Dear California Media,
Last week Alliance directors were in Sacramento for a number of days speaking on budget matters.
The legislature was poised to include $100 million of additional general fund money for the judiciary in the upcoming budget, all to go to the trial courts. The Senate proposed that $6 million of that money go to the Courts of Appeal after lobbying efforts by members of the Judicial Council. In conference committee, the legislature agreed to add $6 million to the $100 million so that the trial courts will have the $100 million intended, with $6 million additional for the Courts of Appeal. Bear in mind that the Governor’s office and the Department of Finance continue to state that NO new funding will be approved. For this reason, while we are hopeful, there is significant doubt as to whether the $100 million will reach the final budget or survive the Governor’s opposition.
Any legislative authorization for these funds will come with conditions. For example, the legislature is poised to require the Council and AOC to open their committee and task force meetings to the public. This is something the Alliance has fought for since its inception. AOC Director Jahr objected to the proposal arguing that it would increase costs and that it should be done by Rule of Court, rather than a budget bill. The Alliance believes that legislation is overdue to require more openness and transparency by the AOC and Judicial Council. Secrecy cannot endure if we hope to restore judicial branch credibility, particularly when we are asking for more funding. An article by Cheryl Miller of The Recorder follows which reports on these developments.
The Legislative and Executive Branches hold the AOC and Council in very low esteem based upon the understandable perception that they have been poor stewards of public money. The judiciary is being spoken of in terms usually reserved for lawbreakers–branch leadership is said to be on “probation” for their spending excesses and other abuses.
The message the Alliance brought to the legislature was that action is needed beyond the $100 million being proposed. That amount is not sufficient to substantially reverse the steps trial courts have taken to reduce services. For that reason, we asked that the legislature and Governor’s office provide authority for the redirection of up to $150 million of funds already included within the Governor’s proposed judiciary budget.
You may recall that the Chief Justice noted after the May budget revise that “trailer bill” language was being worked on that would authorize the trial courts to “borrow” up to $150 million from existing resources. As stated by Alliance President, Judge Steve White, “If there is $150 million available to borrow, then there is $150 million to redirect.” The trial courts should not have to borrow money that would have been delivered to them in the first place if not for the fiscal mismanagement of the AOC.
The Judicial Council and AOC budget is roughly $150 million. The Facilities Program has a $263 million budget, and the State Court Facilities Construction Fund is projected to have a $128 million “contingency” reserve. The full details of these expenditures have not been released to the legislature, the Department of Finance, the courts, or the public. We are not suggesting that all of these funds are available. Many essential functions (such as courthouse maintenance) are included within these funds. Our belief is that nothing is more important than keeping courthouses open, and that ALL funds must be carefully scrutinized. Is it truly necessary to have an AOC staff of 73 people, many of them lawyers, to administer the judicial education program? Why are there 157 people (including 54 contractors) in the AOC’s IT division AFTER the termination of CCMS? Are 86 people necessary for the Trial Court Services Division?
As to every single dollar spent by the AOC and Council, the following question must be asked: Is this expenditure substantially more important than directing those dollars to keep a trial court open? To answer that question, EVERY dollar spent by the AOC must be on the table, and the AOC must publicly and transparently reveal how existing funds in its hands are being spent.
Very truly yours,
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
______________________________________________________________________
The Recorder
AOC May Be Forced to Open Meetings
Cheryl Miller
2013-06-06 04:49:02 PM
SACRAMENTO — State judicial leaders are balking at a legislative proposal that would force the branch to open its many committee, task force and working group meetings to the public.
Assembly lawmakers have endorsed a budget policy statement that would end the judiciary’s decades-long practice of convening most policymaking and rulemaking committees behind closed doors — usually without publicly noticing the meetings first or posting their actions later.
Fredericka McGee, general counsel to Assembly Speaker John Perez, said the proposal is part of the speaker’s budget “blueprint,” which offers more budget money — $100 million — to the judicial branch with certain “accountability” provisions attached.
Judicial leaders are resisting any legislative mandate, arguing that the chief justice and Judicial Council should be allowed to develop their own Rules of Court for open meetings.
“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.”
The open-door proposal, McGee said, stems from the actions of a judicial working group that created a new funding allocation formula for trial courts in work done almost entirely in private meetings. The formula was only made public days before the Judicial Council approved it in April.
“It’s not to say that the methodology is flawed,” she said. “But I kept getting complaints from people that they wished they could have been part of the process and known what was going on.”
The proposal has not been translated into actual budget language yet. And it’s not clear if it has the support of Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who has been much more willing to give the judicial branch additional money without the strings sought by the Assembly.
“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?”
Jahr also raised the specter of additional costs associated with opening meetings to the public, although he could not say what would generate those costs or how high they might go.
The judicial branch relies on dozens of subcommittees, working groups and task forces to hash out policies and recommendations on everything from the death penalty appeals process to construction priorities. By the time a proposal reaches the Judicial Council, any contentious issues have usually been settled in private meetings.
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.
A budget conference committee may consider the Assembly’s judicial open-meeting proposal on Friday. |
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 11, 2013
For those of us who were around during “Governor Moonbeam’s” terms in office, none of this should come as a surprise. First, Governor Brown is no friend of the Courts, never has been. Add to this the fact that you’ve got a bad re-mix of the Three Stooges in charge of the Judicial Branch and the treatment we are receiving is even more understandable.
I don’t understand why people are not taking up the banner to democratize the Council and get rid of some of the genetic inbreeding that’s been going on since 1996 at 455 GGA?
unionman575
June 11, 2013
More fine work JCW and ACJ.
😉
courtflea
June 11, 2013
well I guess $65 mil is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but I am reserving judgment about this money until it is actually allocated to the trial courts i.e. not taken by the AOC for their use. I am pleased that the ACJ is pushing for the open meeting trailer bill and that more funds be allocated to the courts from the AOC’s budget. Keep on em guys!!! Sounds like you are making head way. long live the ACJ!
Wendy Darling
June 11, 2013
Quote of the day: “The judiciary is being spoken of in terms usually reserved for lawbreakers–branch leadership is said to be on “probation” for their spending excesses and other abuses.”
Well, maybe that’s because judicial branch “leadership” are lawbreakers . . .
And putting them on “probation” while handing them tens of millions of dollars is like putting Lindsay Lohan on “probation” while at the same time handing her a cocktail with one hand, the keys to a Porsche with the other, and telling her to behave herself.
Good luck with that.
Long live the ACJ.
disgusted
June 11, 2013
You nailed that one, Wendy Darling!
Judicial Council Watcher
June 11, 2013
An unconfirmed report via the private message window is reporting that 60 million is being directed to the trial courts and 3 million is being directed elsewhere which would cover a recent budget change proposal for the AOC to hire 29 more people. Unsure if it is to fund the BCP or to fund the appellate and supreme courts.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 11, 2013
A subsequent unconfirmed report in the private message window indicates the 3 mill went to the supreme and appellate courts and the HCRC.
Wendy Darling
June 11, 2013
Published today, Tuesday, June 11, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Chief Appoints Three New Council Members
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The makeup of California’s Judicial Council will look slightly different this fall with the selection of three new voting members, one of whom has held council membership in the past two years.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye appointed to the council Judge David Rubin of San Diego, Judge Dean Stout of Inyo County and Charlene Ynson, clerk of the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The new members will serve three-year terms starting on September 15.
Stout has been an Inyo County Superior Court judge since 1997, where he was also the presiding judge. He distinguished himself as “Juvenile Court Judge of the Year” in 2006, an honor given by the Juvenile Court Judges Association, and has also served on the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Family and Juvenile Law.
In August 2012 Stout sent the council a letter in his capacity as presiding judge urging the chief and council members not to “throw out the baby with the bath water” with respect to downsizing the bureaucratic Administrative Office of the Courts.
His letter was in response to a heralded report by the Strategic Evaluation Committee, a group of judges whose evaluation of the agency led to recommendations for drastic reform. Stout said of the report, “I am encouraged by the notion that this report brings greater transparency to the Judicial Council to help them serve and assist the trial courts rather than dictate what will be done.”
Stout also said he supports the move toward a democratically elected council, rather than one where its members are chosen by the chief justice.
Judge David Rubin joined the San Diego court in 2006. He was elected president of the California Judges Association for 2011-12 and also sat on the Judicial Council that year as a non-voting CJA representative.
During his one-year stint on the council, Rubin was a strong voice for increased funding of the trial courts and the preservation of court reserves. He also stood with the CJA in supporting the termination of the Court Case Management System, a costly statewide court computer project that ended last year after a council vote.
The chief also reappointed two current members to the council for three-year terms. Judge Kenneth So of San Diego joined the council as a voting member in 2009 and is currently a non-voting member. He was reappointed to a non-voting position.
Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara was appointed to a voting position by former Chief Justice Ronald George in 2010, but will become an advisory member in September.
In a statement, Cantil-Sakauye said of the appointments, “We’re at a critical juncture in the judicial branch. We are struggling to reverse huge budget cuts to the branch at the same time we are building on the initiatives we’ve introduced in the last three years. We still have a lot of work to do, and I’m thankful-and proud- that these judges and court administrators are willing to take on the considerable effort involved in providing access to justice.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/11/58418.htm
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 11, 2013
I’m SO IMPRESSED by jahr head’s concern about costs in relation to opening the secret subcommittee and task force meetings! Yeah, the guy who is “on probation” before the legislature who hires employees to the AOC 30-at-a-time — has jahr head even glanced at the SEC reports that recommends the bloated, burgeoning amount of AOCers be reduced? Can he even supply a number of the employees and contractors within the AOC? Yeah, he’s real impressive. The only guy in the nation who could be found to run this joke of an agency.
R. Campomadera
June 11, 2013
Reading between the lines, I think what Jahr is trying to say is that allowing public participation and comment would take up too much time (time equaling money). If the JC/AOC were to allow public participation, it would actually have to debate things from more than one perspective and that would take time ($$$). In other words democracy is messy and inefficient and we can’t have that.
It is apparent that he is just parroting the Chief Justice (“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.”), and that neither he, nor she, has any real interest in listening to other opinions.
courtflea
June 11, 2013
another bunch of kool-aide drinkers for the JC. yada yada yada. Democratize the E&P! Open meetings for the AOC!
MaxRebo5
June 11, 2013
I hope the Governor does not approve another dime until Team George is fired, the JC is democratized, and the Chief recognizes the HUGE mismanagement of state funds by the “leaders” of CA Courts under the former and current Chief.
I think there should be a major revolt by judges and court execs within the branch for these scandals and failures to implement the SEC Report. Cut the AOC if more money is needed. Taxes were raised to pay for schools not to bail out CA Courts for failures the Chief won’t admit any responsibility for. Show some humilty Chief and shame for your role in CCMS, the expansion of the AOC, and the vast construction projects over funding existing staff and courts. Fire Team George, rename the AOC conference center, and then maybe then you deserve a dime more. Till then I hope Jerry Brown holds the line on all CA Court funding. Screw your enemies who are defiant. That’s real world politics. There are plenty of other worthy groups who he can fund. I love CA Courts but want the top of the AOC to be wiped out because until they are the folks at the bottom won’t receive the full funding and will always be shaken down or held hostage. Fight on to end vast AOC and the failed “leaders” who did this to CA Courts. Some want jail. I just want them gone!
Judicial Council Watcher
June 12, 2013
From the realm of the private message window: Public meetings a rule of court? We all can plainly see what a clusterfuck that will turn out to be much like the rule of court that permits them to redact language out of public contracts, like Deloitte, or the rule that shunts information requests to Justice Hull. Apparently, our legislators still have faith in this bunch of crooks.
From: Jahr, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:31 AM
Subject: Judicial Branch Budget Update
Colleagues:
With the decision by the joint Conference Committee to adopt the Governor’s lower revenue projections for 2013–2014 ($3.2 billion less than the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it adopted just last week), the committee then took action yesterday to reduce a series of planned augmentations previously approved for both the executive branch and the judicial branch by the Senate and Assembly budget committees. This report is based on the best information we have to date but, as always with the budget, we need to see the actual language. The budget is always subject to change until the Governor actually signs the budget bill and the respective trailer bills.
For the judicial branch, the proposed $100 million augmentation for courts was reduced to $63 million—$60 million for trial courts, to be allocated pursuant to the new workload-based funding formula, and $3 million for the appellate courts and Habeas Corpus Resource Center. Ongoing discussions with the executive branch had signaled no additional funding beyond the Governor’s January budget proposal, therefore, while not the level of reinvestment the branch needs and has sought, it does represent progress from where we were in January and May Revise and recognition by our sister branches of the need to take steps to address the severe impact of cumulative years of budget cuts on access to justice.
Budget bill language attached to the augmentation would require courts to present a local plan for the new funding to “increase or maintain access to justice” by September 1, 2013, with a report back to the Legislature next spring in time for budget deliberations. This accountability language was in lieu of line item expenditure restrictions sought in some circles. We encouraged a “report and account” model which enables each court to approach access challenges based on its individual circumstance.
With respect to retention levels for trial court fund balances, the proposed cap increase to 12 percent was changed to instead retain the one percent reserve limit proposed by the Department of Finance, excluding statutorily restricted amounts and enabling internal borrowing. The fund balance decision is the most disappointing. We have vehemently opposed this cap at every step. Not only are the cash flow remedies offered only of use for two years, at most, but the trial courts will be hobbled in implementing any business planning. The Legislature is completely aware of the problems in this area and we will begin work without delay to again address the issue.
Other than announcing the $63 million, no additional detail was formally provided at last night’s Conference Committee hearing, however, in talking with budget staff, we know that the following decisions also will be brought forward:
• Judicial Branch Contract Audits: Rejected the $325,000 appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund; budget bill language to limit costs; trailer bill language to change the frequency of audits.
• Efficiencies: Adopted the Assembly version (the Senate originally approved eight proposals, while the Assembly approved only four).
• Civil Interpreter Pilot Program: Rejected the $6 million previously approved for the pilot.
• Open Meetings: Budget bill language to require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court by October 1, 2013, that applies to all Judicial Council committees, subcommittees, work groups, and all multi-member groups, include telephonic access to anyone who requests it, and public posting/notice of agendas.
• Long Beach Report: Requires Judicial Council to compare Long Beach against a minimum of three courthouse construction projects and report to the Legislature by June 30, 2014.
We expect to see specific budget language on these changes today, in anticipation of a Friday floor vote in time for Saturday’s Constitutional deadline to send a budget to the Governor.
As we continue the process to restore the branch to health, I recognize that progress is slower than we wish. However, with strong advocacy from within the branch and broad based support from stakeholders, this year, counter-productive dialog was replaced by consistent messages from the courts, their stakeholders, and the public, all seeking restoration of access. We have a Legislature and Executive Branch that is willing to listen as the state’s revenues improve and have built a sound foundation for moving forward.
In a statement to the media on action taken by the Conference Committee, the Chief Justice said, “We are encouraged that the Governor and Legislature recognize how years of budget cutbacks have adversely affected the third branch of government and the public it serves. The proposed budget is an initial step forward in restoring the cuts absorbed by the branch. We hope that as the state’s economy improves, the branch’s budget will improve so that we can rebuild the kind of access to justice the public deserves. After the budget is adopted, the Judicial Council and the newly created Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee will begin to work on the allocation of funds to the trial and appellate courts.”
We will keep you apprised as information becomes available.
Steve Jahr
unionman575
June 12, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-ln-court-reductions-20130611,0,5724761.story
MaxRebo5
June 12, 2013
Great link Unionman. More trial court layoffs while nearly 1,000 work at the AOC. This makes no sense to me and Judge Weasley decries the cuts to the branch but stops short of being critical of the branch’s use of the funding it already has and how it is used. That’s the conversation I look forward to. The AOC is indefensible compared to trial court operations. So are huge new courthouse construction projects when existing courthouses are closed. The funding for those courthouses was never framed as a choice between do you want to fund 5 billion in new courthouses for a few counties to get new courthouses or would you rather fund the repair and maintenance of existing courthouses and their staff. As a result, we have money for one but not the other and court employees are getting treated like ants on a rail at Yosemite. Not worth a moments notice. Still wondering about those rehire lists for laid off court employees. Don’t think the branch has them. Heads do need to roll and it is not the staff it’s the leaders at the top. I don’t blame the other branches. This is an internal problem caused by the priorities of Ron George and his leadership team who stifled all dissent and to this day the JC is hand picked by the Chief sitting in the Bill Vickrey conference center which Tani renamed in his honor after the legislature demanded his resignation. This problem of funding is a symptom. The illness is the other branches are pissed at the leaders of CA Courts. They want to see movement and reforms from within but they see the Chief has blown off the SEC Report. Pay back is a bitch. Sorry to my fellow ants who are being hurt. I’ve already been laid off so I’ve walked that road and wish you all luck finding new jobs in this recession.
courtflea
June 12, 2013
Hopefully the Rule of Court thing is just wishfull thinking on Jahr head’s part. One thing that has to be in the language is these AOC meetings are subject to something like the Brown Act. In other words the only time meetings are allowed is when they are open to the public. No sneeky back door meetings. But that will probably happen when pigs fly….