Judge James Herman and his technology committee, along with the CEO’s of San Diego and Ventura are either the most egotistical, self-centered bastards in the state of California or just some of the dumbest.
At this point, it’s take your pick and if you were in my shoes you might choose both. The Governors revised budget was released today with no extra money for trial courts this year or next. Sitting in those chairs up in Sacramento are people watching what is being said over in the judicial branch for a change – and are also watching what is being done. Will the judicial branch underwrite another boondoggle given the resources? Well you only had to read about another foray into the strange episode of as the CCMS world turns to hear that Herman wants to dump more money into V3 using V4 features and that a couple of courts are willing to pony up.
Of course it will take a vote of good people and a lawyer challenging the good judge to get him off the boondoggle tracks but the court execs, both AOC pawns, should be given walking papers. Of course we won’t do that either because no one is held accountable in the judicial branch leadership or the AOC.
Is it not obvious how much damage last months trial balloon about firing up a new CCMS V5 program did to the branch? And to think, they were going to have AOC attorneys seek out loopholes in legislative authorization that would permit them to spend money on further development.
As our unnamed source in the legislature put it, they put Jasperson & co on an inverted cliff face without the benefit of ropes referring of course to the AOC’s Office of Governmental Affairs lobbyists. Sure, they can discount the damage and I’m sure they will but the timing could not be more ill-conceived. Would Cantil-Sakauye show some leadership by replacing Herman to try to win back some legislators? Well, she will more than likely embrace him as a valued member of the team and name a conference center after him alienating legislators even further. If alienating them further is even possible anymore.
Cause.Effect.
It will take another 9 years before she gets it no doubt. When she’s being voted out of office.
Sure, Speaker Perez might have some more money for the trial courts but he’s a smart guy who doesn’t like to get burned and all judicial branch leadership has been doing is burning them at every turn. Let’s just hope the lobbies outside of the AOC are persuasive enough to make the case for greater funding. For the trial courts.
With all of that being said, the analysis of what would be lost to the state of California due to the federal sequester is far larger than the guv’s budget reflects by a long shot and the legislature needs to take the real number into account in the next 45 days. They also need to feed the trial courts to keep them alive and starve the AOC.
A number that our legislators are possibly forgetting: When you close a building and don’t occupy it anymore, you must retrofit the building to meet current code requirements before you re-occupy it. While courthouses close down across the state, it is these re-occupancy costs that are exponentially more expensive than continually staffing the courthouses that may very well leave these courthouses closed for good.
And that’s no way to run a railroad.
Related articles
- California courts get bad budget news (mercurynews.com)
- JCW’s wishes for the May budget revise (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- When Ten Bucks buys you all the publicity you can handle… (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
May 14, 2013
Also published today, Tuesday, May 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Second CA Court OK’s Multi-Million Software
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Keeping with a trend in the nation’s courts, a second small California court has opted for multi-million-dollar software from Texas-based Tyler Technologies, to be paid for by California’s Administrative Office of the Courts. The spending comes in the wake of a failed, half-billion-dollar software project by California central court administrators.
The decision by seven-judge Kings County Superior Court in the heart of the Central Valley will cost California somewhere between $1.5 million and $2.1 million over the next five years, in order to lease Tyler’s Odyssey System.
With that decision, Kings County joins San Luis Obispo, along California’s Central Coast, where the superior court decided earlier this year to spend $3.1 million to buy the Odyssey System, a contract that included yearly maintenance payments.
The presiding judge and clerk in San Luis Obispo emphasized the financial advantage of buying the system outright over leasing it. But the clerk in Kings County said he did not have that option.
Head clerk Todd Barton said the county is kicking the court off its mainframe in the coming year, creating an emergency.
“The county gave us notice that they would like us off the system by 2014 because they want to get out of the mainframe business,” Barton said, noting that the court is the last public agency still on the county mainframe, and has been picking up more and more of the cost as other agencies leave the county system.
“It will be $550,000 a year and there’s no way we can afford that. Increased costs would mean more furloughs and layoffs,” Barton said.
A third California court in San Joaquin County chose software by competing Justice Systems earlier this year. Both Tyler and Justice were among a group of approved vendors chosen by a consortium of courts to provide software to California’s 58 trial courts, in the wake of the failure of the Court Case Management System that was terminated last year after costing California more than $500 million.
In a Judicial Council meeting earlier this year, Kings County Assistant Presiding Judge Steve Barnes drew a stark picture of the court’s computer problems.
“The difficulty is that the emergency that we have has to do with the county and is throwing us off their main frame.” He said the system they have is run on COBOL, which stands for COmmon Business-Oriented Language. COBOL is one of the oldest programming languages in existence.
“It’s not a bad system, but it’s COBOL. It’s difficult to keep it running,” Barnes said. But he added, “The COBOL issue is not the issue with us. It is actually the county getting us off their system.”
Court clerk Barton also pointed to the loss of its one COBOL programmer in adding to the court’s sense of urgency.
“Our programmer retired this past December. So we really didn’t have a choice,” said Barton.
He said the court had moved to replace its case management system years ago, but was told to stop by former Administrative Office of the Courts director Bill Vickrey, in anticipation of all 58 courts eventually getting Court Case Management System.
“He said there would be a statewide system and he wanted us to be on the statewide system, which really never happened,” Barton said.
Tyler’s Odyssey system will cover all the court’s case types and will allow for attorneys and the public to file cases electronically. It will cost between $1.5 and $2.1 million over the five-year contract, and will be paid for by a special allocation from the Trial Court Trust Fund’s 2-percent reserve.
“The court will pay nothing, this is all funded by the Administrative Office of the Courts,” said Barton. “This is not out of our budget at all. We send the Tyler invoices to the AOC.”
The Kings County deal follows the earlier agreement between Tyler and San Luis Obispo’s court, which signed a $3.1 million deal under which the court will own the software license and $200,000-a-year maintenance payments for five years after a warranty period ends.
The Kings County court’s contract covers a court with seven judges, 90 employees and 13,000 cases a year in a county of about 150,000 people.
San Luis Obispo County court’s contract covers a court with 15 judges, 160 employees and 70,000 cases a year in a county of 270,000 people.
San Luis Obispo’s head clerk Susan Matherly said the maintenance payments wind up being much cheaper than hiring more IT staff for the court.
The rough breakdown of the San Luis Obispo price tag is about $1 million to buy the license, $1 million to deploy and an 18 month warranty-period up until the middle of 2015, and $1 million for an ensuing five-year service contract at $200,000 a year.
That comes out to about $440,000 per year over seven years.
By contrast, Kings County, a substantially smaller court, is paying somewhere between $300,000 to $420,000 per year over five years. After the five years are up, leasing costs would then continue at about $300,000 a year.
But Barton emphasized that those continuing leasing costs would be paid for out of the Kings County court’s budget.
Another contrast between the two deals is that Luis Obispo was anticipating the availability of the central administrative office’s CCMS and already had servers. So there is no hardware in the deal between Tyler and San Luis Obispo.
While part of Kings County’s deal will include servers provided by Tyler.
“We’re never going to buy the system because that means we’d have to buy servers and we can’t afford that,” Barton said. “We are leasing the system from them.”
The clerk said the court will consider staying with Tyler after five years, but any maintenance fees to would come out of the court’s budget.
“I would think that after the contract is over that we’d have to spend $300,000 a year — which is still cheaper then what we have now,” he said.
The Kings court received an initial allocation of $733,000 under the condition of strict financial oversight from the AOC. The Judicial Council decided to fund the Tyler contract at its February meeting, with a round of vigorous debate preceding the 15-2 vote.
“I would have concerns about paying for CMS through in essence the reserve funds, because in essence we are allocating money they came from all of the courts’ reserve funds for the purposes of CMS that’s going to benefit one court,” said Judge James Brandlin of Los Angeles.
“My concern is what happens when we deplete that balance? This is money would normally go back to the courts- courts that are running on fumes,” continued Brandlin. “What would happen to the other courts if they don’t have that funding?”
Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento also expressed reservations.
“I also sympathize with Kings but am concerned about the use of this 2 percent funding to fund case management systems,” she said. “I see us as stewards of the 2 percent funding for the trial courts, many of which are hoping to get that back to use of their operations. And we would be depriving them of that. And I think we have to be careful because while Kings may be the only county that has submitted a request for funding to fund a case management program I guarantee you there 57 other courts watching what we do today in the door will be busting down in years to come.”
Since the demise of CCMS, the Judicial Council’s technology committee has been working on a “strategic plan” to update court technology.
At the council’s February meeting, Judge Robert Moss of Orange County said it would be cheaper in the long-run to just give Kings County the money rather than wait for that plan to be developed.
“We are struggling with an overall strategic and tactical plan for where we go post-CCMS. we can’t wait for the final strategic plan to put out some fires that exist,” said Moss. “San Luis Obispo was one, we dealt with that, the only other remaining one is Kings County. We have to address this even though we don’t’ have a tactical plan. This is not a very big bite in the big picture. It’s a relatively small amount. Instead of paying it out in one bite; we’re spreading it out over 5 years. It’s penny wise and pound foolish if we don’t give them the money now.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/14/57643.htm
Also, Bill Girdner at Courthouse News has a column today on the continuing obstruction of news organizations to same day filings at the Ventura court, and how it’s a First Amendment issue: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/14/57642.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
May 14, 2013
Published today, Tuesday, May 14, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Brown Offers No New Money for Courts
By Cheryl Miller
SACRAMENTO — Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday unveiled a revised spending plan that contains no additional money for California’s courts, dashing the hopes of judicial leaders who were counting on improved state finances and their own spending overhaul to trigger more funding from Sacramento.
In his proposed 2013-14 budget, Brown acknowledged that the state has collected more tax revenues in the current fiscal year than his administration projected in January. The controller recently pegged the surplus at $4.5 billion.
But the austerity-preaching governor warned that federal actions, including sequestration and a bump in payroll tax rates, have dimmed the state’s short-term economic outlook. And state mandates, he noted, will channel much of any additional revenues to public schools.
That leaves little remaining money for other needs, Brown told reporters at a Capitol news conference.
“The [Assembly] speaker has spoken about giving [the courts] more money, and I’m sure there will be a lot of give and take as we go through the process,” Brown said. “All these institutions — courts, universities, hospitals — have huge costs and everybody has to get used to managing them because we’ve been used to this overcommitment at the federal level, at the state level. And we’re trying now to have honest budgeting and careful budgeting and so that’s why we’ve held [the courts] level.”
The news was a blow to judicial branch leaders, who recently enacted a new budgeting scheme that shifts money from courts that are better off financially to those that have been historically underfunded. The change was a response to Brown’s budget call last year for the judiciary to ensure more “equal access” to the courts, and leaders had hoped that the governor’s administration would look favorably upon the new system in the 2013-14 budget.
“I’m disappointed that the governor’s revised budget proposals provide no more fiscal relief to the courts,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in a prepared statement. “Given the state’s current fiscal condition, I had hoped for more effort to help stop the downward spiral of the judicial branch budget.”
Budget attention now shifts to the Legislature, where leaders have been much more receptive to calls for more court funding. Asked Tuesday if he could negotiate a deal with the governor to help the judiciary, Assembly Speaker John Perez said, “We have to.”
“We need to make sure the courts are able to operate efficiently because they play such an important role in our democracy,” Perez said. “We think the courts will have their voices heard. We’ll add our voices to theirs in making sure that as we recover the courts are able to recover along with us.”
The lack of additional court funding in Brown’s budget will give more leverage to Perez and other Democrats, particularly in the Assembly, who have called for legislatively mandated restrictions on how the judicial branch can spend any new money it receives.
An Assembly Budget Committee analysis of the governor’s revised spending plan, released Tuesday afternoon, noted that “any restorations of court funding will come with strict accountability and reporting requirements to ensure the courts allocate resources in accordance with the appropriations.”
The Administrative Office of the Courts announced Tuesday that 77 courtrooms around the state have closed or will close shortly due to budget cuts.
Along with his proposed budget changes, the governor also released bill language that would allow trial courts — which will lose their authority to keep reserve accounts of any sizable amount as of July 2014 — to borrow from internal branch funds for cash flow purposes. Absent such a fix, no trial court will be able to make payroll next summer, said chief Judicial Council lobbyist Cory Jasperson.
Consumer Attorneys of California President Brian Kabateck said he and other lawyers in the organization have lobbied the governor and his staff repeatedly about the need for more court funding.
“I believe there’s more money there and I believe we can get more traction on this issue,” Kabateck said. “We’re just going to keep on our game plan.”
The governor and lawmakers are required by law to reach a budget agreement by June 15.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202600145336&Brown_Offers_No_New_Money_for_Courts&slreturn=20130414235526
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
May 14, 2013
Excellent points by JCW and MaxRebo on the prior thread. We have reached a critical point for the citizens of California that deserve a a justice system that will address their needs. The legislature simply needs to allocate 90% of the judicial branch budget directly to the trial courts. Courthouse construction allocations also need to be collected by each individual court. The trial courts can then do what they did for hundreds of years before the arrival of Ron George. The trial courts can address the justice needs of their citizens directly. Providing 10% of the overall budget to the Judicial Council/AOC would leave them with plenty to discharge their support functions to the working courts. With a cutback of this size the Judicial Council and AOC would by necessity have to start implementing the core provisions of the SEC report. The net result is that each local court can determine once again what is best for their constituents. This is after all the constitutional manner in which the courts were organized before HRH 1 and Mr Vickrey and company highjacked the branch after trial court funding.We need to defund the Judicial Council and AOC. It is the most cogent solution to the mess we are mired in today.
Wendy Darling
May 14, 2013
Ah, the May revise.
Followers of JCW should realize by now that the Governor’s May revise of the State budget is not so much about need, as it is about politics. Consider, for example, that Governor Brown is expected to run for re-election next year. His current administration, as well as his intended second administration, is based on a platform of fiscal restraint and accountability. Today’s message: the Governor has no desire to align himself, or even be perceived as aligning himself, with the poster children for fraud, waste, and fiscal mismanagement in government administration. Gone are the days when the Chief Justice could sit down for a private chat with the Governor and walk out the door with an extra hundred million dollars in State funds.
All the fancy private “receptions” aside, the members of the State Legislature are also not in a mood to give more funding to what has been jokingly referred to at the State Capitol as “Tani’s Follies.” Senior legislators and experienced legislative staffers are well versed in the administrative misconduct that has been going on, and continues to go on, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and have made an effort to educate new members to the State Assembly and Senate. Jasperson et al have no credibility, and will hard pressed to find legislators willing to risk political capital, or embarrassment, on behalf of pleas of poverty from judicial branch “leadership.”
Meanwhile, the real leadership of the judicial branch, the ACJ, will be quietly, but diligently, at work in the upcoming budget negotiations. The power of the purse always wins in the end.
Follow the money.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
May 14, 2013
Thanks Wendy for those cogent and thoughtful insights. I remain amazed at how HRH 2 and the rest of the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate accept no responsibility for why our branch is in the budget mess we find ourselves in. No one in the crystal palace sees any nexus between their gross mismanagement of public funds and the millions that have been cut out of the branch budget. ” Tani’s Follies ” pretty much sums it up best and we in the trial courts pay the price.
courtflea
May 14, 2013
Technical question to Wendy’s post. Can the gov run again since he already had a first term in office in the 70’s? That would in essence be a 3rd term if he ran again. Heck I cant even recall if he had two terms in the 70’s! would it possibly be a 4th term?
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2013
Technical answer: Brown previously served as California’s 34th Governor from 1975 to 1983 (two terms).
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
May 14, 2013
If I were Tani I would look around and accept the responsibility for the massive budget cuts the judiciary has endured over the last two budget cycles. She is after all the Chief Justice and so with the glory, which she enjoys, also comes the painful reality. She has essentially three choices to make. 1. Admit that Ronald George’s model for branch governance has failed. Agree to democratize the Judicial Council and set a new course . 2.Go to Governor Brown and make a deal to get back on the Sacramento Appeal Court ( her seat remains open ) and allow the Governor to appoint a new CJ who would chart a new course for the branch. 3. Maintain the status quo, deny she and her insider friends have done anything wrong and watch the California judicial branch continue to spiral down. We need a significant change as what the Judicial Council and AOC have done to the trial courts isn’t working out too terribly well.
Lando
May 15, 2013
Oh OBT I would bet my mortgage on Number 3 on your list above. There is no way HRH 2 would ever resign or repudiate in her words ” The great Ron George”. No we are stuck with the fact she will stay and the branch wii continue to suffer for many years unless she gets recalled. When I retire I hope to spend my time organizing that recall campaign along with working on a legislative package to end the excesses of the CJP.
Lando
May 15, 2013
Regarding the recall of HRH 2 and the campaign to reform the CJP, in the words of the great Chesty Puller , ” anyone care to join me” ?
R. Campomadera
May 15, 2013
Lando, when you’re ready, let me know. I’m retired from the courts and have decided the next chapter in my life is to fight for good government and Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Semper Fi.
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2013
I’m in too.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 15, 2013
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/09/182640434/budget-woes-mean-big-delays-for-small-claims-courts
Budget Woes Mean Big Delays For Small Claims Courts
Emily Green
May 15, 2013 3:30 AM
Members of the Save Our Courts coalition rally outside the Los Angeles County Courthouse in March. The county will soon cut the number of courthouses handling small claims cases from 27 to six.
Across the country, cash-strapped state and local governments are not just cutting services — they’re also cutting access to courts. The tip of the iceberg may be small claims courts.
These courts, dealing with disputes involving small sums of money, are the workhorses of the judicial system. There are thousands of such courts across the country, but perhaps nowhere are they being cut more dramatically than in California.
Small claims courts were created in the mid-20th century to allow people to resolve monetary disputes that are small in the greater scheme of things but huge to people of limited means.
And they’re unique in how efficient they are. Defendants and plaintiffs don’t need a lawyer and judges usually make their rulings on the spot, often in 30 minutes or less. They’re meant for people like Mark Delnero, the owner of a charter fishing boat company.
In December, Delnero drove to the San Joaquin County Courthouse, plunked down a $30 fee and asked the small claims court to give him justice. He claimed a customer stiffed him with a bad check for $740. Then, he says, the court let him down, too. “Nothing like being shafted twice,” Delnero says. “Once by the bad-check bouncer and then by the Stockton court.”
‘Your Case Sits And Goes Nowhere’
The court told him he would receive notice of a hearing in 90 days, Delnero says, but he never heard anything. So he called the small claims courts after 90 days and then again after 120 days.
Both times, he says, the court told him his case still wasn’t scheduled. “I don’t have faith in how the courts work,” Delnero says. “I’m just in awe. I don’t know what to think.”
“In our county, if you file a small claims case it simply sits in the proverbial box waiting to get a trial date. Your case sits and goes nowhere.”
– Judge David Warner, San Joaquin County Superior Court
More than 800 other people in San Joaquin County are facing the same situation. The Stockton court hasn’t set a trial date for any small claims cases filed since September and officials say they don’t know when they’ll start setting dates.
“In our county, if you file a small claims case it simply sits in the proverbial box waiting to get a trial date. Your case sits and goes nowhere,” says the court’s presiding judge, David Warner. “It’s not right, but you have to have sufficient resources to get those cases done and we don’t have those resources.”
Other courts are implementing similar cost-saving measures. Los Angeles County Superior Court will soon reduce the number of courthouses at which it hears small claims cases from 27 to just six. The county also plans to close down eight courthouses entirely.
‘A Practical Versus A Real Right’
The cuts have led community groups to file to a lawsuit claiming the reduction in services disproportionately affects minorities and low-income people.
Poor people have the same right to go to the court as the wealthy, says Ken Theisen, an advocate with Bay Area Legal Aid. “But … if you don’t have an attorney, if you don’t have the means to go to court, if you don’t have the time to spend hours and hours waiting in line, the reality is you are denied access to justice. It’s a practical right versus a real right.”
That real right for his day in court is something Delnero is still waiting for — and he’s losing hope. “It’s not going to ever happen, is it?” he asks. “Because I could use the money now. I’m struggling to pay rent.
“Rent is due today, as a matter of fact,” he adds.
As state court systems grapple with reduced budgets, a “new normal” has emerged — one that involves limited clerks hours, longer wait times to go to trial, fewer court reporters, and higher fees just to try to get justice. Even though you might end up waiting a very long time.
wearyant
May 15, 2013
http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/05/failed-state-payroll-clean-up-and-litigation-pricetag-145-million.html
$1.45 million to clean up the state’s failed payroll system? At least it was halted before the price tag blew up to $500,000 as it did in CCMS through the arrogance and idiocy of the JC/AOC/CJ. Yeah, $1.45 million in contrast is small potatoes. 😦
Richard Power
May 16, 2013
Yes, at first glance the figure seems small. But they have already spent $262 Million. And as far as spending $1.45 Million more goes, the legitimate cost to write state payroll software that could run on a computer you could buy OTS at Costco, Best Buy, or Office Depot would be far less than a million. Education of employees and helping local IT people might run up another million. The $1.45 Million is supposedly to pay state lawyers to sue the former vendor and to restore data on the SCO employees to the old COBOL-based system. An entire waste of money because you could have a modern system for less.
But that’s the state way. It’s no wonder the state got in so much financial hot water.
Richard Power
May 16, 2013
And P.S. The figure quoted by the SCO was $14.5 Million, not $1.45 Million.
wearyant
May 16, 2013
Richard Power, I know I can count on you to elucidate. Thank you. Yes, $262 million was expended, but it still dwarfs the amount our arrogant state agency JC/AOC/CJ zoomed through, including redirecting funds from the trial courts. And in my humble opinion the eight million dollars approximately requested by the AOC to close down the CCMS debacle is outrageous.
Richard Power
May 16, 2013
Wearyant, I agree wholeheartedly that spending $8.6 million to throw something away or shut something down is, to say the least, a bit illogical. The CCMS software has no value so there is nothing to preserve. I think you perhaps meant to say the CCMS expenditures dwarf the SCO MyCalPays expenditures??? If so, yes, right again. Reasonable minds might disagree as to which overspending was worse. The amount planned for CCMS was to ultimately be $2.9 Billion. Logical cost was about 1/150th of that amount. In the case of MyCalPays, the planned amount, just before shut down, was around $370 Million, I think. The reasonable total cost might have hit $1.5 Million. Maybe. It would actually be a fairly simple software project. I would put the ratio there at around 250 to 1. Suffice to say that neither made any sense.
Whatever anyone thinks of all that has gone on, the time has come to fix things pronto quicko before the damage to the courts is irreversible.
MaxRebo5
May 15, 2013
According to the article in the MetNews the Chief said, “I am disappointed that the May Revision provides no more fiscal relief to the courts,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in an email sent to judicial officers statewide. “Given the state’s current fiscal condition, I had hoped for more effort to help stop the downward spiral of the judicial branch budget. Our budget situation remains critical with the severe toll taken on the state court system after successive years of reductions, including $261 million in ongoing cuts for the trial courts beginning July 1.”
If the trial courts have been cut by $261 million a year in ongoing cuts then I suggest eliminating the AOC to save $130 million immediately. The Judicial Council could redirect that money for their “staff” agency to be used instead for actual support of the trial court operations. Such a change would be an ongoing infusion of cash to the trial courts. It would not cost CA taxpayers anything or increase the Judicial Branch’s impact on the General Fund at all. Only after doing this reform, which she has the power to do given her monopoly in making appointments to the JC, should Tani be expressing disappointment in the Governor for holding the line on the budget. Right now Tani has no credibility and should not be critical of a recently elected Governor’s budget plan that makes no further cuts to CA Courts. The other branches are simply telling her to get her house in order before asking for more money. Prop 30 money was passed by voters narrowly to fund public schools not to maintain an AOC that Ron George wanted and which grew to be a 1,000 person army of staff under the Chief’s control. It may be the Chief’s will to have that but it is not the will of the other branches or the CA public. Something has to give. My bet it’ll be the Chief Justice. She may stall and do nothing for a little while but eventually she will have to cave or they will just force her hand and change the funding line items in the budget. The game is up.
sharonkramer
May 15, 2013
Kelso moves into the role of Federal Receiver of CA prisons. He continues to keep his pension funding courtesy of the AOC. (there is a lawsuit). In an atmosphere where privitizated prisons is one of the hottest stocks around, Kelso threatens Brown that much of the Ca prison population will need to be moved because of Valley Fever (about half of the population in valley prisons, I think). Brown states Ca will continue to control it prisons and if need be he will spend the money required to keep prisoners safe… but…. the funding will have to come from some other part of the budget.
Bye Bye AOC funding, which in part is going to Kelso as he harasses Brown. Political gamesmanship. Score 1 for Brown.
Plus, its not scientifically likely that moving those prisoners thought to be succeptible to Valley Fever is the most cost effective way to address the problem or safest way for all prisoners. A little microbiology, building science and ventilation knowledge is needed.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130512/A_NEWS/305120310
unionman575
May 15, 2013
It’s been a while..
😉
Welcome back to JCW Sharon Kramer.
wearyant
May 15, 2013
What UMan575 said, Sharon Kramer
Nathaniel Woodhull
May 15, 2013
You know Wendy, there comes that point in time when all you can say is; SNAFU.
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2013
Oh, General Woodhull, I think 455 Golden Gate Avenue has left SNAFU in the rear view mirror, and are full speed into FUBAR.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
May 15, 2013
I love it when something is true and hilarious at the same. Wendy, you rock!!!
wearyant
May 15, 2013
Agreed, R. Campomadera!
Wendy Darling
May 15, 2013
Um, thank you (blushing)!
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
May 15, 2013
Lando, I would be honored to help!
wearyant
May 16, 2013
And, now, a tidbit from CalWatchDog: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/05/16/assembly-members-objecting-to-corruption-exemption-in-ab-173/
The good Hon. Weber amended the bill to exempt state employees from felony charges of corruption under the public contract code. Shades of the AOC house — I mean castle?
Judicial Council Watcher
May 16, 2013
Yes, AB173, better known as ripoff the taxpayer and get out of jail free bill needs to make the Legislative Watch list because anyone who votes for it should be ousted.
unionman575
May 16, 2013
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_23260710/assemblyman-local-mayors-working-restore-funding-states-court
unionman575
May 16, 2013
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1313&sess=CUR
😉
AB1313
Lando
May 17, 2013
Thanks to all the great people here that want to take it to the next level for reform and positive change of the branch. The next level is to organize and support a powerful legislative change, the direct funding of the trial courts and the defunding of the AOC. Once accomplished we can move to recall HRH 2 and reform of the CJP. This will involve lots of hard work but with the help of the awesome people who post here, we can make a huge difference. Have a great weekend everyone .
The OBT
May 17, 2013
Lando , great ideas regarding the defunding of the AOC. If anyone has doubts about reformation of the CJP just read about their most recent case involving a judge in Contra Costa county. I have never met this judge but to put him through the McConnell inquisition process for the things alleged speaks volumes about why reformation of that entity needs to take place. That is just my humble opinion, hopefully still protected by the First Amendment. As for the recall of Tani, I am ready to go door to door anywhere in the state to help .
unionman575
May 17, 2013
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
unionman575
May 17, 2013
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/05/16/calif-courts-budget-revision-funding.html
May 16, 2013, 2:43pm PDT Updated: May 17, 2013, 3:00am PDT
No new court funding in California budget revision
Kathy Robertson
Senior Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal
Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed May budget revision puts no new money into the judicial branch, leaving the funding level unchanged from January. That means court funding will stay at $1.2 billion unless lawmakers act to restore some of the $1 billion-plus in cuts absorbed by the court system over the last five years.
California Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed May budget revision puts no new money into the judicial branch, leaving the funding level unchanged from January.
That means court funding will stay at $1.2 billion unless lawmakers act to restore some of the $1 billion-plus in cuts absorbed by the court system over the last five years.
State of California courts already are closing courthouses, courtrooms and reducing the hours they serve the public, and without re-investment, these impacts will expand, state supreme court chief justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in a statement.
“The poor and middle-class residents who rely on the courts to resolve issues that affect their lives and livelihoods will be adversely affected, as well as businesses still digging out from the effects of the great recession,” she said. “Given the state’s current fiscal condition, I had hoped for more effort to help stop the downward spiral of the judicial branch budget.”
The governor’s budget summary does refer to the state Assembly’s budget blueprint, though. Released last week by Assembly Speaker John Perez in a speech before the Sacramento Press Club, the blueprint states court funding should be preserved — but also protected with strict accountability and reporting requirements so it is allocated appropriately.
Judges are looking for action by the Legislature, too.
“I am heartened by Speaker Perez’s comments last week about reinvesting in the courts,” Cantril-SaKauye said. “I am optimistic 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.”
Laurie Earl, presiding judge of Sacramento County Superior Court, also spins bad budget news into optimism.
“It’s disappointing, but not entirely unexpected,” Earl said of the status quo budget. “The budget process is a political one, but legislators have heard from many constituents — and this is a priority of theirs.”
😉
sharonkramer
May 17, 2013
“California courts get old news that they are bad budgeters”
http://wp.me/plYPz-3yf
unionman575
May 18, 2013
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=8&ved=0CD8QqQIoADAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailybulletin.com%2Fci_23260710%2Fassemblyman-local-mayors-working-restore-funding-states-court&ei=qIiXUfWOIKjNiwKsPA&usg=AFQjCNHeo6htO0RX-5W5nZC_uPP15227Dg&sig2=OISXMHF68xMgzDiNXEsEKQ
Assemblyman, local mayors working to restore funding to state’s court system
By Lori Fowler
lori.fowler@ inlandnewspapers.com @IECourtsNow on Twitter
Updated: 05/16/2013 03:44:53 PM PDT
A group of local officials are spear-heading an effort to re-staff courts and provide more judiciary funds to what they call a starving system.
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) has co-authored a bill, introduced in March, that he says is a step toward properly funding California’s judicial system.
AB 1313 would allocate up to 12 additional judicial positions throughout the state each year to the counties with the greatest disparity between their current allocation and Judicial Council’s recommendation, Donnelly said.
The bill would be in effect when money is available, he added.
“The courts are literally being starved to death while our population is exploding, so the need is absolutely there,” Donnelly said the record-high court deficit in San Bernardino County. “This is absolutely something we’re supposed to be doing. ”
Courthouses in Chino, Needles and Big Bear closed this year due to budget cuts.
Shuttered courthouses and depleting funds have created a backlog of cases and led to hundreds of staff layoffs, Donnelly said. Some residents in San Bernardino County will now have to travel two hours or more to reach the nearest court room.
“(AB1313) was born out of the dire crisis that we’re facing here in San Bernardino County,” Donnelly said.
Presiding Judge Marsha Slough said San Bernardino County is one of the most under-funded
areas in the state. The court funding has gone from a $22 million deficit down to an approximate $11 million deficit by July 1, 2014.
Based on the last workload study done in 2012 San Bernardino County should have 156 judges. Instead it has 86 positions.
The county should also have 1,500 employees. It currently has 896 employees.
Donnelly is working with local mayors, specifically those in the High Desert, who have recently experienced those drastic court cuts.
Bill Holland, the mayor of Hesperia, said he got involved with hopes of averting some of the court closures.
“We’ve got a population tipping toward a half million people, just in the High Desert alone,” he said. “I do think we can get money back. It has to do with priorities. ”
The point of AB1313 is to bring awareness to the issue, officials said.
“At one point in time, all 24 mayors have been involved in this in one way or another,” Holland said about local advocates. “Whether it was sending letters or making the trip to Sacramento.”
They had some victories in their efforts, Holland said, referencing the Barstow courthouse.
Barstow was another courthouse set to close completely this year, but in March money from an emergency fund allowed for one courtroom to stay open temporarily. The other three courtrooms in the building have closed.
“I would like to see us re-open Needles and Big Bear and keep Barstow open full time because the case load warrants it,” Holland said.
The court closures, he added, effect everyone.
Judge Slough said she is not involved in the AB1313 campaign, but she has spoken with Donnelly about his desires to put something together to aid trial court funding.
“We’re always appreciative of any efforts anyone has to support the courts,” she said.
“(The community is) united and they are demonstrating that they care about the courts. ”
________________________________________
Reach Lori via email or call her at 909-483-9378, or find her on Twitter @IEcourtsNow
😉
Tanya Sweethouse
May 19, 2013
Donnelly opposed AB1208. He’s late to the game, considering he’s a “Minuteman” he should have known better than to have been so tardy. He bought the AOC garbage when he chose to back Childs and crew. For a guy who claims to be taxpayer friendly, he sure screwed up. Donnelly is not a friend of the judiciary.
unionman575
May 18, 2013
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/May/17/state-budget-picture-brightens/2/?#article-copy
Assembly Speaker John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, wants to increase court funding while boosting oversight, saying cuts to the judicial branch have clogged the courts and further strained municipal budgets.
“We need to make sure that the courts are able to operate efficiently because they play such an important role in our democracy,” he said, adding the courts should be “able to recover along with us.”
carl
May 18, 2013
Receivership. Receivership. Receivership. Receivership. Receivership.
Wendy Darling
May 18, 2013
Hope so. Hope so. Hope so. Hope so. Hope so.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
May 19, 2013
Yes. Just spare us from J. Clark Kelso or his ilk.
sharon kramer
May 18, 2013
If I was an untrusting person, I would be suspicious that this is all a game to privatize the prisons after they are finished being fixed up with tax dollars, THEN give the courts the bigger chuck of budget money under pretense that the jails had to be sold to keep the courts functioning.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-the-toxic-politics-of-science/
Bill Moyers “The Toxic Politics of Science”. About 47 minutes in it discusses that two of the current biggest lobbyists in DC are those lobbying for privatized prisons.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130505/A_NEWS/305050302/-1/NEWSMAP “Setting aside arguments whether Kelso actually has the power to make such a unilateral demand, his order couldn’t come at a worse time for California officials. Gov. Jerry Brown faces a possible contempt of court threat if state officials don’t produce a prison population reduction plan that satisfies the federal court.”
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=ylta91g5empdw5
“Kelso,… He’s on record supporting the legality of private prisons.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/16/private-prisons-rebrand-themselves-as-real-estate-investment-trusts-to-avoid-taxes/ Privatized prisons just got a huge tax break by becoming Real Estate Investment Trusts. These REITS view prisoner head count like hotel guests where they make more money based on occupancy rates.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-judge-receives-28year-jail-term-for-his-role-in–kidsforcash-kickbacks-8598147.html “An American judge known for his harsh and autocratic courtroom manner was jailed for 28 years for conspiring with private prisons to hand young offenders maximum sentences in return for kickbacks amounting to millions of dollars.”
unionman575
May 19, 2013
Click to access 20130312-PJ-Instant-Survey-Impacts.pdf
wearyant
May 19, 2013
Staggeringly scary and sad news from the front — and only as of February, March. To date the body count is no doubt worse. Thanks for posting, Unionman575. A must read for all who give a [bleep] about our justice system. How will the thugs comfortably ensconced in their crystal silo spin this one?
disgusted
May 19, 2013
As usual, wearyant, they will order a “study” of the Summary of Impacts From Instant Survey, which will take a year or so. Nothing will change. It’s like the Twilight Zone version of Ring around the Rosy………………..we all fall down.
courtflea
May 19, 2013
no kelso no kelso no kelso no kelso
unionman575
May 21, 2013
http://www.seiu1021.org/2013/05/16/alameda-county-court-workers-prevail-in-fight-against-takeaways/
Alameda County court workers prevail in fight against takeaways
unionman575
May 21, 2013
As part of the decision-making process, the public can voice opinions on the closure by writing to Riverside Superior Court at P.O. Box 1547, Riverside, CA 92502 or e-mailing webassistance@riverside.courts.ca.gov.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/21/temecula-court-closure-budget/
STATE BUDGET CUTS THREATEN TEMECULA COURTHOUSE
By Michael J. Williams2 p.m.May 21, 2013
With state budget cuts looming, Riverside Superior Court administrators warned this week they may close the Temecula branch or at least pare down its operations.
Presiding Judge Mark Cope said, in an interview Tuesday, the decision has yet to be made, but the administration is looking at ways to offset a $3 million deficit by July 1.
Shuttering the small Temecula courthouse at 41002 County Center Drive near Winchester and Ynez roads would save $475,000 savings annually. It would probably mean shifting the traffic, small claims and civil cases handled there to Southwest Justice Center about six miles away in French Valley.
The Temecula courthouse has been in business for at least 20 years and has 23 employees, Cope said.
“It’s a very busy courthouse,” he said. “We have about 75,000 cases filed there a year. So it’s a very busy place.”
As required by the state when considering the closure of a courthouse, the Superior Court must issue public notices, which went out Monday. Two of the fliers were posted at the Temecula courthouse’s entrance and they caught the eye and the chagrin of attorney Daniel Hough.
“I do almost 80 percent of my cases in this court,” he said. “I’ve been here two to three times a week for the last 10 years.”
In addition to several windows for transactions, the courthouse features one courtroom presided over by Judge Mark E. Peterson and his staff, and is situated in the same complex as a county assessor’s office and a Temecula library branch.
Hough said the judge processes civil cases very efficiently and it would be a loss to the attorneys and their clients if Peterson and his staff were reassigned anywhere other than Southwest. However, he said, the loss of the Temecula branch still would be an inconvenience because of the distance, parking issues and congested courtrooms at Southwest.
He said he would raise the issue of the potential loss with the Southwest Riverside County Bar Association’s board, of which he is a member.
“I’m going to talk to the other board members and see what we can do to save this court,” he said.
As part of the decision-making process, the public can voice opinions on the closure by writing to Riverside Superior Court at P.O. Box 1547, Riverside, CA 92502 or e-mailing webassistance@riverside.courts.ca.gov.
The warning prompted Temecula resident Kim Phoenix to write down the addresses after she visited the courthouse on a traffic matter.
“That would be very inconvenient,” she said of the closure. “I like coming here. It’s just a more convenient location and the library’s here.”
On the other hand, Murrieta resident John Aguilar said he would support the closure if it saves money.
In addition to the Temecula closure, Superior Court is also looking at partially reduced operations or closure of the Blythe courthouse. The court would save $200,000 per year for each weekday the courthouse there is closed, Cope said.
Ultimately, however, the decisions hinge on the final budget adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor.
MaxRebo5
May 22, 2013
Nice post unionman. I take issue with the final sentence though “Ultimately, however, the decisions hinge on the final budget adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor.”
That sentence implies the Chief Justice and Judicial Council (JC) have no power to redirect branch funds already allocated and currently being used to fund the AOC to the trial courts. The JC could cut the AOC and help keep trial courts open but they won’t do it.
I am pretty sure the attorney in this story would much rather have his local courthouse open over funding 900+ staff at the AOC. This is a perfect example of how the Chief talks that she is for “access to justice” but she funds an AOC in SF over the trial courts. There is 130 million a year used to fund the AOC and that could be used to keep courts open during this fiscal crisis.
unionman575
May 22, 2013
Defund the AOC now – Trial Courts throughout CA need that CASH NOW.
😉
unionman575
May 22, 2013
http://murrieta.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/proposed-temecula-courthouse-closure-will-significantly-impact-local-residents-judges-say_529b27fd
Proposed Temecula Courthouse Closure Will Significantly Impact Local Residents, Judges Say
Posted by Maggie Avants (Editor), May 22, 2013 at 11:08 am
The article was written by Patch Local Editor Toni McAllister.
Nearly 75,000 small claims, traffic and limited civil cases are filed annually at the Temecula courthouse on County Center Drive.
If the facility closes—which may very well happen this summer—those cases will likely be moved to the already busy Southwest Justice Center in French Valley.
Trouble is, Southwest currently hears a very full calendar of criminal cases.
“The calendars will be even heavier than they already are,” said Riverside County Presiding Judge Mark Cope, who explained that a closure means more criminal trials being sent to Superior Court in downtown Riverside to make way for the civil, traffic and small claims cases.
As for prospective jurors living in Southwest Riverside County, they will have no choice than to make the trek to downtown Riverside if they are called to duty.
“It’s not a desirable situation,” Cope said, but explained the issue is a matter of budget – or lack thereof.
“Over the last four to five years, our courts have lost somewhere between $20 million to $40 million in funding, depending on which numbers you look at,” Cope said of the state budget.
He explained the closure is dependent on Governor Jerry Brown’s budget due out next month. In addition to the Temecula facility, Riverside County’s Blythe courthouse is also on the chopping block.
“We’ve had considerably more public feedback on the Blythe closure,” Cope said.
Pursuant to California Rule of Court, anyone interested in commenting on the proposed closures must send remarks to the court in writing or electronically by 5 p.m. on June 11. (Written comments should be directed to the court at P.O Box 1547, Riverside, CA 92502. Electronic correspondence should be sent to webassistance@riverside.courts.ca.gov.)
If Riverside County shutters the two facilities, the closures will add to a growing statewide list. In April, the state’s Judicial Council announced the Superior Courts of Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Tehama Counties have issued new notices of closures or reductions.
When Brown released his proposed budget revise earlier this month, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye issued the following statement:
“I’m disappointed that the Governor’s revised budget proposals provide no more fiscal relief to the courts. Given the state’s current fiscal condition, I had hoped for more effort to help stop the downward spiral of the judicial branch budget. Courts across the state are already closing courthouses, courtrooms, and reducing the hours they serve the public. Without reinvestment in the courts, these terrible impacts will only expand, and the poor and middle class residents who rely on the courts to resolve issues that affect their lives and livelihoods will be adversely affected, as well those businesses still digging out from the effects of the great recession. We need adequate, ongoing funding for the courts that will permit us to reverse the damage caused by five years of budget cuts. …”
unionman575
May 23, 2013
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_23301293/final-nails-courthouse-coffin
Final nails in courthouse coffin
No public access after May 31
By Peter Fullam, SGVN
twitter.com/peterfullam
Updated: 05/22/2013 08:14:56 PM PDT
WHITTIER — The Whittier Courthouse will be closed to the public beginning June 3, about a month earlier than originally scheduled, according to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
“Following that, some staff will be there, but the building will not be open for court business,” said Mary Hearn, director of public information for the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Whittier cases have been or will be transferred to courthouses in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Chatsworth, Norwalk, Bellflower and Downey, depending on the type of case and in some cases, depending on the person’s ZIP code. Traffic tickets issued by Whittier police will be heard in Bellflower. L.A. Sheriff’s Department and CHP tickets will be heard in Downey.
Felonies will be heard in Norwalk, but only after the arraignment stage. Felonies filed by Whittier police will be arraigned in Bellflower, with sheriff’s and CHP cases in Downey. After arraignment they will be transferred to Norwalk for preliminary hearing and trial or the Early Disposition Program, or a plea bargain.
The closure of Whittier’s courthouse, and nine others in Los Angeles County was announced in November by Los Angeles Superior Court officials who said they were facing a $55 million to $85 million deficit for fiscal year 2013-14. The Beverly Hills courthouse later was allowed to retain one traffic arraignment court. And the Catalina courthouse was allowed be open every other Friday.
The closure plan spawned a flurry of opposition efforts, including lawsuits filed in state and federal courts, demonstrations by SEIU Local 7212, a union that represents many court workers, lobbying by city and county officials and letters sent to the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown.
However, those efforts have failed, as Carlos Polhamus, a Spanish interpreter for the court and outspoken critic of the closure, told the Whittier City Council recently.
“It’s a done deal,” said Polhamus, who has addressed the council several times urging municipal action to prevent the closure.
“May 31, the last judge will leave,” he said. “If you look from the clerk’s office, all the shelves have been removed. It’s being gutted to the max. Department 6 is full of boxes almost to the ceiling. ”
A spokeswoman for the Sheriff’s Department, who asked not to be identified because she was not authorized to talk about the closure, said the only people who will be allowed in the building after May 31 will be clerks picking up files and maintenance staff.
“It won’t be an operational building any more,” she said.
Departments 2, 3 and 5 will be the last courts to leave, she said.
Superior Court has 47 employees at the Whittier Courthouse. There are about 230 employees at the 10 courthouses set for closure or reductions. Hearn said jobs will be lost as a result of the consolidation. Seniority will likely be the determining factor, with some employees whose jobs are eliminated transferring, and less senior persons getting pink slips.
The three story building was built in 1972 and contains seven courtrooms.
What will happen to the building in the future remains unclear.
However, the closure will not trigger earthquake retrofit or Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to a spokeswoman for the California Administrative Office of Courts. It had been rumored that the court could not open again if it closed without the retrofit and upgrades.
Teresa Ruano, spokeswoman for the office, said the state has many buildings that need upgrades and retrofits, and they are prioritized on an as funds become available basis.
The buildings are maintained in caretaker status, which allows them to return to operation on short notice if funding becomes available. Ruano said the problems the closures cause, especially to public access to the court system, won’t be resolved until the courts are adequately funded.
“The courts are struggling just to keep operating,” she said.
While most states fund their courts on a 2-cents to the general fund dollar basis, California is funding its courts on a one-cent to the dollar level, she said.
Until the Legislature comes to terms with the funding needs of the courts, the courts will continue to struggle, she said.
Whittier City Manager Jeff Collier said the city was hopeful until the governor released his revised budget May 14, which failed to push more money to the courts.
“That, I think, was the last hope,” he said.
Councilman Joe Vinatieri, with the support of council members Cathy Warner and Fernando Dutra, asked that the courthouse be placed on the agenda of a future meeting to explore possible opportunities for Whittier
“I think we need to talk about that facility, what’s going to happen to it, any opportunities for the city of Whittier,” he said.
“Heaven knows we tried hard to keep that courthouse here, to keep the judges here, to keep those employees here,” he said. “But if we’ve lost, then I think we need to talk about the building and if there’s a potential use for the city of Whittier. “
Wendy Darling
May 23, 2013
Published today, Thursday, May 23, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
Lawmakers Find $100 Million for Trial Courts
By Cheryl Miller
AOC administrative director Steven Jahr promised that judicial leaders would put the money to use “transparently and efficiently.”
Full article requires subscription access: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202601489247&Lawmakers_Find_100_Million_for_Trial_Courts
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
May 23, 2013
AOC administrative director Steven Jahr promised that judicial leaders would put the money to use “transparently and efficiently.”
Yeah, right.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 23, 2013
We’ll believe it when the money goes to the trial courts and not the boondogglers. If anyone has access to this article (because our boss is a cheap bastard and won’t buy a subscription to the recorder or the DJ) we’d like to see it.
disgusted
May 23, 2013
Curious how this would work.
“CCRA → MOVING LEGISLATION FOR YOU!
Dear xxxxxxxx,
Assembly Bill 655, authored by Assembly member Quirk Silva from Fullerton, passed through from the Assembly Floor this morning with 67 aye votes!
The bill sponsored by CCRA would allow the trial courts to negotiate with cities and counties throughout our state to gain funding for court reporter services. This bill has passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee then through the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Now this bill heads to the Senate for their consideration.
While the state budget doesn’t seem to be getting better, the CCRA Board of Directors and Legislative Committee are committed to finding legislative solutions to help ensure court reporter services for the California Trial Courts.
Each year, CCRA has two legislative meetings. Reporter representatives from around the state are invited to participate and bring legislative suggestions to further all aspects of our profession – freelance, official, and CART. CCRA is the only state association who has two lobbyists in Sacramento working on behalf of our profession.
PACCRA
CCRA – Continuing to protect the profession for over 100 years!
2013 Convention
California Court Reporters Association
65 Enterprise
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949-715-4682 949-715-6931 fax
info@cal-ccra.org
http://www.cal-ccra.org
California Court Reporters Association | 65 Enterprise | Aliso Viejo | CA | 92656″
disgusted
May 23, 2013
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/CCRA—MOVING-LEGISLATION-FOR-YOU-.html?soid=1098465485203&aid=qHvqcARmGmg
courtflea
May 23, 2013
yeah Jahr head when pigs fly, hell freezes over and I can ice skate home in June. Legislature, attach some strings so this funding won’t go down the shithole. gut the AOC
wearyant
May 24, 2013
Yeah, Courtflea, I’ll dig out some ice skates and join you in the California desert. “Transparent” and “efficient” are the antithesis of the AOC. What a laugh riot to see these words continually used! The thugs are probably rubbing their hands together, happily planning how to use their skim-cut-grab of the one hundred thou dug up by the legislature.
Judicial Council Watcher
May 23, 2013
A recent comment by Teresa Ruano who represents the Ministry of Truth and Public Enlightenment for the AOC’s construction programs (yes, you can ask why OCCM money funds propaganda as a separate task, it’s a legitimate question….) indicates that we are wrong about having to bring vacated, shut down buildings back up to code before they’re re-occupied. She indicates that there will be no such obligation.
Well why is that? She says that the AOC will maintain (and I gather occupy) vacated courthouses even though they cannot maintain their current inventory of courthouses.
The real reason that the AOC won’t have to bring any buildings up to code before re-occupying them is because the AOC is a bully and above all law. You see, they perform their own inspections and issue their own occupancy permits. So if you have vacated an asbestos laden courthouse that has mold in every corner of the building, rest assured that the AOC inspectors will put you on a remediation list but will still issue an occupancy permit where no county agency or state agency would.
wearyant
May 24, 2013
Wow! No wonder Willoughby always looks so self-satisfied, happy and content with his lot in life!
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2013
It’s no surprise that 455 Golden Gate Avenue holds itself above the law. Just ask Michael Paul.
And speaking of the law, one again asks: Justice California, where are you?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
May 23, 2013
http://blog.pe.com/watchdog/2013/05/23/riverside-county-court-extends-date-for-proposed-closure-of-blythe-courthouse/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY UPDATE: Court extends dates for proposed closures of Temecula and Blythe courthouses
Posted on | May 23, 2013
UPDATE: Temecula Courthouse dates also extended
Riverside County Superior Court has set later dates for its proposed closures of the Temecula and Blythe courthouses as well as extending the time for public comment on the matter.
Officials now will accept public comments until 5 p.m. July 19, extended from the previous date of June 11, the court announced Thursday, May 23.
If officials decide to close the courthouses, that would come “no sooner than” July 22. The previous proposed closure date was no sooner than July 1.
The Superior Court on Monday, May 20 announced its intentions to close one-judge courthouses in both Blythe and Temecula.
Officials said cuts in the state budget for trial courts means Riverside County Superior Court will have $13 million deficit next fiscal year.
Cost-cutting moves already made, including decreasing the work force by about 250 employees since 2009, forced them to begin consideration of closing the courthouses, they said.
The announcements and requests for public comment are procedural, and do not mean the decision to close the courts has been made.
If the Temecula Courthouse closes, residents of that city would have to travel about six miles to the Southwest Justice Center in French Valley. Court officials said most the cases handled at the Temecula court are traffic matters that can be handled online. The exceptions are when a defendant wants a trial.
The closure of the Blythe Courthouse has raised issues for the desert city on the California-Arizona border. The nearest county courthouse is about 100 miles away, at the Larson Justice Center in Indio.
Residents have written to lawmakers and started a petition to object to shuttering the court.
They cite the 200-mile round trip that Blythe citizens and law enforcement officers based in the town would have to make to Indio for even simple court appearances.
Richard K. De Atley
rdeatley@pe.com
Twitter @RKDeAtley
😉
unionman575
May 23, 2013
http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php/news/california-news/4251-perez-applauds-funding-for-trial-courts.html
Created on Thursday, 23 May 2013 18:46
Written by Imperial Valley News
Sacramento, California – Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez is pleased to report that the Assembly Budget Sub-Committee 5 on Public Safety took action today to increase trial court funding by $100 million.
“Inadequate funding has placed our court houses at risk, forcing them to cut hours, reduce services, or even close their doors,” said Pérez. “This impacts our communities, our justice system, and public safety. Today’s budget action is an important step to help maintain basic operations of court houses throughout the state and close to home in Blythe and Calexico. I will continue to press this issue as budget negotiations progress.”
Responding to the Governor’s May Revise proposal which threatened the closure of court houses in the cities of Blythe and Calexico, Pérez sent a letter to the Budget Subcommittee 5 urging support for the amplification of trial court funding to keep these critical community assets functioning.
•
MaxRebo5
May 24, 2013
Half way there. Now if they will just defund the AOC by 100 million the taxpayers will have an efficient state court system. It’ll feel good too. Like Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
unionman575
May 24, 2013
Defund the AOC…they are worthless…
R. Campomadera
May 24, 2013
Or St. George slaying the dragon.
Wendy Darling
May 24, 2013
Quote of the day: “It’s easy to find boogeymen.” Published today, Friday, May 24, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Legislature Votes to Restore $100 Million to Calif. Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
SACRAMENTO (CN) – Chastened by the fury of court employees negatively impacted by layoffs, court closures, and years of repeated cuts to funding for trial courts, the California Legislature voted to restore $100 million to the judicial branch’s budget.
The money will be an ongoing addition to the budget, but it comes with a few caveats:
It must be used specifically for keeping the trial courts running, and officials from the Administrative Office of the Courts must account for the money received both before and after it is spent.
Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly budget sub-committee, said the Administrative Office will be required to submit a report each August – before it receives the money — outlining its spending plans, and then later they, “will come back to us to show they did what they said they were going to do.”
He added, “Whatever they’ve cut, these monies are specifically to go to augmenting or hopefully reversing all of that.”
The unanimous vote was preceded by a lively period of public comment punctuated by bursts of cheers and applause.
Cheryl Clark, an Alameda court worker who drew some of loudest cheers, said, “Where has all this money gone? Why do we have to close at 2:30 [p.m.]? I’m with everyone else — accountability for the AOC. But if they’re not going to be accountable, give the money to the trial courts and let us be responsible for us. We can bypass all of that.
“The money is well needed,” Clark continued. ” And … if they’re not going to account for the money, it needs to be taken away from them and let the courts take care of it- each court equally.”
The court workers, many of whom wore yellow t-shirts emblazoned with the words “Public Safety First, Keep LA Courts Open,” called on lawmakers to hold the central court bureaucracy accountable for the spending of the new funds.
Paris Fox, an employee at the Alameda County Superior Court, said it disheartening for him, “as a court employee” and “servant of the people of the state of California” to tell people the court closes at 2:30 p.m., while at the same time acknowledging a new, $2.3 billion courthouse is being built nearby – a reference to a controversial courthouse construction project in Long Beach.
“People don’t understand that,” said Fox, whose comments were greeted by loud applause from other speakers. “So I hope and pray that as the money goes from this body, the legislature, which is trusted by the people of the state, to this body in front of me, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the one word that is in my head here is accountability. And transparency.”
The court workers’ comments were not lost on the lawmakers, who for years have been listening to allegations of misspending and waste, while local trial courts, starved for funds, have been shuttering courthouses and laying off staff.
The judiciary is still reeling from the failed implementation of a new Court Case Management System, a project that was terminated last year after it became mired in cost overruns and other issues, and was widely criticized by trial judges and court employees.
Assembly member Diane Harkey (R-Orange County) said the AOC’s handling of the judicial branch’s money has been “almost a constant controversy” in her five years in the Legislature.
“I’m not here to harass anybody but what I’d like to see, seriously, is a real communication such that we get the money to the trial courts. I do think things are a little bit better than they were under the previous chief justice, that being said there’s just so much more to go. I would hope there would be some way that we could get more funding to the courts and less to the administration,” Harkey said, drawing applause from the court workers in the audience.
She asked new AOC Director Judge Steven Jahr for a response. “I know you’re not amongst friends here,” she said.
“I must respectfully disagree,” Jahr answered. “I think the comments that have been made throughout the audience today have been more illustrative of the problems we face in the trenches than anything I could have said.”
He added, “It’s easy to find boogeymen. When you take away the amount of money that had to be taken away on account of the extraordinary fiscal crisis we had you’re going to expect breakdown. It’s my commitment to you to see that that is done properly, efficiently and transparently.”
Jones-Sawyer added his own frustrations about the bureaucracy. “I came from the City of Los Angeles. I was director of real estate. I used to have to deal with a group called the AOC in dealing with commercial property. It was probably one of the worst experiences I ever had with another governmental entity in my life.”
He went on to recall his experience trying to rent space in the Long Beach courthouse building, charaterizing it as, “painful, to say the least.”
“What I can tell you now, as someone who has been highly critical of the AOC, is that Judge Jahr has been very cooperative, open and I think he is the first link at us turning this ship around for the courts, especially when it comes to accountability,” he said.
“Everyone on both sides of the aisle firmly believes that the court needs more money,” Jones-Sawyer added. “We’d like for this $100 million to go toward beginning to restore self-help services, extend business hours, begin the process of reducing delays and adjudicating cases and most important, reopen closed facilities or suspend anticipated closures.”
The audience again erupted into cheers.
With that, the committee chairman turned to Jahr, saying, “You’re kind of on probation now yourself, you and the court system. This is your opportunity to show the legislature and the governor that you can spend those dollars wisely. Once there is some greater transparency and accountability not only will this body look to giving you more money in the future, we will find more because there’s a comfort level to make sure the money gets down to the trial courts.”
In addition to the increased funding, the committee voted on Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to increase the amount of money courts can carry in reserve. His original plan was to sweep more of the courts’ fund balances, leaving them with only one percent reserves.
The proposal approved by the committee would increase the amount of funds a trial court can carryover from one fiscal year to the next to 12 percent.
In the Senate, meanwhile, a budget sub-committee chaired by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) also voted for the $100 million restoration and the 12 percent carryover.
“This has been a very big concern of the entire legislature in the last year, how we adequately fund the third branch of government, recognizing that justice delayed erodes competence in democracy,” Hancock said.
The measures passed despite warnings from the Department of Finance that revenue projections were still tenuous.
But Hancock also had some sharp words for the AOC on the new Long Beach courthouse, scheduled to open this year. The Senate sub-committee approved $53.6 million for the first “service payment,” to be taken out the judiciary’s construction budget. These payments are estimated to cost $2.3 billion over the life of the 35-year contract.
As many have argued that private financiers have made money off the state on a one-sided contract, the committee’s approval came with more restrictions on future public-private partnerships.
“That was a fiasco. That was done at the end of the last administration but its going to cost the people of California a lot of money,” Hancock said. “We don’t want to see this happen again, so we need rules. I’m sorry, we need to be more careful with our money and we need to do it right.”
The Assembly committee also voted 3-2 to approve the first payment, but not before Judge Steve White of Sacramento Superior Court told committee members that they should not approve any payments without first looking at the state’s liability.
“Were this matter to be audited or were there to be an analysis of the purported business plan of this courthouse you would find the state got pantsed and the private players got rich,” Judge White said. “I strongly suggest that this body look at whether the state has any liability whatsoever.”
He added, “It would be a mistake and a misuse of state monies to pay for this without getting the parties back to the table. Because of this project some four courthouse construction projects are on ice and some 11 others are not even in line anymore.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57951.htm
Long live Judge White. And long live the ACJ.
courtflea
May 24, 2013
oh good gawd, not the “boogeyman” lament again pleeze! if it walks and quacks like a duck it is. You ARE the boogeyman! And that is a nice way to say it……
R. Campomadera
May 24, 2013
In the words of the immortal John Wayne:
wearyant
May 24, 2013
How this windfall of $100,000 is spent may be staunch grounds for a receivership of the third branch. I don’t think the legislature has the attention of the arrogant thugs in the JC/AOC/CJ yet. As far as jahr head wearing the black hat, if it fits, sir, put it on! Anyone who hires an additional 30 people to an already bloated burgeoning staff and claims it saves money to make full-time people of freelance contractors is full of [sh] it. Thinking people are supposed to swallow that?! Mr. Jahr, your future is in politics. Your place there is secure. This $100,000 may be helpful to the trial courts, but it is a mere nickel to the high spending AOC. It barely funds one position in their high-flying world.