May 8, 2013
I am sending you this important message regarding the 2013-2014 Judiciary budget. We anticipate the release of the Governor’s May Revise next week. Alliance members have been engaged in quiet discussion with members and staff of the Legislature and with some within the Executive branch. There has been meaningful concern expressed within the Legislature that the budget cuts to the courts have resulted in a serious erosion of public access to justice. Some restoration of funding is being considered. We anticipate that the Speaker of the Assembly may soon announce the primary budget goals of the Assembly and are optimistic that these will include a proposal for additional trial court funding. We expect the proposal to be coupled with strict demands for transparency and accountability, and a direction that 100% of the money be directed to the trial courts.
In April the Director of the AOC, Steven Jahr, released a statement that clarified action by the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on April 5, 2013. Director Jahr correctly pointed out that the Subcommittee had simply confirmed the Governor’s proposed budget, which continues a permanent, ongoing cut of $535 million to the branch, requiring the trial courts to absorb an additional $261 million in cuts by the end of this fiscal year.
Director Jahr’s communication also confirmed that the AOC’s proposed funding solutions this year include a request for a full restoration of funding including:
- $475 million restored from the General Fund
- $18.5 million to fund appellate court costs
- $49.3 million for employee health care and retirement cost increases
- Elimination of the 1% trial court reserve balance limitation
The Alliance supports these goals, and the efforts of the Chief Justice in pursuing them. We also recognize there must be buy-in of the Legislative and Executive branches. Having these considerations very much in mind, we have not made any specific budget proposals while awaiting the Governor’s May Revise and the stated positions of the two legislative houses. After the May revise, and especially if, as we expect, it does not propose additional trial court funding, we plan to offer meaningful options for restoring branch funding.
Throughout the state, our courtrooms are shutting down. We are no longer able to provide essential services to our communities, the people who elect us to serve justice. At least 200 courtrooms have closed and 2500 court workers have lost their jobs. For the first time in our history, our core ethic — the adjudication of cases and controversies — is threatened. This did not happen even in the Great Depression.
This cannot abide. The priorities of this branch must be revisited.
I would like to close with a laudatory reference to the important action taken by Judge Laurie Earl’s subcommittee of the Trial Court Working Group. The committee proposed a new allocation model for funding the trial courts, which has now been “adopted” by the Judicial Council. We understand and agree with the effort to recast the existing historic funding model that may perpetuate inequities. However, trial court funding is a function of the Legislature. It is a creature of statute, not a constitutional function of the Judicial Council. This change was not mandated by the Legislature or the Department of Finance. Such an important change requires a fuller and more inclusive vetting and more input than occurred in the closed committee process. Just as in the federal courts and the other state courts, the Legislative and Executive branches also play an important role in this. Judges should not presume that we can make such significant changes without the buy-in of our sister branches. This is as it should be. Even for those who wish it were otherwise, the three branches of government are necessarily part of the decision.
Very truly yours,
Judge Steve White
President
The Alliance of California Judges
Related articles
- JCW’s wishes for the May budget revise (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- State Auditor Faults AOC (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Why are we so afraid of democracy? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The boondogglers relent….. for the time being… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- What Will It Take to Kill The Beast? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- As Transparent As An Iron Curtain (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
May 8, 2013
Quote of the day: “Accountability and judicial oversight have been my top priorities for the last three years, and that’s reflected in the reforms the Judicial Council and I have launched,” Cantil-Sakauye said.” ROTFL.
Published today, Wednesday, May 8, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw3, by Cheryl Miller:
More Money for Courts Will Come With Conditions
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Assembly leader John Perez said Wednesday that rosy projections for the next state budget should mean some restored funding for fiscally drained courts.
But any additional money, he added, will likely come with strings attached.
“If they want to come to us for the allocation, they need to come to us with accountability as well,” Perez, D-Los Angeles, told a gathering of the Sacramento Press Club.
Perez raised the specter of the Court Case Management System, the scrapped technology project that has become a symbol among critics — both inside and out of the Legislature — for poor judicial branch oversight and spending decisions.
“We do not expect to micromanage the courts,” Perez continued. “We do expect [to impose] broad-based accountability measures to make sure that the funds are used for that which they are requested.”
The Assembly speaker did not specify how much additional money he thinks should go to the courts in the 2013-14 budget, which is due by law on June 15. But with state revenues running $4.6 billion ahead of original estimates, Perez’ comments all but assure that he, the governor and Senate leader Darrell Steinberg will include more funding for the courts as they craft the annual spending plan over the next six weeks.
Perez didn’t spell out what sort of accountability measures he will seek, although those familiar with discussions say they are likely to include restrictions on additional courtroom closures, requirements for specific spending on interpreters, court reporters and self-help centers and more transparency on how branch leaders make spending decisions.
In a prepared statement, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she “absolutely” agrees with the speaker’s call for more judicial accountability.
“Accountability and judicial oversight have been my top priorities for the last three years, and that’s reflected in the reforms the Judicial Council and I have launched,” Cantil-Sakauye said.
Governor Jerry Brown is expected to reveal details of his so-called May revise budget next week.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202599309674&More_Money_for_Courts_Will_Come_With_Conditions&slreturn=20130408212538
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
May 8, 2013
My personal desire is to see that those strict demands for transparency and most especially accountability are not just forward looking but are backward looking.
For any government institution to engage in the kind of behaviors exhibited by current AOC leadership was and is downright criminal, yet nobody has yet to be held accountable for anything.
If you believe their storyline, everything they undertake is a resounding success – even if it was a dismal failure that could result in a beneficial 5 volume set of “lessons learned”.
We’re humans. We make mistakes and we learn from them. One of the fundamental problems with the ivory towers and the crystal palace is that they absolutely refuse to admit any mistake. There is no learned lessons, ergo wash, rinse and repeat, over and over.
The culture at both the AOC and council level must change for them to have any credibility.
People simply must be held accountable. .
.
Wendy Darling
May 8, 2013
Given that this is the “leadership” of the judicial branch we’re talking about, and we all know at this point that branch “leadership” is comprised of a bunch of people who can’t tell the truth, there has to be accountability before any measure of credibility will be restored to the branch. Otherwise, branch “leadership” will all just remain known for what they are: a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 8, 2013
For you statisticians out there: Welcome to Judicial Council Watcher’s 550th post.
The OBT
May 8, 2013
I guess I must have been asleep the last three years and missed the accountability and reforms that the Judicial Council and HRH 2 have launched. The sad thing is that HRH 2 isn’t fooling anybody and she is dragging down the entire branch with claims like this.
wearyant
May 8, 2013
“I guess I must have been asleep the last three years and missed the accountability and reforms that the Judicial Council and HRH 2 have launched.”
ROTFL
wearyant
May 8, 2013
“What difference does it make?” Ooo, shades of Hilliary.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/08/57457.htm
Pulleease — de-fund the AOC!
MaxRebo5
May 9, 2013
Nice link wearyant. I also agree with your conclusion to de-fund the AOC. My favorite line from the story was this one:
She asked, for example, what it would cost simply to allow reporters to see “the intake box.” Courthouse News has repeatedly argued that it costs no more than asking administrators to get out of the way.
Getting the administrators out of the way is sort of the problem in all of CA Courts. If they are going to be into everything then at least do a good job at it. Team George has botched CCMS, relations with the other branches, the implementation of the SEC Report, the reduction of the AOC staff, the telcommute policy reform, the LB courthouse and 1407 funds, and it goes on and on.
I also loved the line Wendy pointed out from our Chief:
Accountability and judicial oversight have been my top priorities for the last three years, and that’s reflected in the reforms the Judicial Council and I have launched,”
So Chief, tell us, how does naming the JC Conference Center after Bill Vickrey after the legislature demanded his resignation over CCMS fit with accountability? Then you doubled down and created an award in his name and give it out annually (Last year to Jody Patel) to Team George holdovers?
I’m pretty sure that’s defiance toward the other branches and the critics within the CA Courts who wanted his failed leadership style to end. Are those the “reforms” you’ve been all about this past 3 years. Most impressive.
Oh, an if you support accountabilty for other judges why do you resist the democratizing the JC and having accountability on yourself for policy decisions. What reforms are you actually proud of? I can’t think of anything of significance other than not promoting Tonto to the top job and bringing in Jahr instead. Other than that….it’s been business as usual. Shame on you!
Lando
May 9, 2013
HRH2 is actually saying she and her handpicked group of insiders have made the branch more accountable and launched reforms . You can’t make that up. This is the same HRH and insiders who continue to waste money on CCMS , refuse to move the AOC to Sacramento, stonewall on legitimate public information requests, continue to hire new employees while the trial courts are laying them off, continue to allow their employees to telecommute, and continue to waste millions with their bloated staff at 455 Golden Gate. That sure sounds like reform lol. Actually HRH or someone is responsible for one decent reform, the removal of J McConnell from the CJP.
R. Campomadera
May 9, 2013
If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one. And repeat it often. It’s an old trick used by dictators.
Just wondering
May 9, 2013
Appreciate the correspondence from the Alliance of California Judges. Thank your for your comments.
Is this the website for the Alliance for California judge? Just wondering.
Some thoughts. Seems erosion of public access to justice is based on JC/AOC, trial court administration and associated presiding judges – administration of the courts.
Financial administration of the courts should be with the state agency linked to the finance department. Don’t you guys like Elaine Howle? Or, just kissing up to her because it is budget time? Just wondering.
If taxpayers, attorneys, and judges want to be involved in policy decisions that seems fine.
I think taxpayers do not want judges and justices who don’t know how to balance an account, don’t know the difference between a “debit” or “credit”, don’t seem to get “competitive bidding”, don’t seem understand how to purchase existing technology to bring the court up to day, and don’t know how to stop self-dealing.
This judicial independence idea. Lets explore that. I was wondering how it is being promoted. Judicial independence has to do with the independence to decide a case not who much to spend on a janitorial contract or whether salaries should be cut v. funding for self help centers.
So you give money to the trial courts. Do you really believe that a PJ in the trial court has experience in finance to do the necessary operational tasks (in addition to deciding cases)? Or is it that behind the scenes is the County really the shot caller on the operational and financial functions? What happens when there is liability? Is the county – the real “shot caller” then claiming judicial immunity?
If the state agency or Legislature wants to make that type of contractual agreement with the Counties – so be it. So when it gets out of control the public can to to Legislature and demand accountability.
Have we considered that when the trial court judges get in bed with the County on operational and financial level, and the same judges are being compensated by the county – isnt is a conflict to then claim that the county is protected due to “judicial independence”. Who is pimping who? How does the taxpayer make a pimp accountable? Just wondering
Judicial Council Watcher
May 9, 2013
This site has absolutely no relationship with the Alliance of California judges.
Much like other media companies, we’re recipients of their press releases and communications to their membership. Much like other releases made to us, we don’t publish every one on line – but we publish more than anyone else does.
It is merely coincidence that our writers and the media companies that underwrite our efforts happen to share many (but not all) of the same goals as the Alliance of California Judges.
There are a myriad of judicial reform movements out there and blogs and sites that promote those judicial reform efforts. We’re not one of them. In fact, we would argue (and many of those judicial reform movements do agree) that they can never accomplish their goals without us first accomplishing ours. Change must start from the top down.
carl
May 10, 2013
Yeah how does the taxpayer make a pimp accountable?
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 9, 2013
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kamp
courtflea
May 9, 2013
Gee N Woodhull, you (and Hitler) perfectly described AOC tactics to a “t”. Scary
Democratize E&P and gut the AOC. I am glad the ACJ’s pointed out that there is no consitutional authority for the JC pertaining to trial court funding. And to Just Wondering yes, PJs and CEOs at the trial court level do have the expertise to manage their funding and no, counties are not calling the shots. Unfortunately, the AOC is.
I’m not holding my breath to see what conditions the legislature will impose on new funding for the branch. But I still can keep my fingers crossed that the Alliance will be sucessful.
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 9, 2013
Problem is, since our schools no longer teach civics or true history; they’d rather focus on political correctness, history will repeat itself. A very sad commentary on where we are as a society. I actually had a recently minted lawyer explain to me that learning history wasn’t important, because it focused on things that already happened… (no I am not kidding!) I’m sure that lawyer is destined to by an appellate justice in no time flat, or perhaps even the Chief Justice…:)
wearyant
May 9, 2013
General Woodhull said: “I actually had a recently minted lawyer explain to me that learning history wasn’t important, because it focused on things that already happened…”
ROTFLOL!
courtflea
May 9, 2013
So true N Woodhull, so true. As this flea majored in history as an undergrad, I have heard many times the same sad story from those that have no clue. Yep on the way to being a justice for sure, and most likely the young lawyer you referred to as an undergrad majored in video games or 3D film studies.
Just wondering
May 9, 2013
“>>>There are a myriad of judicial reform movements out there and blogs and sites that promote those judicial reform efforts. We’re not one of them. In fact, we would argue (and many of those judicial reform movements do agree) that they can never accomplish their goals without us first accomplishing ours. Change must start from the top down>>>.” Thank you Judicial Council Watcher.
But please, can I have some clarification?
You are seeking reform of the Judicial Council, right? You want accountability and transparency, right? So isn’t method of funding (including county funding) part of the accountability and transparency? If JC/AOC and the trial court administration (PJ, executive officer) turned a blind eye to funding conflicts harmful to the public, why do we ignore this?
So you bash the Judicial Council without addressing the root. How are you segmenting “judicial reform”. You don’t think the SEC report and the Court Case Management System fumble — are related to judicial reform. Just wondering were those judges who saw the problems then benefiting in the assigned judges program? If judges who are retired do not speak out, then you can’t just blame JC/AOC.
I’m just wondering. Just wondering if the blame game is going to stop… and California is going to be able to do what it takes to restore justice to the people. Maybe that really means “wake up, smell the coffee” and accept a receiver until there is accountability. Its bad at the top, but it is bad at the bottom. I am just wondering what our Legislature would be funding that would make a difference to the court users.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 9, 2013
In the other thread agent 99 drew an image of what a federal receiver might look like…AOC employee and federal prison receiver J.Clark Kelso. Take a look at his wonderful efforts at reforming the DOCR. 6 years and counting?
Most people agree that when you have a bunch of appointees of one person who also happens to chair all of the appointees, you’ve developed a speak with one voice predetermined result to just about any goal that the organization dreams up.
When you have an administrative office associated with such a council that the council and the administrative office randomly argue that they are both one organization and two different and separate organizations at the same time, you lack effective, clear governance. Governance of these two organizations is the primary focus of this site.
We promote the concept of democracy where judges that represent courts are elected by their constituents to represent those courts.That’s where we give weight to the independence of the judiciary…. a democratically selected leadership. We select their chair on 12 year election cycles. That too is unfortunate. Two representatives from the legislature are supposed to be representing the interests of the people but rarely, if ever show up.
just wondering, what you suggest is neither possible, nor realistic. There are inherent conflicts of interest when the courts and counties choose to split revenue. There’s the pressure to convict there. There are a few who have suggested tackling every problem at every level at the same time as you suggest. Yet I think you’ll find that when the courts are properly represented on the council by their elected representatives, many of the concerns that even citizens like yourself will be better addressed. Today you might as well be asking Rapunzel to let down her hair.
Just wondering
May 9, 2013
“>>>Governance of these two organizations is the primary focus of this site.<<<".
Thank you Judicial Council Watcher for the clarification of your mission.
As I understand it, you are concerned about how the judges organize and govern themselves.
This is different than how judicial governance structure impacts the public and court operations and fair ethical public access.
I mistakenly believed your mission was about JC/AOC's accountability to the public and that you had a broader interest than stated above. (e.g. Judicial Council Watcher was watching for the public interest in a broader view).
I have a better understanding of your extremely narrow focus.
I think my constituents are interested in making sure the Legislature stays on task of the interest of the broader public if want continued support to stay in office.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 9, 2013
We’re all for the legislature staying on task of the interests of the broader public – That’s what they’re elected for! However, we do not discount the public interest. We merely suggest that the public is best represented by their own elected representatives…..their local judges.
carl
May 10, 2013
Like the decision to close the courthouses. Local judges are not managers. Stick to deciding cases! Top to bottom overhaul. JC you got it wrong!
Lando
May 10, 2013
Thanks JCW. That is what the state constitution intended. HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey used the Trial Court funding legislation to change all that. The legislature and public never intended through trial court funding to convert the largest judiciary in the world into a Soviet style dictatorship with its own thousand person plus state agency making policy for the trial courts.The big lie back then was that the local trial courts were chaotic, inefficient and financially messed up so the AOC and the recast Judicial Council would correct all that. The solution is to defund the AOC with the legislature allocating funds directly to each trial court.
carl
May 10, 2013
Defund the AOC. Defund the trial court management and executive officers. State Finance department take over the damn operations of the court!
MaxRebo5
May 10, 2013
Sorry to go long again. Couldn’t resist.
Carl,
I am a major critic of the local trial court executive I worked under in Sacramento (Dennis Jones) and his predicessor (Jody Patel) who is now on Team George at the AOC. Both made terrible court management errrors when I worked for them and lacked ethics on some pretty importantant issues. I can respect anyone who says there is a problem with court administration as a field and I would agree it is not just a problem at the AOC if that is your point and that it permeates down to the local levels. The field of court administration is very weak as a profession and needs help badly.
My view is the problem stems from a lack of standards for court executives. As a result, the field is not a real profession and all of the court execs know they can be out on the street at a moment’s notice. Sort of makes it tough for them to be ethical and stand up for court employees (mostly clerks) when the local judges want to go a certain way (yes local judges can make mistakes too). When a job or profession isn’t licensed in any way a CEO’s can be easily replaced how can they speak out against a tyrant at the top?
The AOC also controlled the local court’s funding so that silenced voices again. It was a machine to break all voices. They even wanted to strip PJ’s of power. This was Ron George’s plan for complete control as he wanted to implement what even the SEC Committee felt was Bill Vickrey’s “vision” for CA Courts. I say that vision was flawed from the start if it meant corrupting new voices in the field and having every leader who got to the top having corrupted himself or herself to be trusted as a team player. Sort of like all of Lance Armstrong forcing all his teammates to dope to stay on his team. It was Ron George’s (Bill Vickrey’s) way or the highway. An evil time for CA Court Administration and the branch is still recovering like a family that had an abusive parent coming to grips with it.
To prevent this from happening again I want to see quality court administrators in CA who have masters degrees in judiicial administration or public administration and also who have experience working in the courts as clerks (they need both in my opinion). My view is experience as a clerks is vitally important to the job and all court execs should come from the clerical ranks (on top of their degrees) to have paid some dues and learned how courts really operate. I want the field of court administration to be a profession unto itself like court reporters, like attorneys, nurses, doctors, mechanics, and like all of the other professions out there with a license required to have the job.
Did you know in CA you can’t cut hair without a certification from the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology? That board is a part of the Department of Consumer Affairs which is the agency that regulates most of the professions in CA. In contrast, you can run a multimillion dollar courthouse as a “court executive” or be a court manager without any license or educational requirements at all. All that matter is that the judges or CEO want you. If you are their friend or ally you’ll get the job.
Don’t believe me? Just look at the current State Court Administrator – Jahr. He has not worked for one day in his life as an administrator (he was a judge) but the Tani wanted him so he got the job. This was after a national search that took over a year. Apparently there was nobody better or more qualified as an administrator? I say he is just a titular executive and Tani is having the AOC really run by Jody Patel and the Curts (“Team George”). The Chief does not want to work on “reforms” as she claims for the past three years and is quite happy with her management team despite all of the scandals they have been a part of.
My view is the profession or court administration is very weak and is mostly a bunch of salesmen or yes men who have learned to do whatever to survive and get promoted. This is a major reason why CA Courts are in trouble. Many are pawns of the AOC (now that the courts are state funded) and local courts are just trying to have a “team” player as their court execuitve so they can keep their funding from being cut. For example Steve Nash the CEO in San Bernardino would fit that model or Jake Chatters there in Placer. That are playing along to survive this period knowing the Chief has a lock on power at the top which is unlikely to change.
As critical as I am of the field I was once a part of, I do not go so far as to say defund local trial court management and exec officers and have the executive branch running the courts as you called for. That’s not reasonable to me as the courts are their own branch of government and there are administrative issues that take time to learn (like weighted caseload formulas for funding, clearance rates, times to disposition, and other performance management indicators unique to the field). Even the trial court CEO’s who are pawns and yes men of the AOC don’t have an easy job and I’d be the first to admit are very smart people. They just lack ethics and are more gamblers playing the odds of the political winds than professionals who stand for something.
I agree with Lando that the branch is still very damaged by Vickrey and George having turned the JC into a dictatorship. Not all of the knowledge was ever there at the top in that council room but they control the local court budgets now too so it is a nasty business of hard ball they play to stop all dissent. Reforms are needed badly in CA court administration and this web page is one of the few places even talking about it.
There are other big issues like how the current Chief was selected by Ron George to be the next Chief. That is a scary thing. This is why comments about the CA courts being like the Solviet Union or a dictatorship have some truth to them. Dictators appoint their own successors (look at North Korea today). In my view there are huge problems with such a system and JCW will need to be here speaking out for a long long time. But this post is long enough for today. Thanks for reading it.
Richard Power
May 10, 2013
MaxRebo 5, why don’t you give me a call. Contact info at RCP Software.com
unionman575
May 10, 2013
http://www.citywatchla.com/8box-left/5047-save-la-county-courts
Save LA County Courts!
Written by Arnella Sims
10 May 2013
JUSTICE INTO CHAOS – LA Superior Court judges are doing the wrong thing.
They decided to deal with a $53 million budget deficit by arbitrarily closing eight courthouses around LA County, which will send justice into chaos, inconvenience people, and cause transportation and other problems.
The courthouses scheduled to close as of June 28 or sooner are: Huntington Park, Whittier, Pomona North, Malibu, West Los Angeles, San Pedro, Beacon Street and the Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center, located in South LA.
The Judges Didn’t Ask Us-Did the judges who came up with this plan consult the communities that will be impacted? No. Did they talk to the citizens, the small business people, or anyone else this might affect? No.
As a result, some case types will be heard in only certain courthouses. For example, if you are threatened with eviction or your landlord wants to kick you out of your place and you want to fight it, your case won’t be heard close by in Compton or Inglewood. Your case will be set in Long Beach or in downtown LA.
If you have transportation problems or are elderly or disabled, how will you get there? If you’re not at the courtroom on time, the judge could just grant the landlord’s motion and say you have to get out by a certain date and you have no way to defend yourself.
The people in the whole San Fernando Valley have it bad too. They’ll have to take four buses over five hours to go all the way to Santa Monica and be there on time by 8:30 in the morning.
Did the judges ask you what your opinion is about this closure plan before they made this decision? No.
Kenyon and Beyond-For the cases now held at the Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center, this will mean the cases will be spread out all around the County. The Kenyon courthouse was specifically built to service the community in South LA. Did anyone ask before the judges decided to close it and scatter kids and their parents or guardians to all four corners of LA County? No.
But that’s not all. They didn’t even bother to tell the members of the Board of Supervisors or even the court’s own employees until after the decision was announced in the newspaper.
The judges originally planned to close the Catalina courthouse and force the people who live there to pay $72 round trip to come to Long Beach to have their court case heard. The people who live on the island aren’t wealthy. They work in maintenance jobs and there are many who are undocumented. They don’t have that kind of money.
Not only that, the judges’ plan originally called for the Beverly Hills courthouse to be closed. But now they’ve changed their mind and decided they’re going to leave one courtroom open in Beverly Hills. Hmm … wonder why that happened?
This plan is all wrong. Kenyon and all LA County Courts slated for closure need to stay open.
If you want to get involved in our efforts to save the courts, contact SEIU 721 Worksite Organizers Wanda Bellamy: (213) 601-2146 or Earl Thompson: (213) 300-5529.
(Arnella Sims is an LA County Superior Court Reporter and an SEIU 721 Executive Board Member.)
-cw
disgusted
May 10, 2013
Arnella Sims asks: “The Judges Didn’t Ask Us-Did the judges who came up with this plan consult the communities that will be impacted? No. Did they talk to the citizens, the small business people, or anyone else this might affect? No.”
No, the judges will not consult communities about these issues, Ms. Sims,
but they will continue to take “extras” from the same communities at the cost of laying off hardworking workers of those communities.
“Calif. Judges Not Sharing State’s Economic Pain
By Paul Elias
| Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009 | Updated 12:28 PM PDT
Calif. Judges Not Sharing State’s Economic Pain
Getty Images
Feb. 24, 2009: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joins Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in applauding the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama prior for a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.
advertisement
California has furloughed workers and slashed programs to close a $41 billion budget gap, but it still has more than 400 judges in Los Angeles County who each make more than the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judges in Tulare County still get free health club memberships. Those in Kern County can count on a $600-a-month car allowance. And colleagues in other counties get perks such as funds for “professional development” and money to buy extra health insurance.
Eighteen of California’s 58 counties give more than 800 superior court judges about $25 million a year in extra benefits on top of their $179,000 state salaries, even as they lay off employees and reduce services amid the recession. The state picks up the tab for extras in 19 counties.
An appellate court found that some of the perks were unconstitutional, but a lobbying effort by judges in the Legislature has helped keep the benefits in place.
Defenders of the system say the supplemental benefits are necessary to attract and retain good lawyers, who often take a pay cut to serve in the judiciary.
The heftiest perks go to Los Angeles County judges, who get $46,000 a year from the county on top of their state salaries, giving them a total of $225,000. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts makes $217,400 per year, and associate justices bring in $208,100.
An appellate court last year ruled that the Los Angeles County perks, which cost $21 million annually, were unconstitutional. But the judges fiercely resisted attempts to do away with the extra funds, hiring a law firm and Sacramento lobbyist to resist challenges to the benefits.
The California Judges Association also hired a Sacramento lobbyist and joined forces with the judiciary’s administrative office to get legislation passed earlier this year protecting the county-provided benefits.
During budget wrangling in the wee hours of Feb. 19, the Legislature reinstated the perks through a bill that allows counties to phase out the benefits if they choose.
“Los Angeles judges are quietly one the most powerful lobbying groups in the state,” said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.
Curt Child, who is the Administrative Office of the Courts’ top Sacramento lobbyist, said the legislation was necessary to stave off legal chaos and defections from the bench while judicial officials figure out an equitable salary scheme for all superior court judges.
“Quite frankly, many of these judges went on the bench understanding and relying that these benefits were there,” said Child, who also said the state Constitution bars reducing an active judge’s salary.
State-funded perks include gym memberships for 14 Tulare County judges at a combined cost of $10,428 annually.
“We have a health and wellness program,” said LaRayne Cleek, the county court executive officer. “We felt, if we had healthy families and judges, we would have fewer sick days.”
In the 1990s, the courts eliminated the state’s municipal court and promoted those judges to the superior court. Then in 1997 the court system was brought under exclusive state control.
The reorganization was supposed to eliminate the often Byzantine funding process where the state and counties were both paying judges.
But in many counties what critics call “double-dipping” has continued.
“Somebody forgot to turn off the financial spigot in Los Angeles County,” said Sterling “Ernie” Norris, a lawyer for the conservative political group Judicial Watch, which sued Los Angeles County in 2006 over its perks.
Some perks have been reduced over the years, and others could go soon. San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry has proposed phasing out the $1.4 million spent locally to boost the pay of 67 judges by $19,300 each for things such as “personal security.”
“It’s a moral issue,” Derry said. “It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
wearyant
May 10, 2013
Thanks for posting, Unionman575. Arnella Sims has been around the courts for decades, walks the walk and doesn’t just spew the talk. Arnella, you ROCK! Thanks for presenting just some of the effects of these closures on the everyday citizen.
Richard Power
May 10, 2013
As bad as this situation is, there are some solutions for the unlawful detainer defendants. If the involved lawyers are truly interested in helping their clients, they might want to contact me. Contact info at RCP Software.com
unionman575
May 10, 2013
You may be thinking that, like the federal sequester, the State can undo the damage later by reopening the courthouses. Not so. Once a courthouse is closed, reopening it requires bringing it up to current building standards, which is very costly.
http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_0525c5b8-b27f-11e2-96c9-001a4bcf887a.html?fb_action_ids=4681257917908&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UYw7g7ohWPt.send&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B118876454980962%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22.UYw7g7ohWPt.send%22%5D
Guest Column: Courthouse closings will prove costly savings
Posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 1:30 pm
Guest Column: Courthouse closings will prove costly savings By Richard Herzog | 3 comments
The unprecedented massive closure of courthouses by the State will result in loss of jobs, inconvenience to litigants, denial of justice, little or no savings to local taxpayers, and in courthouses handling criminal cases, will render the cities they serve less safe.
An extreme example is the imminent (June) closure of the Malibu Courthouse. As a direct result of the closure, all criminal cases will be farmed out to either the Van Nuys or Airport (LAX) Courthouse. This means that the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Department (in Lost Hills), contracted to patrol the five cities (not just Malibu) covered by the massive Malibu Judicial District, will be traveling to distant courthouses to file and litigate cases. While deputies and detectives are away, they are unavailable for emergencies or to patrol the streets. In addition, the overtime and transportation costs to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceed the savings to the state by the closure.
You should be asking yourself, if the saving to the State by closing the Malibu Courthouse will be eaten up by the cost to Los Angeles County and, as a direct result, the citizens of the five affected cities will be less safe, why is the State doing it? I’ve been asking the same question for a year without a reasonable explanation. Next question: Why haven’t representatives from the state, county and cities affected by the closures sat down and decided what court closures make sense economically and are in the best interest of the people they serve? David S. Wesley’s (presiding judge of the LA County Superior Court) glib comment to the Los Angeles Times that there are no other options to the court closures, inferring the State made efforts to explore other options, is simply untr ue.
You may be thinking that, like the federal sequester, the State can undo the damage later by reopening the courthouses. Not so. Once a courthouse is closed, reopening it requires bringing it up to current building standards, which is very costly. As far as Malibu goes, if the State is really interested in saving money and protecting citizens, they would sit down with representatives of the county sheriff ’s department and the five affected cities, and come up with a solution. We all lose when the State acts arbitrarily. Richard Herzog has been a criminal defense attorney for 30 years.
courtflea
May 10, 2013
MaxRebo5. I am sorry your experience with court administrators was so bad. To the contrary, there are many ethical anti-AOC executives out there although I must admit the herd has been thinned by retirements. Some executives even retired because of the unethical and dispicable actions by the JC and the AOC that made it impossible to do their job. A good court administrator is not a suck up or a yes man. theirjob is to provide the judges with the best iniformation at hand and advice based on their experience and knowledge. To be afraid to be fired is to be an ineffecutal executive. However as you know, the ultimate decisions lie with the judges and they may or may not take the advice of their executive.
I agree with your assessment that the ideal executive would have previous court experience. However, the AOC frowns on previous experience and expertise…only they hold the knowledge or so they think. You should also know that the National Center for State Courts has an executive fellowship program for administrators or administrators to be that takes 4 years to complete. Unfortunately, schools that offer master’s degrees in judicial administration is down to maybe 1 in the country. USC no longer offers such a program and the one at SACTO state that the AOC puts on well, that just amounts to indoctrinating future executives to the way of the AOC, in other words a joke. It is the AOC’s goal to put talking heads and yes men to them, in executive postions at the courts. Those are the executives that are more like the ones you describe.
MaxRebo5
May 10, 2013
Thanks courtflea. I may rant here a bit more but it is not directed at you. I have a masters degree from USC’s Judicial Administration Program before it shut down and also 15 years of experience in several courts (Orange County, San Mateo, and Sacramento).
I told the folks starting the Sac State program they were sort of getting ahead of themselves creating more JA graduates without there being any standards for court administrators to have such a degree. When court execs hire whoever they like best for court jobs what is the point of getting a degree nobody values/requires anyways? I see it as cruel to do that to the students.
Imagine this. A law student graduates, passes the bar, starts his/her own practice and then decides to get a job at a law firms. The law firm says. “That’s great you got your law degree, passed the bar, and even got some experience practicing on your own. Still, we’re gonna hire Jake over here because we think he has what it takes. He has no experience practicing law and just a degree in Economics but his social skills are excellent and we’re gonna go with our gut here and add him on to our firm.”
That wouldn’t happen in the legal world because the law school requirement and pasing the bar exam effectively regulate the profession (not that I’m saying lawyers are all ethical). As a result, lawyers are field/profession unto themselves and it is not limited to just governement but also has a private sector market. Also not just anyone can practice law. Every profession does this (doctors, nurses, court reporters, even barbers).
A degree in public adminstration or court administration is very weak by comparison. It does not have a private sector market to make the graduates valuable and few jobs in government seek out let alone require such a degree. This makes JA graduates in court exec jobs (Mike Roddy, David Yamaski) just as vulnerable as a guy off the street when a judge comes at them and tells them how he/she wants things run. Because they are so weak as professionals it explains many of the pitfalls courts have faced and why “leaders” behave the way they do.
Judges are to blame for this. They don’t want a court exec telling them no or saying that’s different from my finance, statistics, or cost benefit analysis training. They want someone who jumps and jumps high. That’s what CA got from their court execs this past decade (and still does) for few say, “No, there is a better way to do it” or ” I see an ethical concern here.”
This helps explain how we get way down into CCMS and only then does it not work and has to be shut down. Nobody had any guts to speak up early or those with the key knowledge were excluded from the project. Also, the guy with the economics degree and the great social skills but doesn’t know jack about computers that’s who was put him in charge of the whole thing. It doesn’t work! What did you expect? As they say, you can’t fix stupid.
With the hiring of Jahr it is clear judges blame court administration for the problems of the courts. They are somewhat right. My point though is it was not court administration that failed but a single court administrator (Bill Vickrey) who had no formal training in court administration but he ran the state the way he did for Ron George. Today a judge chairs the JC and a judge runs the AOC. The court administration field is no longer at the table at all on policy debates but lets face it there is not really a debate anyways on the JC so it really does not matter.
It is a sham from top to bottom and it requires major reforms. Given how this Chief was hand picked by George to keep the status quo going I think it will be a long time till such reforms occur.
Richard Power
May 10, 2013
MasRebo5. The reason that CCMS didn’t work is the technological barriers. The overall architectural design had to overcome 4 or 5 technological impossibilities. Prediction that it would fail was a no brainer. Your comment about people involved not knowing jack about computers is spot on.
Guest
May 11, 2013
The real life rebuttals to your proposition are David Yamasaki and Mike Roddy. Yamasaki has the masters in judicial administration and no one would accuse him of being smart. Roddy does too and no one would accuse him of being an independent thinker. Court administrators are hired by judges. They are also fired by judges. That is where you should look to determine the problem.
wearyant
May 10, 2013
Hey, MaxRebo5, I appreciate your posts, no matter how long, because you also have something to contribute. If anyone objects to length, let them read the comics in the newspaper.
May the AOC be de-funded! Long live the ACJ! Long live the JCW!
courtflea
May 10, 2013
Max, I did not think your rant was directed at me and post away I like the ant, appreciate the posts. I just wanted to make sure you knew that there are good guys out there 🙂
courtflea
May 10, 2013
and PS how heavy the load is for those executives bucking the system and not giving up on the branch. To the judges that hire folks based just on “they have what it takes” well, stupid is as stupid does.
R. Campomadera
May 10, 2013
Max, first, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should admit that I have more than a quarter of a century of experience as a court administrator, so I come this debate with a definite bias.
I started my career with the courts at a time when the era of court administrators was ascendant. The first group of graduates from court administration programs had finally reached their stride and many were already CEO’s or chief deputies of trial courts. Although I was not a graduate of one of those programs, I had relevant experience and quickly came to realize and appreciate that courts are unique and very special entities in our scheme of government.
The “profession” of court administration had been created to respond to the fact that courts of law were no longer sleepy backwaters of that government. We were evolving into a very litigious society; caseloads were increasing everywhere. Technologically, courts were in the Stone Age (some still are). Organizational sophistication was low. Processes were obsolete and cumbersome. Procedures were archaic. Management was arbitrary. Performance evaluations and job selections were based on who liked whom, not who did the best work or was best qualified for promotion.
As the business of running courts was becoming more challenging, it simultaneously was becoming obvious that many, if not most, presiding judges (and their federal equivalent, chief judges) were ill-prepared to handle their own heavy caseloads and, at the same time, perform the executive responsibilities of running increasingly complex organizations.
Add to this the fact that a good percentage of judges were not by experience, education, temperament, or inclination, very good executives (sorry, judges, but although I allow for ample exceptions, that’s the fact). The concept was that a corps of trained administrators would be able to relieve the judges of the burdens of running the courts, thereby freeing them up to do what they were appointed to do: decide matters of law and dispense justice.
Fast forward to today. The entire profession of court administration is, much to my personal dismay, in decline. The pendulum always swings, of course, and that alone accounts for part of the phenomena. What is once ascendant, will, inevitably, go into decline. Times are bad for courts right now, so there also is the natural tendency to find someone to blame for the troubles.
And there is plenty of blame to go around. It must be acknowledged that the profession has suffered from too many examples of self-inflicted disgrace brought about by some of its members. There have been horrible cases of corruption, malfeasance, misfeasance, and just plain incompetence on the part of court administrators, with more examples coming to light every day.
Also, court administrators often neglect to remember that they work for the “Department of Judges”, and not the “Department of Court Administrators”. It is easy for them to forget that court administrators do not and should not be in charge of running court systems. They get “too big for their britches”, as my mother used to say.
The task of running court systems rightfully belongs to judicial officers, hopefully with the informed advice of others, including the court administrators.
And therein lies the conundrum…judges left to their own devices, without the assistance of a corps of competent administrators, cannot effectively run the day-to-day operations of modern complex court organizations. But they have to be in charge of those organizations and the administrators within them.
The answer isn’t to get rid of or downgrade the profession of court administration, but, as you suggest, to develop and improve standards. Standards of qualifications. Job-related selection processes that measure qualifications and experience, not how well “connected” a candidate is. Standards of competency. Standards of ethics. Standards of organizational results.
Once those standards are established, court administrators should be held accountable to them. That’s what’s missing…standards and accountability.
Surely there is a way to do this while protecting and preserving judicial independence and local control.
wearyant
May 10, 2013
R. Campomadera, thanks for your contributions to this blog. Long may they continue.
De-fund the AOC! Long live the ACJ! Long live JCW!
carl
May 11, 2013
No the task of operating the court does not “rightfully belong judicial officers”. What the heck are you talking about!!! NOBODY AS THE RIGHT TO RUN OUR COURT INTO THE GROUND. No administrator can ever do an ethical or efficient job by reporting to people who have no business making day to day operational decisions and do not have experience this just demeans a good manager. As long as a manager is not telling a judge how to decide a case judicial independence is preserved. As a manager you should have been reporting to peers who would properly evaluate your budget, your economic performance, and was going to be evaluating your performance not based only on what some judge said but based on review of factors including court user satisfaction, timing of processing cases, efficient use of resources, employee productivity and satisfaction.
Richard Power
May 10, 2013
Just a suggestion and an invitation. To R. CampoMadera and MaxRebo5. It sounds like both of you have plenty of experience in court administration. I have computer software expertise. I suspect that between us we could design a case management system that would run rings around CCMS and/or its progeny. Game to try that? Contact info at RCPsoftware.com
Lando
May 11, 2013
I have given this a lot of thought. The best solution is to defund the AOC and have the legislature provide funding directly to the trial courts. The legislature should setup an inclusive and representative committee to determine a system for allocating the funds. Earl’s group while well intended didn’t do a good job of reaching out to enough affected by this huge change. Perhaps her commendable work can be used as a starting point for a new analysis. Funding to the AOC could be cut back to 10% of the overall budget . This would force them to recast their mission away from dictator to support group. The best part of this plan is that it completely changes the role of the Judicial Council. Without budget authority they have no power. Their ” insider”meetings become nothing more than ” chattering class ” conversations . They can still meet, congratulate themselves, arrogantly laugh at the trial courts and give each other, George, Huffman, and Vickrey awards, but their tyranny over the trial courts will be over.
wearyant
May 11, 2013
Lando, I make a motion to implement your plan. We should all present it to our legislators.
R. Campomadera
May 11, 2013
I second the motion.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 11, 2013
If it is not a function of adjudicating cases the funds should be redirected to those who adjudicate cases. If those who adjudicate cases wish to contribute to the morass that is AOC management, projects and secrecy, let them choose to do so.
This would take the wind out of the sails of both the judicial council and the AOC. It wouldn’t be enough for ‘branch leaders’ to say they wish to redirect funds to support the boondogglers but it would be enough to relegate the institutions back to an advise and survey role. If the AOC and the council wanted to regain control of their funding, they would be more encouraged to select democratic representation rather than be relegated to a bunch of bobbleheaded talking head yes men.
The power is and has always been in the money.
carl
May 11, 2013
No. Adjudicating cases is completely different than funding. JC/AOC only set policy through council reflective of members of public, attorneys, judges. The should not be involved in budget. Executive officer employed by, funded, and report to finance department. Executive officer in conjunction with their court form a budget. Individual budgets go to finance department. Finance department forms the state-wide budget and gives proposal to JC/AOC for comment. Decision and final authority by finance department. The funds get directed to courts which are “serving the public and users of the court” not to “those who adjudicate cases. This is not about “taking wind out of anybody’s sails” it is about public accountability. Since you frame the issue in such a negative manner – its no wonder everyone is going in circles fighting. Its out of the judge’s hands – the financial management of this situation. So for you to keep lobbying for one side of the other is useless. You need to move this disaster to a new field.
The OBT
May 11, 2013
Great ideas Lando. The defunding of the AOC calls to mind one of my favorite songs, Coldplay Viva La Vida, ” I used to rule the world, …I can sweep the streets I used to own” Quite an image seeing HRH 2 holding and using a broom lol. In addition the defunding concept should apply to the out of control CJP along with legislation to set three year term limits for their members so there can be no repeat of the Judy McConnell 12 year era of inquisitions.
carl
May 11, 2013
I think some of you are still in big denial. It is not about JC/AOC v. trial court admin/PJ/Exec officer it is about operational reporting responsibility. The executive officer should be hired, funded, and report to the State Finance Department — period. Operational and financial management with direct reporting to the state finance – Elaine Howle. Judges in trial courts can submit ideas on budget through their executive officer. The do not control finance operations. They decide policy, rule of court, and cases — that is where judicial independence exists. JC/AOC decide policy as to the state with input from the trial courts and JC/AOC provides this input to the finance department. They don’t lobby the legislature or get attorneys to lobby for them. Some of you folks are just arguing between JC/AOC and California Alliance of Judges when this is a classic management issue where reporting responsibility and financial management/reporting accountability. Judges need to get out of what people did not ask them to do. They did not elect judges to operate the court. They were elected to decide cases. Since they can not tell the difference and are only protecting their self interest the state needs to get so DAMN balls and do something.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 11, 2013
The state finance department carl is an executive branch agency..The legislature determines the court budgets already (including factoring in what counties pay the courts)
It isn’t a classic management issue… it is more the difference between a dictatorship and democracy.
carl
May 11, 2013
Please, lets start with accurate information. Below is the mission of the state auditor as stated on their website:
“Mission
The California State Auditor promotes the efficient and effective management of public funds and programs by providing to citizens and the State independent, objective, accurate, and timely evaluations of state and local governments’ activities.
Purpose
The purpose of the California State Auditor’s Office is to improve California government by assuring the performance, accountability, and transparency that its citizens deserve.
Philosophy
The staff of the California State Auditor understand and respect the importance of their position as the State’s independent auditors. The California State Auditor’s staff conduct their reviews in a nonpartisan manner, free from outside influence, including that of the Legislature, Governor, and the subjects of their audits and investigations. California State Auditor staff base their findings, conclusions, and recommendations upon reliable evidence and will not allow preconceived notions or personal opinions to influence their work. The staff strictly adheres to the standards of the auditing profession and exercises the highest standards of ethics. The California State Auditor’s Office and the staff lead by example, holding the organization and themselves to the same or higher standards that they use to evaluate others.”
State Auditor is suppose to be non-partisan. There is absolutely no reason why the court executive officer can not be hired by the state and present initial budget to the state auditor who compiles a statewide court budget and presents comment and recommendation by a reformulated “State Council of Court Operations” [reformulated to replace JC/AOC-no longer just judges]. The executive officer reports to a nonpartisan body and is not a flunky. Appropriate grievances to this officer’s conduct is not solely based on what a judge says and must include court users directly.
It is a classic management issue.
Michael Paul
May 12, 2013
Hi Carl,
I understand what you’re trying to accomplish but your concepts keep running afoul of the constitutional separation of powers. DOF is an executive branch agency. The state auditor doesn’t exist to run any other state organization but to measure other organizations in state government against commonly accepted practices.
What it appears that you might be seeking are both checks and balances (from the other two branches of government, something that has been sorely lacking for the past few years) and new accountability legislation and that starts with the peoples representatives in the legislature.
Here is something from my childhood that kinda explains it in an offbeat way.
The issue as I see it is under George, the judiciaries field of jurisdiction was expanded into executive branch territory with the construction and maintenance of courthouses and into other typical non-judiciary functions. They were given all of this power under George without any checks and balances from the other two branches. They were given all of this money without any transparency or accountability for it. The courts really didn’t take notice until monies were diverted from their operations to support boondoggles.
Just wondering
May 12, 2013
Just wondering. Aren’t you using the separation of powers issue as a method for selecting a scapegoat rather that solving the problem? Creating a new group of “talking heads” while helpful is not the major problem. The new “talking heads” don’t have a management structure and control systems in place and it is not their financial function and the judicial branch. I am wondering if its possible your position may seem a bit hypocritical. (i.e. you claim you support the employees, the court reporters, the low level administrators, the whistleblowers…….but then when it comes to discussing anything that might infringe on the new proposed “talking head” … herecomes separation of powers). Funny, funny indeed. Did you know it was showing? I was just wondering.
carl
May 12, 2013
I believe that the separation of powers may be an “excuse” to maintain the corrupt practices that exist. It does not appear to be based on any true and proper meaning in law or social science. Separation of powers as discussed in recent posts seem to be a “bogus” red flag because YOU want the political agenda to be a choice between JC/AOC and California Alliance of Judges. In other words, you want a specific political result, therefore one must side with JC/AOC or California Alliance of Judges. This is the false premise. So, if this is how YOU decide and envision to draw the present political condition-I believe you will meet certain death. In the end you will see, you are missing the boat and greatly harming the public interest and ignoring the state constitution.
The issue will be that both JC/AOC and California Alliance of Judges have failed by stupid in-fighting and because the foundation at is core is wrong and will be proven wrong.
The public is not going to buy “poor old over-paid judges” vs “bad JC/AOC” . They will be saying what the heck were you doing all those years? All of you, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branch? How dare you call this a separation of powers issue? More like screw the public issue! Why didn’t you take a position about the unconstitutional payments? Did you write to your legislator about the computer case management system? Did you stand up in your courtroom and do something? If you didn’t and if you don’t right now, you and you alone are a problem irrespective of whether you side with JC/AOC or California Alliance of Judges. Look at the man or woman in the mirror… and make that change now!
So how to come clean.
First Mr. Paul you offer the judges absolutely no reason why the Executive Officer should not be hired and paid for by the state or an independent receiver. No reason at all for the corrupt relationship between the executive officer and local municipalities and the state allowing this to exist for “budget convenience” when it is clearly injures the public. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE HERE.
Second, there is no problem by multiple courts submitting proposed budgets to a non-partisan state auditor to formulate a consisted statewide budget proposal for comment by a council. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE HERE. If you have this baseless concern about the state auditor then use a receiver. USE IT NOW. Who cares what any group of judges- the issue is who is competent to serve the needs of the public. That is the question.
Third, your concept of separation of powers is flaw. The Legislature as a body is not involved does not decide who is sweeping the floors at the Capital Building. The Legislature it is supposed to decide on laws that benefit the state. The state auditor exists to “promote the efficient and effective management of public funds and programs”. And if this office cannot assist in compiling a statewide budget for the courts of California after this state receives billions in federal funds… then hasta la vista to all of you. Lo siento, no puedo ayudarle! The audacity to say that the state auditor can’t compile a comprehensive proposed statewide court budget from individual courts to present to a reformulated council and the Legislature.
un hatajo de sinvergüenzas
R. Campomadera
May 11, 2013
As JCW has indicated above, this isn’t a “classic management issue”, Carl, it’s a matter of the separation of powers inherent in our system of government, i.e., the establishment of three co-equal branches of that government.
The California State Auditor is part of the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch. It would be contrary to our basic form of government to place the entire management function of the independent Judicial Branch under the control of the Legislative Branch. At that point, it would no longer be an independent judiciary, but rather one entirely controlled by the Legislature.
Which is not to say that the Legislature has no role in Judiciary management…indeed, as the branch of government most directly accountable to the people, it has the power of the purse and the ability to pass legislation that can control the shape and form of management systems within the Judiciary.
The Legislature simply needs to exercise that authority by enacting reforms of the present management, budget, and fiscal structures and systems within the Judiciary.
One good place to start would be to pass legislation, and if necessary, initiate changes to the state constitution, to democratize the Judicial Council.
Short of that, it could directly fund the trial courts while “defunding” the JC and the AOC (what I call the “power-of-the-purse” option…if you can’t get them to go along with you in any other way, squeeze the green out of ’em. I assure you, Carl, if it wants to, the Legislature can get the Judiciary’s attention.
One of the things that makes our country strong and protects our individual rights is an independent judiciary. It’s been a cornerstone of our democracy for more than 230 years.
We don’t need to change the basic form of our government, we simply need to address the mismanagement that we all presently see within the Judiciary. In other words, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water; just change the bath water, because, well, it’s kinda of yucky right now.
Wendy Darling
May 11, 2013
“Co-equal branch of government” and “separation of powers” together with “checks and balances.” One of those “checks and balances” is the fact that the State Legislature controls the purse strings. Judicial Branch “leadership” can engage in all the administrative misconduct, bad decision making, lack of transparency, and poor management that it wants to, but that doesn’t mean that the State Legislature has to fund that behavior.
And that’s pretty much the message that is going out from Sacramento to 455 Golden Gate Avenue these days. And rightfully so.
Long live the ACJ.
Just wondering
May 12, 2013
Just wondering, maybe there been do much drinking of the kool-aid here.
carl
May 12, 2013
An independent judiciary is not harmed by my proposal. Nor do I buy your argument that trial courts submitting a proposed budget to a state auditor or independent receiver for preparation of a proposed statewide budget has a damn thing to do about an independent judiciary. Stop telling people that LIE.
Michael Paul
May 12, 2013
They currently submit budget requests to the state legislature and governor, the other two branches. In the legislature, there is the legislative analysts office that has the authority to scrutinize budget requests on the legislatures behalf. The governor has his own advisors.
What benefit is there to your proposal? You wish to frame the discussion as a power trip of sorts with the JC\AOC vs. the ACJ. You discount how they come to either power or consensus on any issue.
Why does the judicial branch need a new dictator?
carl
May 12, 2013
I think the way you are framing the issue interesting. There are three branch of government that have distinctly different functions. You indicate that I may be discounting how the judicial branch comes “to either power or consensus on any issue”. You are mixing apples and oranges. I believe the first issue is understanding of what decisions the judicial branch needs to come to a consensus on. They only need to come to a consensus about matters pertaining to a judicial function (rules of court, training, research, policy). (See Federal judicial center, http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf). They do not need to come to a consensus about real estate matters, contractual matters, employee relations, operational evaluation performance standards and evaluation. These are operational functions that are not part of judicial independence.
Under my proposal, the executive officer is the manager for the local court (i.e. responsible for this local cost and stakeholder center). He works closely with PJ, court users, attorney groups other stakeholders. He has independence and authority to listen to all stakeholders and make operational recommendations and a proposed budget. The proposed budget is submitted to the DOF/or receiver (until further notice). If there is disagreement at local level (there is a procedure to submit comments on the manager’s proposed budget). Budget from each locality is submitted with the DOF providing comprehensive statewide budget. The legislative analyst office and executive advisors review. So does the reformulated JC/AOC.
The local courts cannot speak with one voice because operationally they are different. This is not about judicial independence but operational and financial differences. This is a management issue and has nothing to do with judicial independence. If the judges could be assured their courts would get the resources needed to operate properly –meaning lights were be one to conduct judicial biz –most would be happy. Getting these resources has been misconstrued as “judicial independence” rather than an effective method to prepare and evaluate statewide operations. This leads to inefficient internal fighting. It has gone on for so long at such an inefficient and unproductive level that the triggers words “judicial independence” just roll of their lips.
The benefit of my proposal is the local courts get what they need to operate, court users get the services they need in an effective and cost efficient manner. It recognizes there needs to be a remedy for FAILURE. When there is an operational failure there is a need for change. You say “dictatorship” (as a loaded term). I say change in management reporting, funding structure, and control systems leaving judicial independence untouched. It lets the good judges do their work and an proper governance and management structure.
courtflea
May 12, 2013
Carl, Just Wondering, why all the anger here? Take a chill, have a Grey Goose and tell us what the real problem is.
Just wondering
May 12, 2013
Courtflea, please give me a break! What is up with you referring to particular poster comments as “angry” (LOL). Sweetheart I have had my grey goose and feeling Fine. What’s wrong…. since some people may have a view that differs from yours.. their “angry” (LOL). Maybe you could tell me if you have a problem to an independent agency or receiver collecting budget proposals form the individial trial courts and creating a proposed statewide court budget. Or, maybe tell me why the executive officer of the trial courts should not be hired, funded, and report to the state. To quote you…”It is the AOC’s goal to put talking heads and yes men to them, in executive postions at the courts. “. Were you being “angry” sweetie?
R. Campomadera
May 12, 2013
Carl and Just Wondering, it is pretty obvious that we’re at the point where we have to agree to disagree on the constitutional principle of separation of powers and what an independent judiciary looks like.
Just for the record, though, I don’t even like Kool Aid. The last time I had Kool Aid I was six. I’m pretty sure that any effect it had on my system has long since passed.
Also, I have absolutely nothing to do with the ACJ. Although I generally agree with the policy stands they take (at least they are speaking out against the current regime), I am not a member and have no proprietary interest in their organization whatsoever.
I do not work for the state court system. I am not a judge and never have been. I am not married to anyone employed or otherwise associated with the ACJ or the state court system.
I am simply a concerned citizen who has seen the judiciary from the inside for many, many years. I look at the current corruption, malfeasance, and incompetence of the State Judicial Council and the AOC and it makes me sick.
I am also sickened by examples of corruption, malfeasance, and incompetence on the part of individual courts and judges. There are too many examples to ignore.
I will tell you, however, that I have known many judges over the years and the ones I’ve known are hard working, dedicated public servants that even you would be proud of. They carry extraordinarily heavy caseloads and, at least in the state court system, do not have the supporting technology that would make their work more efficient. They work long hours for a fraction of the pay they would command in private law practice. They are called upon multiple times every day to make the most difficult and complex decisions imaginable, decisions of a magnitude that few of our fellow citizens ever have to make (unless, of course, they serve on jury panels).
That said, I’m also wise enough to know that there are bad apples among the judges, as there are in any endeavor involving human beings. They should be turned out at the next general election where they have to stand for ratification, or sooner, if their behavior demands quicker attention.
Instead of arguing over constitutional principles, can we at least agree that something needs to be done? Let’s petition our Legislature to investigate the current state of management of the California Judiciary and thereafter enact those reforms that will fix the mess.
One of those reforms must be stricter oversight of how the Judiciary spends the funds that the Legislature appropriates. That might well involve a greater role on the part of the State Auditor. Another would be to enact reforms of the Judicial Council, requiring representative membership on it, clarifying and perhaps limiting its authorities, and last, but not least, severely limiting the size and mission of the AOC.
carl
May 12, 2013
Mr. R. Compomadera I do not know Just Wondering, and it is not necessary for me to know your history to consider your position. The fact that you feel the need to make disclosures is confusing. No disrespect to your experience, but the fact that there still is no change despite an acknowledged failure, means maybe your idea of judicial independence (that does not conform to the constitution) needs to be openly discussed. There are three branches of government but the electorate has its role in the checks and balances. No one said there were not dedicated hard working judges. Please do not presume that if there is not agreement on your idea of judicial independence this has some correlation to those dedicated hard working judges that I am proud of. No, no, please do not use that divisive tactic. In fact, many of those dedicated and hard working judges I am proud of do not disagree that the executive officer should report to the state and that perhaps a receiver should be appointed. YES BELIEVE IT.
With that said, I agree that something needs to be done. However, no more funding until there is an inclusive plan to resolve the problems which includes an executive officer responsible for the local cost center, an executive officers that reports to the DOF, and there is method for input by the public and constituents in the jurisdiction of the cost center. Why give money without clear reporting responsibility and control?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 12, 2013
Carl said:
Mr. R. Compomadera I do not know Just Wondering
Yet you troll from the very same computer? I find that hard to believe.
I did you a favor and did not approve a third nom de plume “Back at ya” that sought to expand on your trollish comments.
carl
May 12, 2013
Judicial Council Watcher. No not a cave dweller. No I do not know Just Wondering. No not from the same computer. If you like I can search the entire network to satisfy your curiosity. Have no idea what your talking about about about “Back at ya.” But Thanks for confirming what others say about your censorship. You are not doing me any favors. Think there may be a little paranoia on your part.
courtflea
May 12, 2013
Well said R.
courtflea
May 12, 2013
Sweetie, ;- )
wearyant
May 12, 2013
“Carl said:
Mr. R. Compomadera I do not know Just Wondering
Yet you troll from the very same computer? I find that hard to believe.”
Thank you, JCW. I was beginning to believe I no longer understand the English language.
Just wondering
May 12, 2013
I was just wondering, since I am the person who is just wondering, what is it you understand about the English language? As to your motion for the legislature to provide funding directly to the trial courts, on that point we do not disagree. However, that funding should be only occur if there are executive officers funded and hired by the state to manage the operational budget (that does not involve judicial functions). That manager must have the independence to obtain information from all stakeholders court users, attorneys, judges, employees and proper and objective performance measures instituted. Any county funds should be paid directly to the state and allocated in accord with the operational budget of the manager. If this fundamental funding shift is not made then there should be no more funding provided because it just throws money at a untenable flawed structure. Any competent management consulting firm would confirm this basic fact and anyone who claims to have business experience knows this is essential.
The OBT
May 13, 2013
I hear rumor that J Jahr has arrogantly announced he has a plan to reduce the power of the dissenters within the branch. That would explain why all dissenters who make public act disclosure requests are sent to J Hull and then ignored. It might also explain the more aggressive contrarian opinions being expressed here.No telling how the ” insiders” will further limit the growing dissent around them. If true, J Jahr’s statement and actions are remarkable. Rather than reaching out and inviting a variety of opinions regarding branch management, the “insiders” appear to be closing their ranks to protect their power. It really is time to launch a legislative investigation and then defund the AOC.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 13, 2013
The evidence is pretty clear that they’re trying to reduce the power and silence the voices of dissenters in the branch with new ethics opinions and rules, new controls on committees, suggestions of charging media for records searches, random requirements for the pre-approval of public comment and open censorship of public comment. The AOC owns print media via the almighty ‘legal notice’ and if you play ball, you can keep on printing legal notices. If not, you jeopardize this important source of print media revenue that hasn’t yet been lost to the internet. Thus far, the AOC’s foray into social media has been nothing less than disastrous with our readers and others being able to successfully recast the message. As far as the more recent aggressive contrarian opinions: Ministry of truth babble for your amusement.
Lando
May 14, 2013
This guy Jahr is a continuation of all that is wrong with those that came before him. He has worked out to be a total failure and his willingness to try and ” marginalize” any one who dissents from him and HRH 2, speaks volumes about how messed up things are at 455 Golden Gate. One of my biggest career disappointments is that I didn’t speak up earlier about what Ron George did when he hijacked and took over an entire branch of government. HRH 1’s actions created a culture of arrogance, elitism, and punitiveness that continues on today. The derision the Judicial Council shows toward the trial courts is quite remarkable dating from Huffman to Hull. And the worst about the culture HRH 1 created? Never, ever admitting they do anything wrong.The result is the branch wide disaster that we now face, and my guess is that the May revise about to be announced won’t provide any relief or help to the hard working and caring people in the trial courts or the public we work for.
unionman575
May 14, 2013
They have never given up the speak with one voice mantra up there at Death Star Central. Sad, very sad.
Time to defund the AOC and…
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
😉
Wendy Darling
May 14, 2013
“This guy Jahr is a continuation of all that is wrong with those that came before him.”
Which is exactly why the Chief Justice picked him, Lando. And just proving once again that the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more things just really stay the same. The Chief Justice’s agenda is not about change. If it was, she would have actually engaged in meaningful change already. It’s about protecting and continuing Ron George’s legacy,
And as for the May revise not providing any relief, why in the world would, or should, the State Legislature continue to fund the administrative misconduct of judicial branch “leadership”? The majority of the State Legislature has finally figured out that not funding this bad behavior is the only real arrow in the State Legislature’s quiver.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
May 14, 2013
The May revise is grim as expected. The gov’s office suggests that further construction delays take place, court’s fund balances be depleted, and AOC employees pay more of their portion of retirement contributions. You are right Lando, it seems once again the trial courts pay. I’m certain that the AOC won’t take the gov’s suggestion regarding their employees, that hit will be passed on to the trial courts as well.
gut the AOC!
courtflea
May 14, 2013
The continued reduction of court’s reserves/fund balances is disaster for them. Without reserves they cannot fund grant programs like the AB1058 commissioner,self help centers and facilitators or any progam that requires waiting for reimbursement from the AOC. The worst is that it would make the trial courts even more dependent on the AOC as they would not be able to handle any emergency on their own as they would have minimal reserves. So if your server blows or a couple of long term employees quit and cash out their huge vacation balances for example, the courts especially the small ones, will have to go to the AOC for funding. Talk about putting total control in the AOC’s hands. While I can agree to put off construction funding during these tough economic times, the Long Beach debacle will still suck up construction funding and those really needing court remodels or new courthouses are ultimately the ones getting screwed. Until funding authority is wrested from the AOC, the trial courts are always screwed. The AOC will never cut their own funding to support the trial courts or access to justice. The beast needs constant feeding. Gut the AOC.
R. Campomadera
May 14, 2013
Placing courts in a further state of dependency on the AOC is consistent with the overall plan.
Wendy Darling
May 14, 2013
Her majesty is “optimistic” that she will be getting new clothes. Published today, Tuesday, May 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
No Relief for California Courts in May Revise
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Despite optimism from California’s chief justice and the leader of the State Assembly that Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised budget will restore some funding to the courts, Brown said no new money will be heading the judiciary’s way this year.
“The judiciary is getting the same amount of money they had the year before, ” Brown said at a press conference Tuesday.
This year’s proposed budget reveals an ongoing, permanent $535 million cut to the judicial branch, with $475 million of that cut to be borne by the trial courts.
The May revised budget for fiscal year 2013-14 didn’t propose any new cuts to the judiciary, but it also didn’t add any new money. Brown’s budget unveil comes after days of preceding speculation that some money would be restored to the state judiciary that has been shuttering courthouses and laying off employees up and down the state.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye expressed her disappointment in a statement shortly after the budget release. “Given the state’s current fiscal condition, I had hoped for more effort to help stop the downward spiral of the judicial branch budget,” she said. “Courts across the state are already closing courthouses, courtrooms, and reducing the hours they serve the public. We need adequate, ongoing funding for the courts that will permit us to reverse the damage caused by five years of budget cuts.”
Last week, Assembly Speaker John Perez called for protecting court funding in what he termed a “budget blueprint” for California. “We want to make sure we improve access to courts. We believe that we can avoid the worst in court closures that would limit court access. We believe we could restore funding to the courts but we also think that has to come with strict accountability reporting requirements to ensure that the courts allocate the resources in accordance with the appropriations we make.”
On Tuesday, Brown recognized growing support in the legislature for a better-funded judiciary, saying, “The Speaker has spoken about giving more money and I’m sure there will be a lot of give and take as we go through the process.”
But he quickly qualified, “What I’m saying is they are getting level funding, so obviously their costs are going up and they have to figure out ways to control it. All these institutions, courts, universities, hospitals- huge costs and everybody has to get used to managing it. Because we’ve been used to this overcommitment. I’m trying to find a balance between spending and holding the line.”
He later added that state-funded agencies and programs shouldn’t expect more money out of Sacramento. “Everybody wants to see more spending. That’s what this place is- a big spending machine. You need something, you come here and see if you can get it. But I’m the backstop at the end and I’m going to keep this budget balanced.”
In her statement, Cantil-Sakauye remained hopeful that Perez’s blueprint will prevail in the series of legislative budget hearings to be held in the coming weeks before the legislature’s June 15 deadline to pass the budget.
“We needed critical support a year ago from the other two branches and now the need for justice is urgent. I am heartened by Speaker Perez’s comments last week about the need to begin reinvesting in the courts. I am optimistic that the Legislature and the governor can work toward reversing some of the adverse impacts on access to justice before a budget bill is passed and signed.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/14/57636.htm
Long live the ACJ.
MaxRebo5
May 14, 2013
I went out and looked at the May revise for the judicial branch and this is the line item I have a problem with. It says Judicial Council =$150,795,000.00 and has 698.4 positions. That is the AOC right?
This means each AOC employee costs CA taxpayers $215,914.94 (if you divide the budget by FTE’s). This is the waste in CA Courts as almost all of these jobs have little to do with processing cases. A few (some IT guys, facility guys, payroll) could be argued have case related jobs. A few more could be defended for the construction projects needed for 1407 money. A few could also be needed for the actual support of the JC and to be attorneys for the branch. I can see 100 people at the AOC and it would be perfectly reasonable for the branch to have that administrative overhead.
If each one costs $216,000 times my conceeded 100 staff that’s $21,600,000 needed for the JC and AOC. The rest could be cut and the money sent back to the trial courts to actually process cases and provide real “access to justice” if that is indeed what the Chief and CA judges value.
Thats $129,195,000 in funds the trial courts could have and it would not require one additional dime of General Fund money. This is the real war that should be had within the branch on the JC. The Chief wants that money for the AOC and I say it should be taken and sent to the trial courts. That 129 million is expansion in Admin costs thanks to Ron Geoge and Bill Vickrey left and it is a legacy that CA Courts does not need. It is simply a bad use of taxpayer money. I think it is undefendable to not look at that money as a means of keeping local trial court jobs and courthouse open. I thought this was what the SEC Report was getting at. The AOC needs to be cleaned out (what is left moved back to Sacramento too).
Judges in the trial courts have no power on the JC and the Chief appoints all the members so that money is staying put but it should be on the table to be redirected to the trial courts. This is the real world price of not having a democratic JC. They all are there to support the Chief and that is bad for CA Courts overall.
I say to the other branches just cut this one line item by that amount next year and then increase the trial court funding (a separate line item in the budget) by that exact amount bypassing the JC entirely and robbing the Chief of her monopoly. It is 100% within the right of the other branches to do this with their powers of the purse and won’t impact the general fund one dollar. July 1, 2013 is not that far away (new fiscal year). Go for it.
wearyant
May 14, 2013
“Federal Court Closure Plan for Bay Area Shipped Out to Sea
By CHRIS MARSHALL”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/14/57641.htm
” ‘The decision to cut back on scheduled technology projects and to implement other significant cost containment measures was appropriate when weighed against the financial hardships on staff caused by furloughs,’ according to the court’s statement.”
” ‘Joseph Alioto, a San Francisco antitrust lawyer, said at the time he considered it an “outrage” that the justice system would be “sacrificed, even [for] a day.’ ”
” ‘The idea that they should be cutting a minute, even a second, from the administration of justice is an abomination that this country should never have to tolerate,’ added Alioto, a son of the late Joseph Alioto, former mayor of San Francisco.”
===============================================================
I never thought I’d long for the thought processes of the Feds. Now they seem to be our only hope for justice in our [in]Justice Branch run by Team George. Our legislature appears to be loathe to continue the feeding of the beast, at least. But the beast continues to skim off the top.
The judicial council must be democratized. The AOC must be de-funded. And recall The Tani!
By the way, how are the court interpreters making out in the federal audit?
R. Campomadera
May 14, 2013
Gosh…a court system which actually places hardships on staff ahead of expenditures on technology!! How refreshing.
Could it be that the federal court system actually values its staff, where the top leaders of the state court system couldn’t care less? I guess the evidence speaks for itself, doesn’t it.