grand Juries with statewide jurisdiction having inherent power to judge both law and fact. This body shall exist independent of statutes governing county Grand Juries. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, based on the evidence shown on the record, whether any civil lawsuit against a judge would be frivolous or harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth in paragraph 2, or whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought before the Special Grand Jury.
4. Professional Counsel. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, and thereafter shall be ineligible to serve; except a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute to conclusion ongoing cases through all appeals and any complaints to the Special Grand Jury. Each Special Grand Jury may hire clerical staff, as needed, without time limitation.
5. Establishment of Special Grand Jury Facilities. Within ninety days following the passage of this Amendment, the Legislature shall provide a suitable facility for each Special Grand Jury. Each facility shall be reasonably placed proportionately according to population throughout the State, but no facility shall be located within a mile of any judicial body.
6. Annual Funding. The Legislature shall cause to be deducted two and nine-tenths percent from the gross judicial salaries of all judges, which amount shall be deposited regularly into an exclusive trust account created by this Amendment in paragraph 10 for its operational expenses, together with filing fees under paragraph 7, surcharges under paragraph 8, forfeited benefits of disciplined judges under paragraph 18, and fines, if any, imposed by sentencing under paragraph 16.
7. Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a party filing a civil petition or response before the Special Grand Jury shall, at the time of filing, pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the State Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil petition or response on their own behalf before the Special Grand Jury as a matter of right shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of fifty dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating that they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee, pursuant to First Amendment right of redress.
8. Surcharges. Should this Amendment lack sufficient funding through its fines, fees, and forfeitures (including deductions in paragraph 6), the Legislature shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to supplement the funding of this Amendment so as not to be chargeable to the public.
9. Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate to that of a Superior Court judge, prorated according to the number of days actually served by the Juror.
10. Annual Budget. The Special Grand Juries shall have an annual operational budget commensurate to double the combined salaries of the seventy-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by the Legislature into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the State Treasurer. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty Superior Court judges, the State Treasurer shall so notify the Legislature which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the State Treasurer shall transfer such excess to the state treasury. Except for the initial year, no expenses in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 of this Amendment shall be chargeable to the public.
11. Jurisdiction. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to appoint a foreperson, establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each petition/complaint brought before it, unless such case is transferred to another Special Grand Jury to achieve caseload balance. A transfer shall not prejudice a docketing deadline. The Special Grand Jury first docketing a complaint shall have sole jurisdiction of the case. Except as provided in paragraphs 17 and 22, no petition of misconduct shall be considered by any Special Grand Jury unless the petitioner shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in this State within the immediately preceding six-month period. (Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in petitions of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Grand Juries become functional. This provision applies remedially and retroactively.) Should the petitioner opt to proceed to the United States Supreme Court, such six-month period shall commence upon the disposition by that Court.
12. Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and have been an inhabitant of California for two years immediately prior to having his/her name drawn. Those not eligible for Special Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious act.
13. Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and their names shall be publicly drawn at random by the Secretary of State from the list of registered voters and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing. The initial Special Grand Juries shall be established within thirty days after the fulfillment of the requirements of paragraph 5.
14. Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Grand Juries, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two Jurors shall be rotated off each Special Grand Jury and two new Jurors seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror drawn to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
15. Procedures. The Special Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the filed petition upon the subject judge and notice to the petitioner of such service. The judge shall have twenty days to serve and file a response. The petitioner shall have fifteen days to reply to the judge’s response. (Upon timely request, the Special Grand Jury may provide for extensions of time upon the showing of good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Grand Jury shall have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and to examine witnesses under oath. Each Special Grand Jury shall determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing within one hundred twenty calendar days, serving on all parties their determination as to whether or not immunity shall apply as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Grand Jury within fifteen days with service upon the opposition. Fifteen days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Grand Jury shall render final determination in writing within thirty days. All allegations in the petition shall be liberally construed. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their determinations, that they are entrusted by the People of this State with the duty of restoring judicial accountability and the perception of justice. The standard of authority by which the Jurors shall be guided in making their determinations shall not be opinions of courts, but shall be the Constitutions of California and of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof. The Jurors shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this Amendment against a judge shall not commence until a final determination by the Special Grand Jury. Special Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen Jurors shall determine any matter.
16. Indictment. Should the Special Grand Jury also find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a petition is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or lack of fluency in English, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge, having jurisdiction solely to maintain a fair and orderly proceeding. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, sentencing shall be the province of the special trial jury, and not that of the selected judge. Such term of sentence shall conform to statutory provisions.
17. Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this Amendment, a complaint for criminal conduct against a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury, when all of the following conditions have been met: (1) an affidavit or declaration of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety days of the commission of the alleged crime; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty days have passed following the lodging of such affidavit or declaration, and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
18. Removal. Whenever any judge has received three strikes, the judge shall be permanently removed from office, and thereafter shall not serve in any State judicial office. Judicial retirement for such removed judge shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such judge would have otherwise been entitled. Retirement shall not avert third-strike penalties.
19. Public Indemnification. No judge against whom a petition/complaint is brought, or sued civilly by a complainant pursuant to this Amendment, shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Amendment.
20. Enforcement. No person exercising strict enforcement of the findings of a Special Grand Jury shall be held liable civilly, criminally, or in contempt.
21. Redress. The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
22. Challenges. No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.
23. Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision. The foreperson of each Special Grand Jury shall read, or cause to be read, this Amendment to the respective Jurors semi-annually during the first week of business in January and July. Should any part of this Amendment be determined unconstitutional, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect as though no challenge thereto existed.
Copyrighted Library of Congress 9/12/03
*** END ***
unionman575
April 14, 2013
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_23020934/whittier-courthouse-closure-moving-ahead
Whittier courthouse closure moving ahead
Building could be empty a month before June 28 deadline
By Peter Fullam, Staff Writer
twitter.com/peterfullam
Posted: 04/13/2013 06:31:37 PM PDT
Updated: 04/13/2013 06:32:17 PM PDT
The Whittier Courthouse may be closing sooner than expected.
WHITTIER — The last day of operations at the Whittier Courthouse now appears to be May 28, a month earlier than the previously announced deadline of June 28.
Although June 30 remains the official date by which Los Angeles Superior Court officials said 10 courthouses, including Whittier’s, must be closed, employees at the courthouse say operations are already being moved.
“Look at all this equipment,” said one woman in the clerk’s office who asked not to be identified, referring to the size of the task of moving out.
Los Angeles Superior Court officials announced Nov. 15 that due to a budget shortfall between $56.6 million to $85.3 million, services were being removed from 10 county courthouses, including Whittier’s.
The Whittier Courthouse has been the location of the courts of five judges and a commissioner. In addition, there are civil and small claims courts, public defenders’ offices, a Los Angeles County D.A.’s office, a county clerk’s office, the sheriff’s court services office and a traffic department.
Asked for an update on the closings at Whittier, L.A. Superior Court spokeswoman Mary Hearn said by email Friday, “All of the components of the Court Consolidation Plan must be implemented by June 30, 2013. With regard to courthouses scheduled for closure, various court services will be withdrawn in phases over the next few months. Affected parties and stakeholders are being notified of the moves. ”
On Monday she said she had no additional information concerning Whittier.
However, according to employees, all courthouse operations will cease on Friday, Aug. 24 (gotta be a typo), with June 14 the final day of cleanup.
All of the cases will be transferred to the Superior Court’s locations in Bellflower, Downey and Norwalk.
Judge James Horan moved out of the courthouse on April 4 and transferred to Downey.
The closing was decried as an infringement on Whittier-area residents’ access to the courts and justice by numerous officials and organizations, including the Whittier City Council, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the ACLU, and SEIU Local 721, a union representing some Superior Court employees.
Whittier police Chief Jeff Piper in December said the planned closure would place a burden on witnesses, victims and others who use the judicial system and will now have to travel to courts in Downey, Norwalk or Bellflower.
“It’s plausible that many citizens will decline to use the judicial system – to which they’re entitled – out of frustration,” said Piper, who oversees police services in Whittier and Santa Fe Springs.
Last month, Hearn said several hundred jobs will be lost at a result of the consolidation of the courts. However, the exact number had not been determined, she said.
At the 10 courthouses set for closure, there are 237 employees. However, they may not be the ones who lose their jobs. Seniority will most likely be the determining factor, which means some employees whose jobs are eliminated will be transferred to another location, resulting in a less-senior person at that location getting the pink slip.
According to one Superior Court employee, employees of who are being laid off in the County Clerk’s Office countywide will get notices June 14.
The Superior Court’s seniority list was posted online on Monday.
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles, a Van Nuys-based group that provides free legal services, filed lawsuits in federal and state court opposing the closures. However, those cases were dismissed. The group is in the process of filing an appeal in federal court.
The SEIU Local 721 hasn’t given up its attempts to stop the closures.
The union has events set for April 20 to stop the Canyon Justice Center’s closing and in mid-May has invited the presiding judge for a public hearing.
“We still think there’s time to stop the courthouse consolidation process, which is going to be devastating to L.A. County,” said Ian Thompson, a spokesman for the union.
The public still hasn’t had any input on the matter, he said. And an Assembly subcommittee recently recommended putting $418 million back in the state judiciary’s budget.
“We don’t know what that means for L.A. County, but it’s is good news for the judiciary,” said Thompson.
The public and court workers oppose the closures, he said, and the judges should wait to see what happens with funding before pushing through the closures.
“Getting statewide funding for the courts is yet another reason for the L.A. County judges to stop their misguided consolidation process,” he said.
wearyant
April 14, 2013
At the very nanosecond the news was heard that $418 million will be put back in the state judiciary’s budget was when the plans for the upcoming junkets to lovely San Diego and beautiful Santa Barbara finalized for the pig-headed AOC bureaucrats. This $418 million and all future public funds must be funneled directly to the trial courts. The AOC must be de-funded!
sunlight
April 14, 2013
Adding insult to injury in L.A. – due to consolidation, there won’t be enough courtrooms for the current compliment of judges to cover. So part of the plan calls for civil courtrooms to have two judges to a court. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be a slew of judges in L.A. that won’t be working a full day while justice comes to a screeching halt for the public and good employees are simultantaneously handed their pink slips. Oh, and if you’re an attorney in a civil matter, get ready to pony up for the court reporter, because you are now fully-funding that expense too, even though the court can generate money by keeping official reporters and collecting the full day, half day, and under-an-hour fee if they would continue utilizing official court reporters. This plan is about as well thought out and self-serving as ANY misguided plan that the AOC has put forth. Where is “disgusted”? Hey, I’m right there with ‘ya.
unionman575
April 15, 2013
“So part of the plan calls for civil courtrooms to have two judges to a court. ”
An LASC “Hub” courtorom is a.m. judge and a.m. clerk and then after lunch judge #2 takes the bench with clerk #2.
😉
courtflea
April 15, 2013
“hub” courtroom = receipe for disaster. Any other old timers out there remember the a.m./p.m. split they had in LA in a couple of criminal courtrooms (at CCB) back in the late ’80s? But I guess this time around they had to a least try something to make those excess judges with no courtrooms look busy. other wise they might have got used in the assigned judges program 😉
Wendy Darling
April 15, 2013
Well, Flea, the assigned judges program seems to offer steady work. Just ask Jack (I’m back) Halpin, who has managed to sit on the Superior Court bench for over twenty years, courtesy of the assigned judges program, without once having been elected. Not that anyone in any position of authority that could do something about that, cares.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 15, 2013
“hub” courtroom = receipe for disaster
So stipulated Flea.
😉
unionman575
April 15, 2013
Hey Griswold, where you gonna put a tree that big?
sunlight
April 15, 2013
Yes, Flea, you got it. Two clerks covering three courtrooms, two judges covering one courtroom and no official court reporters in the picture even though they can generate money for the courts.
disgusted
April 15, 2013
Yes, Sunlight, you’ve got it. The “court reporter” jury fee that was charged to attorneys for a trial is something like 750 or 775 a full day. That fee would equal the salaries of 2 reporters for a day. Oh, but, wait, there’s a problem with that. That’s right, the Court Reporter Fee does not go to pay for court reporters!!! It’s used to pay salaries for janitors — and God knows what else — and is swept for anything else THEIR heart’s desire. They’ve got everything assbackwards!
unionman575
April 16, 2013
Therre will not be a record now.
unionman575
April 16, 2013
http://www.kyma.com/slp.php?idN=8242&cat=Local%20News
Court Closures in Imperial County
The court system in Imperial County has decided to close down three of their facilities and consolidate with the other courts because of budget cuts.
Their court’s budget has been declining since 2007 becaue of California’s economic crisis.
They thought it’s best to close jail and juvenile courts in El Centro and the Calexico courthouse.
“Our cut was a $1.2 million to us locally out of a general fund budget that was $7.5 million. So, you can understand what the impact would be to that,” Chief Executive Officer Kristine Kussman said.
Kussman says at full staff the court would have 150 employees. They’re at 123.
“What are we going to do because if we don’t do something then the state court’s basically would just have to take us over,” Kussman said.
Becky Guerrero is on her 8th year working at jail court. The big change for her is relocating to the Brawley courthouse.
“It’s kind of nerve racking but it’s understandable all the financial issues going on in the state so we just have to go with the flow,” Guerrero said.
Calexico court will be conducting business at the El Centro courthouse starting June and juvenile court will start in July, and jail court will move to the Brawley courthouse.
With these changes guerrero’s optimistic she still has her job for now.
“We are feeling confident and hopefully we won’t have to be worrying about that pretty soon,” Guerrero said.
Those layoffs may happen in the near future. The public has 60 days to comment regarding these changes.
If you’d like your opinion heard, contact the court by e-mailing to
infodesk@imperial.courts.ca.gov or send a letter addressed to:
Superior Court California
County of Imperial
ATTN.: Kristine S. Kussman, CEO
939 West Main Street El Centro, CA 92243
unionman575
April 17, 2013
http://editorial.alm.com/c/11EvNxjosRYgt58obOG5yYvzw
Bill to Create Special CEQA Courts Clears Hurdle
By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles
The Recorder
April 16, 2013
SACRAMENTO — Over the objections of judicial branch leaders, a Senate committee on Tuesday approved legislation that would create at least a dozen specialized CEQA courtrooms around the state.
Senator Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, the author of SB 123, promised to shelve the bill if she cannot secure a method to pay for the new divisions, which would process litigation brought under the California Environmental Quality Act and other land use laws designated by the Judicial Council.
“I have not introduced this bill to suck resources out of our already over [taxed] courts,” Corbett told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The bill originally called for every court in the state to create a CEQA division. Responding to concerns about the impact on smaller courts, Corbett amended SB 123 earlier this month to now require that the specialized divisions be created in a minimum of 12 courthouses around the state — at least two in each of California’s six appellate districts.
Planning groups have praised the proposal as a way to speedily and consistently handle CEQA matters. But the bill has attracted a wide array of critics, including the Judicial Council, the California Judges Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the Rural County Representatives of California.
“It does present a fundamental policy question of whether now is the time to create a fundamentally new structure,” said Judicial Council lobbyist Dan Pone.
Corbett has not revealed what funding schemes she may be considering. Outside of the CEQA court debate, the plaintiffs bar has already warned that it is not likely to support new filing fees this year after state leaders have relied on them for years to fill budget holes.
The bill’s passage occurred hours after Governor Jerry Brown told reporters accompanying him on his China trade mission that he doesn’t expect the Legislature to send him any legislation significantly reshaping CEQA this year. Senator Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the effort’s primary legislative champion, immediately shot back, telling reporters that he intends to pursue a “full and comprehensive” overhaul of the environmental law.
Also on Tuesday, an Assembly committee gave early approval to legislation that would create a 14-day right-to-cure period for alleged violators of Proposition 65, California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. The law requires manufacturers and store owners to warn consumers about significant amounts of chemicals in their products.
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Burbank, said his measure would deter a small group of unscrupulous lawyers who target shopkeepers with demand-for-cash letters over small, technical violations.
“I’m afraid, and I think others are, too, that there will be a movement to throw out the baby with the bathwater if we don’t correct this,” Gatto told the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.
But opponents of AB 227, which now include the Consumer Attorneys of California, say the bill in its current form goes too far and would eliminate the effective deterrent of potential private litigation.
Gatto said he would consider refining the bill before it is heard next in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Contact the reporter at cmiller@alm.com.
courtflea
April 17, 2013
“Judicial Council lobbyist Dan Pone”? who the heck is he?
unionman575
April 17, 2013
See Dan Pone here:
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
April 17, 2013
Did that office go from two lobbyists to eight lobbyists?!?!?!
unionman575
April 17, 2013
Yes.
😉
Michael Paul
April 18, 2013
Damage control that costs a few million a year and produces nothing. The re-ordering of the Ministry of Truth and a few more million a year being spent on that, spearheaded by a social media expert that produces nothing.Yet they have to place these losing bets just for the opportunity to tread water.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 17, 2013
After receiving an extensive list of questions that should be published regarding the ongoing operations of what was formerly known as the facilities management unit we’re soliciting additional questions about fmu’s opertions, courthouses and specific courthouse issues that remain unresolved from around the state. send them to judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com
wearyant
April 17, 2013
Gee, give all those people a raise. After all, the standard of living in San Francisco is higher than everywhere else and those poor suffering souls can’t make it otherwise.
NOT!
De-fund the AOC, dammit!
The OBT
April 18, 2013
What ? I thought the AOC had two lobbyists not eight . The CJA has one lobbyist . At the time the AOC tried to take over picking our PJ’s, I thought they only had two lobbyists including Mr Child. Thanks Unionman for finding and passing on this list of crystal palace lobbyists. The list is just another example of how the AOC is out of control and wasting valuable taxpayer funds.
R. Campomadera
April 18, 2013
Eight lobbyists? Are you kidding me? Do these “lobbyists” have other duties that actually contribute to the dispensation of justice in the State of California?
If you’re doing the job right, you shouldn’t need even one designated lobbyist, just a “spokesperson” or, if you prefer, a “point-of-contact” for legislative inquiries. Your actions and the results thereof is all the lobbying you should need.
The only possible reason you might need eight lobbyists is if you’re doing the job so badly that you don’t want anyone to know just how big a cock-up you’ve created, and you need to “spin the story” to dress the pig up as a swan.
Wendy Darling
April 18, 2013
All the lobbyists in the world aren’t going to fix what’s wrong with 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
April 18, 2013
You know that, and I know that, but the arrogant you-know-whats at the JC/AOC still think the answer to all their problems is more money. If the Legislature will just give us more money, everything will be fine. And by “us”, I don’t mean the trial courts. Eight lobbyists at $100,000 equals funding for 16 FTE’s that the courts don’t have. How can that be justified in any way?
Michael Paul
April 19, 2013
This is the AOC.
Normally when one digs themselves into a hole there is someone to suggest that their shovels be taken away.
Be it CCMS or the unlicensed contractor debacle, Long Beach and now San Diego, when the AOC digs themselves into a hole they get a council member (or some entity that’s bilking the council) to declare “we’re that close” along with the accompanying graphic of a thumb and index finger held an inch apart, followed by tossing more bodies and more shovels into the hole with instructions to keep digging.
The AOC has a PR problem that is getting worse and not better. This year they’ve suggested on the same money-saving list that was charging ten bucks to do a search for a court record that the legislature forego judicial branch audits this year.
They hired Jahr to lead the AOC and they promoted Child into an AOC executive position.Although they don’t recognize these two moves as public relations disasters amounting to deep holes, everyone else views them as PR disasters that resemble a hole of the meteor strike variety; instantaneous and deep.
They’re trying to hand out shovels to everyone else in the branch and suggesting that we all head to the bottom of the hole to sing cumbaya and repeat “can’t we all just get along?” and order them to keep digging.
I always said putting SEC members on the council would amount to credibly undermining the SEC survey while silencing what might otherwise be their most vocal critics. I don’ think I was wrong about that. Now the AOC seeks a classification and compensation study to reaffirm they’ve taken the best course in their reorg so they can hang a mission accomplished banner across the top of 455 golden gate.
It would take an army of lobbyists and PR people to sell that notion to anyone else and they know it.
Michael Paul
April 19, 2013
A tale of Two Judicial Councils – By Bill Girdner
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/18/56846.htm
Lando
April 19, 2013
Did you see what the eight lobbyists work on ? Court reporters? I am not sure the court reporters who get laid off by the dozens thanks to the JC/AOC are looking to their AOC lobbyists for help. The Day on the Bench ? Can anyone even remember that program and if you can why would we need a lobbyist for it ? Here are my favorites, General Advocacy and Communications Liaison.How does any of that differ from all the specific areas the JC/AOC assigned to all the other lobbyists? Isn’t it all advocacy and communications to begin with ? In the words of our great friend Wendy : You can’t make this stuff up. Really.
wearyant
April 19, 2013
The AOC lobbyists are paid with public funds. They are there to preserve the standard of living that the AOC has become accustomed to. If anything, the AOC lobbyists are there to thwart the continuing employment of court reporters.
Long live court reporters!
De-fund the AOC!
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2013
Court reporters don’t need the kind of “help” the AOC has to offer. Neither does the “public”. Something akin to “With friends like that, a person doesn’t need any enemies.”
And here’s a “Day on the Bench” program for the AOC: the “leadership” of 455 Golden Gate Avenue can spend a day sitting in handcuffs on a bench in a police substation in downtown San Francisco, waiting their respective turns to be fingerprinted.
As it turns out, public waste and fraud is a lot like pornography: you know it when you see it.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians. Only now with eight lobbyists.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
April 19, 2013
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202596662041&et=editorial&bu=The%20Recorder&cn=California%20News%20Alert%2C%20April%2019%2C%202013&src=EMC-Email&pt=The%20Recorder%20News%20Alert&kw=Courts%20Aren%27t%20Equal%20in%20Funding%2C%20Study%20Concludes&slreturn=20130319105624
Courts Aren’t Equal in Funding, Study Concludes
By Cheryl Miller Contact All Articles
The Recorder
April 18, 2013
SACRAMENTO — The judiciary has “substantially complied” with the mandates of the 16-year-old Trial Court Funding Act, according to a 250-page report issued Thursday by a committee appointed by the governor and chief justice.
But equality in trial court funding is still “in need of improvement,” the Trial Court Funding Workgroup concluded, effectively laying the groundwork for passage next week of a controversial plan to revise how money is divvied up by the courts.
“The workgroup finds that funding has not been allocated based on workload fluctuations or in a manner designed to promote equal access to the courts statewide, implementation of statewide policies, or implementation of efficiencies and cost-saving measures to support access to justice,” the report said.
The Judicial Council should “adopt a new methodology for allocating funding appropriated for support of trial court operations, to be implemented” in July, the group said.
The report does not specify how money should be shifted among the 58 courts. A separate committee, led by Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge Laurie Earl, is expected to deliver a proposal on how to do that to the Judicial Council at its meeting in San Francisco on April 25 to 26.
That committee has not yet made its formula or its projected impact on individual courts public yet. Some judges and court executives who have seen an early draft of the allocation plan said courts in Santa Clara and Orange counties are expected to take the biggest hits. San Diego County Superior Court would lose a smaller amount of funding while Los Angeles County Superior Court would see a small increase, they said. Inland Empire courts in San Bernardino and Riverside are expected to be the biggest winner in any funding shift.
Publication of the workgroup’s report is the final response to Governor Jerry Brown’s call almost a year ago for a deep look into courts’ workloads, staffing levels and other data to determine if trial courts “provide equal access to justice” after the state assumed funding responsibilities in 1997. Ultimately, the group could not decide on a single, simple definition of what constituted “access to justice.”
“There are so many definitions,” the group’s co-chairman, Justice Harry Hull Jr. of the Third District Court of Appeal, said Thursday. “But everybody understands and agrees on some aspects.”
Key among those aspects is court funding based on workload, not historical factors, the report said.
A spokesman for the governor’s department of finance said the administration has no position on what the Judicial Council should do with the report.
At the start of the workgroup’s meetings, state finance officials made it clear they wanted the branch to move toward a more standardized funding system that would erase some of the disparities among courts. Some branch officials expressed hope that if such a system was put in place the governor might be persuaded to restore some of the funding cut from the judiciary over the last five years. But Hull insisted the two issues are unrelated.
“It has been made very plain to the Trial Court Funding Workgroup that this had nothing to do with new money, more money,” Hull said. “It had to do with taking a hard look at what the branch has done since 1997.”
Contact the reporter at cmiller@alm.com
MaxRebo5
April 19, 2013
Ultimately, the group could not decide on a single, simple definition of what constituted “access to justice.”
I loved that line. I’m pretty sure any definition of “access to justice” does not need to include 800+ employees at the AOC not processing cases in admin jobs as staff to the Judicial Council. So start right there with your formula. Cut that waste and apply it to trial courts and then from that point Judge Earl’s workload formula is a great idea. The currency of the courts is cases. The AOC handles zero cases and therefore does not deserve 5% of the budget pie. Easy math.
There is some logic to the Governor’s plan. There is no more generla fund money coming to CA Courts. CalPERS is in trouble and will need billions more general fund money to shore it up in the next few years. This means the courts will have to get efficient from within on their current budget.
The problem with the Chief being in full control of the JC is she won’t agree to cut the AOC first. I would think that would be the logical thing to do before telling some trial courts to give money from their budgets to help out other trial courts in greater need based on the workload formula. Perhaps when judges at the trial courts see their budgets cut before the AOC is cut they will finally rise up and demand accountabilty at the top.
Without a democratic JC it is whatever plan the Chief takes and the branch is stuck with it. Just like the trial court judges are stuck with CCMS and we all know how well that went.
Great article. Thanks JCW and unionman for posting it.
courtflea
April 19, 2013
gut the AOC
unionman575
April 19, 2013
You never know where you will find insight into the Death Star…
Stare at this..then repeat.
http://www.skirball.org/exhibitions/highlight/title15155
😉
unionman575
April 19, 2013
(Sent on behalf of Presiding Judge David S. Wesley and Interim Executive Officer/Clerk William Mitchell)
Some public officials have stated that the Governor’s proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013, (important parts of which passed a legislative budget committee April 3rd), contains “restoration” of $418 million in trial court funding. They conclude that the trial courts will be better off than expected and call for a halt to the cuts that are underway in courts across the state.
Unfortunately, they are mistaken. When the Legislature and Governor imposed $540 million of new cuts on the trial courts in the fiscal year 2012-13 budget, $418 million of those cuts were described as one-time cuts that would be reversed in fiscal year 2013-14. The “restoration” simply confirms the promise that those cuts would be one-time.
In fact, in fiscal year 2012-13, the $418 million cut was mitigated by the use of branch wide funds on a one-time basis. As a result, the trial courts did not have to implement the $418 million cut; there is nothing to reverse.
(What about current year mitigations? In fiscal year 2013-14, the branch’s ability to mitigate state funding cuts is lessened by the fact that $200 million of General Fund funding comes from branch wide funds earmarked for courthouse construction – funds that would otherwise have been available for redirection to court operations.)
The Los Angeles Superior Court‘s shortfall of $195 million is a product of years of reductions already imposed and confirmed by the Governor and Legislature. Our budget forecasts assumed that the $418 million cut would be reversed in fiscal year 2013-14. We also forecast the mitigations that occurred in fiscal 2012-13.
These actions do not change our budget forecast, nor our fiscal situation. Unfortunately, they simply confirm our budget forecasts – and reinforce the need for our Court to continue with the consolidation plan currently in process.
R. Campomadera
April 19, 2013
Re. A Tale of Two Judicial Councils, Bill Girdner provides a fascinating comparison and analysis of the state and federal judicial councils. Management and oversight of the federal system, of course, is shared between the circuit councils and the Judicial Conference, U.S. (JCUS) As with the federal circuit councils, members of the the JCUS are largely appointed by seniority and representative methods. Technically, the JCUS sets national policy and the circuit councils have the enforcement authority. The JCUS works through committees, with staffing support provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). From personal experience, I can assure you that the AOUSC “knows who the boss is”. The judges never let them forget who is in charge.
Which raises an interesting question. If Bill Girdner is correct in saying that the California judicial council “lacks authority” to control the AOC, then who, precisely, is in charge? Where does the authority, which clearly exists and is being wielded on a daily basis, actually reside?
With the former judge of a small rural court whose only executive experience was a short stint as PJ? Somehow, that doesn’t seem likely, does it? I imagine that figuratively speaking, Mr. Jahr doesn’t go to the marbled-encrusted bathrooms in the Crystal Palace without permission of his boss. Well, let’s see…who’s left? Who really is in charge? Any guesses? Anyone???
I submit that the problem isn’t that the state judicial council lacks authority per se, but rather that the CJ has way, way, way too much. She’s running things, and is, for all practical purposes, a dictator. A dictator in charge of the third branch of our state government. A government which, the last time I checked, was still supposed to be a representative democracy. Except the co-equal third branch of it, that is. She makes appointments to the council based on her own counsel and each member knows that his or her continued service thereon is subject to her pleasure. No dissent is permitted. Votes are unanimous. All are urged to speak with one voice. The opinions of others, especially and notably, the judges, are ignored. Reports containing critical recommendations, even those commissioned by the CJ herself, are left to gather dust on the bookshelf in the sure understanding that no one is in a position to challenge the situation. That’s practically the textbook definition of a dictatorship.
The answer this situation is to democratize the Judicial Council. Period. And the sooner the better. If the judiciary won’t clean its own mess up, which seems highly unlikely, then it’s time for the legislature to do it.
If the legislature won’t do it, then it’s time for the people to do it through the referendum process.
One further thought: with authority, inevitably comes responsibility. If not sooner, then later. You can’t have one without the other. If the CJ enjoys virtually unlimited authority for the management of the state judiciary, then she is personally responsible for the inefficiency, waste, corruption, and graft within her branch, examples of which are rife. You want all the power? Fine. When the ship runs aground, you’re the one who is responsible. Chew on that, Your Honor.
Wendy Darling
April 19, 2013
Well said, R. Campomadera. Well said, indeed.
Lando
April 20, 2013
Outstanding insights R. Campomadera. After trial court unification, Ronald George used California Constitution Article 6 to claim that provision gave him the authority to be in charge of the whole branch. He and Mr Vickrey tried to get Article 6 amended at least twice to actually say that, without success. You are very correct, the end result of the “reborn branch” to quote the current CJ’s words was the creation of an absolute Soviet style dictatorship. Ronald George went way out of his way to suppress dissent by stating at a CJA annual meeting that any call to democratize the Judicial Council would be ‘ tantamount to an act of war”. The CCMS mess and the unilateral decision by George to close the courts via furloughs finally exposed the Judicial Council and AOC’s antidemocratic failings. Now we are left with the largest judiciary in the world being run by 1 person the current Chief Justice. This Chief Justice has through her actions and decisions just exacerbated the problems the branch faces all evidenced by the massive financial cutbacks imposed on the branch. The ship has run aground and so the only long term solution is to democratize the Judicial Council and end the dictatorship that was created 16 years ago without constitutional or legislative authority.
Scout Finch
April 20, 2013
Ever since I read about Tani complaining about not getting equally good Christmas presents as the other kids, I knew she was lame. The other strange thing about her is that she still talks about high school like that’s where she learned everything. It’s pretty scary that she gets to be the Dictator.
unionman575
April 21, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-south-la-resident-decry-closing-of-juvenile-court-other-cuts-20130420,0,7756176.story
South L.A. residents decry closing of juvenile court, other cuts