Important budget message from ACJ President Steve White

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

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.

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.

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.

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 🙂

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.

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.

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.

Carl, Just Wondering, why all the anger here? Take a chill, have a Grey Goose and tell us what the real problem is.

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.

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.