One of the items we regularly harp on is bulletproof whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees. We’re not the only people who feel this way. In fact, many judges actually backed whistleblower protections when Curt Child tried to kill them by adding into the mix trial court employees thinking he could get the courts to band against them. It dismally failed when judges from across the state signed on.
For years now we’ve expressed that whistleblower protections are no protection at all for AOC employees because there was no enabling legislation that would permit the other entities to hear judicial branch whistleblower cases. A procedure was defined and that procedure was a dead end due to a lack of enabling legislation that would authorize, for example, an administrative law judge in the executive branch to make a recommendation and not a ruling like all other cases before them. Judicial branch matters are supposed to be handled differently. The problem is that nowhere in their own charter does it authorize these administrative law judges to do anything but make rulings. They’re not chartered to make recommendations to the judicial branch.
That is just one example of how whistleblower protections are not whistleblower protections at all due to a lack of enabling legislation.
Since our inception we’ve pointed out that you must follow the judicial council and the AOC’s whistleblower policy at your own peril. No person living or dead has ever seen any action taken upon any whistleblower complaint lodged with the AOC. Their termination rate though is 100% and that has not changed a bit. We’re not the only people who make these observations. Others have made these observations as well and while they don’t discuss the matter because it would unquestionably be the subject of future litigation, they’ve responded in their own way.
When it comes to trial courts, we want to know what your courts policy is on reporting improper activity and whom it is suggested that you contact. The reason for this is because we were pleasantly floored to read Los Angeles Superior Courts memorandum on reporting improper activity. Nowhere in the memorandum is it suggested that you contact the judicial branch whistleblower hotline. In fact, they tell their employees something similar to what we tell you. A report to the state auditor is your only safe bet is what we say. We don’t want to see people victimized by being sent to crime scene cleaners only to be ferreted out and fired.
Similarly, it would appear that Los Angeles Superior Court also does not want you to go to the crime scene cleaners and be ferreted out and fired because their advice is to take it to the State Auditor.
Kudos to Los Angeles Superior Court for adopting this memorandum on reporting improper activity within their courts. Without saying a word it speaks volumes.
What is your courts policy on reporting improper activity? Are they sincere or do they want to send you to the crime scene cleaners so you can be ferreted out and fired?
Riverside guest
June 6, 2013
Riverside also received a Whistleblower policy this week, and it states to contact the state auditor’s office if an employee wants to report whistleblower-type information confidentially.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 6, 2013
That’s wonderful news! Hopefully this is a trend that is catching on for the sake of branch morale.
Alan Ernesto Phillips
June 6, 2013
Hear, HEAR!!
[Today is DAY 818…]
courtflea
June 6, 2013
Riverside getting the same memo is no suprise as the Riverside CEO Sheri Carter is the newly selected LA CEO.
unionman575
June 6, 2013
Yes indeed.
wearyant
June 6, 2013
GREAT news, JCW! That memo, I would say, to the LASC employees is unprecedented! Is the tide turning? Oh, gawd, I hope so.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2013
Published today, Thursday, June 6 (as it happens, the anniversary of D-Day), from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
AOC May Be Forced to Open Meetings
By Cheryl Miller
But AOC director Steven Jahr cautioned that a hastily drafted trailer bill won’t address cost and other issues the branch has with the proposal.
Full article requires subscription access: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202603250267&AOC_May_Be_Forced_to_Open_Meetings
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2013
Cheryl Miller had a busy day. Also published today, Thursday, June 6, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:
DOJ Says Judicial Council Skimps on Interpreters
By Cheryl Miller
Full article requires subscription access: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202603263001&DOJ_Says_Judicial_Council_Skimps_on_Interpreters
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
June 6, 2013
Not that this is news, but when it comes to “transparency” and “accountability” Jahr can talk, talk, talk, but when push comes to shove, he doesn’t “walk the walk.”
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 6, 2013
That’s a some really great work JCW. A true masterpiece. Thank you!
😉
unionman575
June 7, 2013
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/
Effective June 14, 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court will no longer provide court reporters for general jurisdiction civil matters, except in the writs departments in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Changes to New Case Filing Locations and the Alternate Dispute Resolution Program Begin in March.
The Los Angeles Superior Court Undertakes Major Reorganization. Click here for more information regarding the Court Consolidation Plan.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
June 7, 2013
To whatever degree we can assist these displaced court reporters who wish to stay in the profession, feel free to contact us.
unionman575
June 7, 2013
Thanks JCW.
unionman575
June 7, 2013
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/publicnotice_100millionreinvestment.pdf
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
June 7, 2013
Despite the protests against the AOC, the courts have a tendency to avoid criticism of the AOC and the Judicial Council because they have made certain funding a political tool to keep courts in line.
The money, as Judge Steve White pointed out is already in the system. It’s just in the wrong hands and while you might see ACJ judges pointing this out, we’ve yet to see a single court executive officer or official court position on these matters.
They want to avoid pissing off the judicial council and the AOC and possibly losing a courthouse or a network upgrade or any other number of services the AOC provides courts that play ball.
This lack of official positions on these issues has legislators, the media and the public perplexed who don’t understand the nuances of this flawed governance structure and the void of official positions.
Without the ACJ a huge pot of money would still be being redirected to CCMS. It took the 800LB gorilla named LASC and their hundreds of judges to call attention to the SEC report.
Without a similar calling out about the current reconstituted AOC and a severe lack of implementation of the SEC report while simultaneously permitting them to seek a hugely expensive compensation study to underscore their changes and justify their virtually unaltered structure and how they’re underpaid for such important statewide work is a maneuver worthy of a traditional hockey check. It will be trial court funds that will be justifying this travesty. It will be the trial courts who have demanded change that instead are presented with a new business card by the same mismanagers that got us into this mess.
So I guess you could say the courts are driving the getaway car to the AOC bank robbery but there is someone in the back seat with a gun to their head that is making them do it.
Something that is lost on most media, the public and legislators.
unionman575
June 7, 2013
“a maneuver worthy of a traditional hockey check”
😉
unionman575
June 7, 2013
“Hot Rod” San Diego SC, IT Bids
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1813801&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#DA0075-13
Say what?
😉
unionman575
June 7, 2013
And now a word from the San Joaquin Grand Jury…
“Staffing has been reduced in all areas of the law and justice system. These reductions have negatively affected the level of all public safety services provided to citizens in San Joaquin County.”
http://www.stocktoncourt.org/news/civil%20grand%20jury%20news%20release%200912%205%2022%2013.pdf
😉
sunlight
June 7, 2013
the Los Angeles County Court Reporters is maintaining a listing that on the public section of their website that lists laid-off, experienced Los Angeles County court reporters available to accept work.
You can find it at http://www.laccra.org in the upper right-hand section of the website.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 11, 2013
We’ve been in contact with laccra leadership. To the left side is a navigator pane labeled “court resources”. When laccra flushes their available court reporters, they will notify us and we’ll be providing a link under court resources.
unionman575
June 7, 2013
http://www.shastacourts.com/menu.php?page=home
2013-05-28
NOTICE: Due to staff shortages, the Petition-to-Establish Parentage and Civil Harassment classes will be cancelled in the Family Law Facilitator’s Office for the following dates: July 19, 2013; July 24, 2013; July 26, 2013; July 31, 2013; August 2, 2013; August 7, 2013; August 9, 2013; August 14, 2013; and August 16, 2013. We apologize for the inconvenience this causes you and look forward to starting the classes again on August 21, 2013.
courtflea
June 7, 2013
I’d sure like to see that trailer bill language that would require the AOC to have open meetings and who in the legislature inserted it. I’d like to shake his or her hand! And if there are costs and “other issues” associated with this bill, the AOC can frickin suck it up, Jahr head. If this bill passes it would indeed be a hockey check to the AOC Unionman.
R. Campomadera
June 7, 2013
From an article by Cheryl Miller, Daily Recorder, 6/6/13, entitled: “AOC May Be Forced to Open Meetings But AOC director Steven Jahr cautioned that a hastily drafted trailer bill won’t address cost and other issues the branch has with the proposal.”
“A lot of advisory groups meet only by phone,” Jahr said. “Then the question arises, OK, how do you access public presence and comment in cases where you are meeting telephonically?”
Ah, how about anyone who requests to appear and/or participate by a published deadline is added as a conference call participant (at their own cost)?
Is he really this clueless???? Rhetorical question….no response required.
And,
“Asked earlier this year about opening more meetings to the public, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she was open to the idea as long as it didn’t generate additional costs or “chill” discussion among participants.”
“There are cost issues and many considerations,” said Administrative Office of the Courts director Steven Jahr “It’s not something that can be done in the space of a hastily drawn up trailer bill.”
“Hastily drawn up trailer bill”? As in the hastily drawn up trailer bills that your agency has pushed recent years? For example, PJ’s and Court Executives to be appointed by the JC/AOC? Like, most recently, trying to get a cut of the $100 Million extra funding for trial courts??? Give me a break. What a freakin’ hypocrite.
courtflea
June 7, 2013
additional costs additional costs? how the frickin way? it is not like you have to supply the public with grey goose, elaborate meals or hotels. Telephonic attendance? sooooo……I have an idea! have CJER tape the meetings and broadcast live so there is no cost to anyone you dumbshits, put those 73 employees to work. Assholes.
As a nod to the news today: may you rot in hell Richard Ramirez aka the night stalker.
wearyant
June 7, 2013
Yes, courtflea, may Ramirez burn in hell.
wearyant
June 7, 2013
Well said, R. Campomadera, very well said.
unionman575
June 8, 2013
Forbes Thought Of The Day
“ More often than not, things and people are as they appear. ”
— Malcolm Forbes
😉
unionman575
June 10, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oc13-June_10.pdf
😉