Let’s be clear about one thing: We’re strong supporters of both living and prevailing wage laws. We’re even strong supporters of unions in their time and place. In their time and place being the qualifier. In many cases, the decline of union wages and benefits resulted not from an erosion of union wages but the steady increase of non-union wages and benefits in some labor sectors because employers wish to retain talented individuals. In many cases, many non-union companies actually pay more and offer better benefits than their union counterparts all in their own self-interests of remaining competitive and retaining the best talent.
The added bonus here is that non-union workers don’t have to pay union dues so if the wages and benefits are better and there are no dues to pay, where would you prefer to go to work?
San Diego county is staunchly conservative and deep in Republican territory. According to BLS estimates, only 10% of San Diego’s construction companies employ union workers. The other 90% of San Diego’s construction companies are non-union. Construction is one of those areas where wages have dropped across the board for both union and non-union workers due to mainly greater mechanical efficiencies. In the old days of construction if you were going to put up a large project, you just assumed 2 or 3 people would be killed during its construction and numerous others would be maimed and injured. It was part of doing the construction business. Then came workers comp insurance laws and transformed the landscape of what was acceptable as far as safety on the job. Suddenly employers found themselves paying for the privilege of unsafe work practices with higher workers comp premiums. During the years spanning from the second world war all the way up to the 1970’s, construction was booming. At their height unions represented more than 87% of construction workers. Today that figure has dropped to less than 15% as big ticket public construction and infrastructure projects dried up.
So we find it fascinating to learn that the AOC is trading public and court worker safety for a PLA, better known as a project labor agreement and that this is all happening without any vote of the judicial council.
You see, a project labor agreement all but omits non-union firms from bidding on PLA projects because non-union firms have to pay all benefits for their workers twice. They pay the regular benefits that they normally pay their workers and by law they’re required to pay prevailing (usually union) wages on these projects but they also must reimburse the local union as if the union were going to be paying those same benefits to their union workforce – and a project labor agreement makes it perfectly clear that they are not going to be supplying these workers benefits. In exchange for a project labor agreement on the San Diego courthouse which has thus far been an unprecedented move for the AOC on any court construction project, the AOC can rest assured that they will experience no labor unrest in the largest non-union city in the state of California. It might make sense in Sacramento. It might have made sense in Long Beach. It might have made sense in San Francisco all because all of these locations have dozens of union contractors.
But San Diego does not have dozens of union contractors, so not only does a PLA drive out non-union contractors, the few contractors that bid will get to name their price which we can assure you will be far greater than the 620 million being budgeted for the project. Was this a political deal to placate the building and construction trades council for the mass cancellation of other projects so that they could continue to win legislative support ? Why didn’t this come up between the muppets on the council for debate and a vote? Is this the AOC going rogue yet again? Lots of questions.
While the AOC characterizes that the agreement will only cost 6-9 million, contractors are up in arms and pointing out that this will cost the state 25-30 million more which coincidentally was the price tag for the tunnel going from the jail to the courthouse that would have ensured public and court worker safety.
It’s just another day of selling out your own court workforce for a temporary construction workforce that will be on the job for 2 years at most.
The factors that make this all so fascinating is an all republican leadership at the helm of the judicial branch entering into a PLA in a staunchly conservative city that has no love whatsoever for unions.
In a perfect world, this would not compute. But in the land of the AOC anything and everything is possible
Related articles
- Cato Institute White Paper: – Why PLA’s on public projects are no longer a good idea.
- San Diego Union-Tribune: Public Safety loses, labor wins at new courthouse
- Will Ohio ban government-mandated Project Labor Agreements? (watchdog.org)
- As Transparent As An Iron Curtain (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
courtflea
June 12, 2013
Same old crap decisions made have the JC rubber stamp after the fact. These people are idiots.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 12, 2013
Here’s the secretly recorded video from the AOC upper echelon discussing the issue raised by JCW…
sunlight
June 12, 2013
“It’s just another day of selling out your own court workforce for a temporary construction workforce that will be on the job for 2 years at most.”
The court workforce is being sold out all over the place. Court reporting services are one example. Outsourcing of official court reporting jobs to the freelance market has met virtually no resistance. What many court reporters are telling me is that attorneys are going without a record and are becoming advocates of electronic recording as an alternative to no record at all. Sounds like a backdoor deal in the making.
Richard Power
June 13, 2013
The future is in electronic recording because of both cost and accuracy considerations.
unionman575
June 13, 2013
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-court-cuts-20130613,0,5323283.story
unionman575
June 13, 2013
>>> Judge David S. Wesley 6/13/2013 11:31 AM >>>
We are formally announcing today the final phase of the Court’s Consolidation plan – the layoffs, demotions, and transfers of Court personnel.
Attached is the News Release to be sent to the media this afternoon that details actions the Court has undertaken to close our structural deficit and clarifies the fact that the pending budget will be insufficient to stop these actions.
I want to take the opportunity to thank you all for your hard work and cooperation through these difficult times. It is your efforts that keep this place going. David
Hon. David S. Wesley
Presiding Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
(213) 974-5562 Telephone
(213) 680-3751 Facsimile
dwesley@lasuperiorcourt.org
wearyant
June 13, 2013
http://community.onelegal.com/bid/99123/Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-Eliminating-511-Jobs-This-Week
More of “too little, too late” with the 63 mill. Meanwhile, they’re still comfy and cozy with their Grey Goose and caviar up in the Ivory Tower, oblivious to the pain felt below …
Thanks to the General for the “phony baloney” jobs reference! 🙂
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 13, 2013
You’re welcome ant. I find that Mel Brooks seems to understand the AOC mentality perfectly… there are so many clips from his movies that capture so many of the events that seem to unfold at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
unionman575
June 13, 2013
http://eldocourtweb.eldoradocourt.org//administration/pressdocs/ReducedTelephoneHours.pdf
unionman575
June 13, 2013
ATTENTION
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.
——————————————————————————–
Effective June 10, 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court is piloting a new real-time online Court Reservation System (CRS) in the three personal injury courtrooms at 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.
wearyant
June 13, 2013
Maria Dinzeo is continuing to cover California “leadership” debacles in an excellent manner. Thank you, Maria Dinzeo, for keeping all toiling, struggling and newly unemployed California citizens apprised. Thank God the $10 look ‘n’ see fee was put down!
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/12/58458.htm
unionman575
June 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013Last Update: 9:29 AM PT
California Legislature Kills $10 Fee for Search of Public Court Records
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A trailer bill that would have severely limited press and public access to court documents has died in the California Legislature, after widespread editorial condemnation from the state’s newspapers. The defeated proposal was put forward by the Administrative Office of the Courts and would have resulted in a charge of $10 per file to look at court records.
While court administrators pushed the fee as a way to raise revenue, freedom of information advocates said the proposal would in practice wall off the public record. The political and editorial fallout resulted in a self-inflicted wound for court bureaucrats, with legislators blasting the fee and those that proposed it.
“Most agreed that it would be horrible public policy,” said Jim Ewert, General Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, a group that lobbied fiercely against the proposal. The fee was part of a trailer bill, a form of legislation that trails in the wake of the budget.
During an early hearing on the trailer bill, Bob Blumenfield, chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, lectured the bureaucrats on their fiscal conduct.
‘While the state grappled with the budget crisis, court administrators have sometimes acted fiscally irresponsible even though fiscal responsibility was the mantra of the day,” said Blumenfield.
The search fee took a few twists and turns as it was caught up in the deal-making that comes with California’s budget.
Neither the Senate nor the Assembly had shown support for the search fee, Ewert pointed out, but very late in the process the Senate inserted a vague “press exemption” into the proposal. But no specific language defined the exemption, how it would be applied nor who was entitled to invoke the exemption.
A Senate budget subcommittee then approved the fee with a press exemption. While the fee failed in the Assembly’s budget committee.
On Monday evening, a joint budget conference committee representing both chambers voted to accept the Assembly version of the bill, which meant the fee proposal, after weeks of wrangling and criticism, was dead.
“That’s one of the great mysteries,” said Ewert of how the exemption came to be inserted into the trailer bill. “All I can speculate is that the Assembly wanted to protect every person’s ability to obtain this information very important information and not just the press,” said Ewert.
The defeat of the fee followed a statewide blast from newspaper editorial pages
The Monterey County Herald , among many, pointed out the importance of access to court files.
“A $10 fee would be devastating to newspapers and other news operations, especially relatively small ones such as The Herald. Newspapers this size review dozens of new court files each month in search of potential stories — many of them about important public business.”
The opposition came not only from newspapers but from groups that look up historical records, such as the Sonoma County Historical Society.
“I write to oppose the proposed $10 fee to search California court records,” wrote Jeremy Nichols, president of the historical society, in a letter to Senator Noreen Evans. “Our 500+ members cannot afford to pay $10 for every court record they see for their volunteer work or personal research.”
Open government advocates such as the Society of Professional Jounalists and Californians Aware also criticized the search fee. Cal Aware’s Terry Francke referred to it as “fee-jacking.”
In the Legislature, the fee landed in a minefield of criticism.
In his extraordinary lecture to court officials, budget committee chair Blumenfield referred to the court administrative office’s history of wasteful spending.
“We’ve seen a failed computer system with cost overruns of nearly $500 million wasted,” Blumenfield told the officials. “In the process, the courts took millions from trial courts which actually sacrificed access to justice to keep the failed computer project running.”
He also referred to another administrative office financial controversy that is in the making. “This year the court system will likely enter an agreement to spend $100 million more than we should to build a new courthouse in Long Beach.”
“For these reasons,” he concluded, “the courts have had a bumpy road in the Legislature.”
The fee idea also came as one in a series of policies and initiatives by the administrative office that have been criticized for shielding the office from transparency.
The administrative office has, for example, proposed rules that would delay access to court records until they have been officially accepted, a process that can take weeks and destroys the news interest in a new court filing.
The office has also denied information requests by an association of judges that says the administrative office is “transparent as the Iron Curtain.”
“Over the last year, efforts to obtain public records from the AOC have been routinely ignored, denied, delayed,” said the Alliance of California Judges. The administrative office’s reaction to requests for information, said the Alliance, “is an assault on the basic notion of open government that as Americans we expect of those who are funded by public dollars.”
Judges in the Alliance criticized the search fee as a “ham-handed” idea that was “apparently created in non-public meetings by unidentified AOC staff and others.”
Legislators evidently heard those complaints.
As part of the budget, they are telling the Judicial Council to conduct all of its business in open, public meetings. The push to open up those meetings applies directly to the way the search fee was generated, through a series of council committees closed to the public.
Specifically, the legislation includes a provision saying that no later than October 1st, the Judicial Council “shall adopt a rule regarding open meeting requirements.” The rule applies to “any committee, subcomittee, advisory group, task force or similar multi-member body that reviews issues and reports to the Judicial Council.”
It also requires telephonic access to anyone who requests it and requires public notice.
Ewert with the newspaper association said the death of the search fee is a good sign for press access, in a bleak time when the national administration is pursuing the records of journalists.
“I think it bodes well for press access,” said Ewert. “Especially in light of recent events with respect to the Associated Press and the federal Department of Justice going after phone records. It’s renewed a focus on the trust the public has in the press to provide accurate and truthful information about government activities. Now with this decision the press will be able to do that with respect to the courts.”
unionman575
June 14, 2013
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/14/58505.htm
Friday, June 14, 2013Last Update: 8:26 AM PT
L.A. Superior Court Fires 177, Demotes 139
By MATT REYNOLDS
LOS ANGELES (CN) – Los Angeles Superior Court will lay off 177 employees today as the largest trial court in the nation deals with a $84 million budget shortfall.
Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature this week worked out a deal for a balanced budget. But the cuts to court jobs and services show the aftershocks of 2008 financial crisis still reverberate through the courts – and that California still has some ways to go.
The judicial branch will hand court employees their walking papers today. But Superior Court spokeswoman Mary Hearn told Courthouse News on Thursday that workers already had started clearing their desks.
The L.A. courts will cut 511 jobs from the budget. One in seven employees – a total of 539 – will be affected by the $56 million in cuts.
In addition to the 177 layoffs, 139 people will be demoted and their pay will be cut, and 223 employees will be reassigned to new jobs on Monday.
The Legislature this week approved $60 million in new funding for state trial courts, $20 million of it for L.A. Superior Court.
Presiding Judge David Wesley said that was “too little, too late,” though he hopes the extra money will stem the bleeding.
L.A. Superior Courts have 4,400 employees, 540 of whom are judges. Its structural budget deficit is $195 million.
The court has cut budgeted staff positions by 30 percent since 2002 -1,398 jobs have been eliminated since 2008. Two rounds of layoffs, in 2010 and 2012, helped the L.A. courts cut annual spending by $100 million.
Eight L.A.-area courthouses will close: those in Pomona North, Whittier, Huntington Park, Beacon Street, San Pedro, Kenyon Juvenile, West Los Angeles and Malibu.
Most court work will be removed from Beverly Hills and Catalina courthouses. Personal injury, collections, small claims, probate, unlawful detainer and traffic cases will be folded into fewer courts.
Also on the chopping block are part-time court reporters in civil courts, and full-time juvenile court referees. Juvenile dependency mediation services will shrink, and the court’s alternative dispute resolution unit will be scrubbed altogether.
“We have reached the new normal,” Judge Wesley said. “And there is nothing to like about it.”
Assistant Presiding Judge Carolyn Kuhl noted a “particular irony” in the fact that employees who helped restructure the court will suffer from the cuts.
“They and all our employees have done the impossible: moving hundreds of thousands of case files, and dismantling and rebuilding large parts of our court,” Kuhl said. “I admire their commitment to serving the public. It has not wavered.”
Los Angeles County Bar Association did not immediately respond to request for comment after business hours Thursday.
unionman575
June 14, 2013
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/court061413.htm
MaxRebo5
June 14, 2013
Another nice link unionman. The line that caught my eye by Judge Wesley was this one:
He aimed his sights at Sacramento.
“When the Municipal and Superior Courts unified, our vision was to be the largest neighborhood court and to maintain a presence in many communities throughout LA County,” Wesley said. “This is not the neighborhood court we worked so hard to build. It is not our vision for access to justice. But this is the Court that the state is willing and able to support. We will be using our collective energy as a court to provide access to justice in every case type within the limits of the resources we have been provided.”
All of his sights were aimed at Sacramento indeed and none at 455 Golden Gate. That’s a mistake in my opinion. It may have been Judge Wesley’s, the LA Bench’s, and all local trial courts vision to have access to justice through excellent neighborhood courts but that was not possible along with 2 billion for CCMS, 5 billion on new courthouses, and an expanded AOC with over over 1,000 employees. The money was never there for all of those visions to become a reality.
I believe the vision Judge Wesley is so unhappy with is Ron George’s vision (not anyone in Sacramento). George and Vickrey sold everyone in the branch on CCMS, new courthouses, and ever expanding budgets but that was never sustainable. That vision (which even the SEC Report authors were impressed by) was built on a failed premise of an always expanding economy which was completely out of touch with the reality of our boom and bust cycles. The SEC Report called Vickrey a visionary but I say it was sort of like listening to the old man in Jurrasic Park who “spares no expense” on his vision but can’t cover all of the possible bases for things that could go wrong and inevitably it went terribly wrong.
The new normal Judge Wesley is adapting to (along with all the trial courts) is Ron George’s vision coming to pass after it has been checked by fiscal reality from the other branches. CCMS was ended due to mismanagement so there is no statewide computer system. The Courthouse construction money is being raided to pay for the LB scandal so even the money appropriated in bonds has been used poorly. The AOC remains at 1,000 employees providing little “access to justice” by actually processing cases to help the publicbut the Chief won’t cut there .
So what had to give? Exactly what we are seeing. The trial court employees are laid off and the local courthouses they supported are closed to save money. I for one am not a fan of that vision and do not blame Sacramento for the problem. I blame the Judicial Council for agreeing to such a terrible plan of vast expansion for 15 years and doing so in a very arrogant way. Lastly, blaming the JC is really blaming the Chief as the Chief alone picks all the members and they vote in lock step with the Chief. That’s my critique of Judge Wesley’s stated frustration with the Governor and Legislature. He is right to be mad but just has his frustration misdirected. He should really be mad at the Chief Justice for overpromising the branch and growing the branch at the top instead of at the local level.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2013
Exactly right, MaxRebo5.
And it is no accident that the Chief Justice, both the current and her predecessor, have “grown the branch at the top instead of at the local level.” Zero “local control” at the trial court level, or as close as they can get to it, was, and is, the policy goal of branch administration at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and especially in the Office of the Chief Justice.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 15, 2013
“I blame the Judicial Council for agreeing to such a terrible plan of vast expansion for 15 years and doing so in a very arrogant way.”
Agreed.
The (checkbook) pen is mightier than the judicial council sword. They will see as the branch $ continue to dry up year after year. They fuck around and waste BILLIONS. This truly is FUBAR for all Californians.
The AOC needs to be shutdown.
I mean 100% shutdown. Go from a thousand to ZERO on the AOC payroll.
😉
wearyant
June 15, 2013
Agree with you, Unionman575. In a perfect world the AOC would be shut down. Get rid of all of them and let’s see if they are truly missed!
unionman575
June 15, 2013
Let’s strive for a perfect world now.
😉
Richard Power
June 16, 2013
Mismanagement was not the principal cause of CCMS’ failure. The basic cause was technical impossibility of the design. The project had to fail because the technology to implement the design does not exist. And yet, creating an effective case management system is simple and can be done quickly. Those at the top of the court system were given bad advice from supposed IT experts. They accepted that advice because they didn’t know any better. The final design had four and possibly five technical impossibilities. People with actual successful experience at writing modern data management software were able to spot most of the impossibilities. I spotted all of them. That was easy for me to do. The project had to fail. Some of the technology required for their design may not exist for another 20 to 30 years.
Now we enter a new age where the Legislature has cut funding for the court system in general and decisions must be made whether to continue with poor business practices plans or to allow those with knowledge and experience in various areas to provide assistance to the court system. My prediction is that present practices will continue until there are multiple disasters. Then, and only then, will simple fixes be put into place to put local superior court operating budgets into the black. This could be done almost overnight but the decisions to do it? Those will only come years from now after a major portion of the court system has been destroyed.
wearyant
June 14, 2013
“He aimed his sights at Sacramento.” This is attributed to Judge Wesley. But I wonder if the author got it wrong, as I believe happened also in the following from the Capitol:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/06/proposed-court-records-fees-do-not-make-it-into-budget.html
In the sacbee blogs, Jerry Moonbeam Brown is blamed for the $10 fee proposed. We all know the incompetent bozos at the AOC put that boondoggle forward in a quest for more money at their disposal. “Disposal,” literally. Jerry’s innocent this time. He also was blamed for allowing the numbers at the AOC to increase. Now I’m wondering where that came from. Jahr head took quick advantage when he added 30-plus in January. The burgeoning numbers at the AOC really hacks me off!
Anyway, thanks, MaxRebo5 and Wendy D, for your always valuable contributions.
Wendy Darling
June 14, 2013
Published today, Friday, June 14, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Budget Puts $63M Back Into California Courts
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – Both houses of the California Legislature passed a $96 billion budget package Friday that restores $63 million to the judiciary.
“Today we vote on a budget that marks a new beginning for California, built on the core principles on the Assembly blueprint for a responsible budget,” Assembly Budget Committee chair Bob Blumenfield said in an opening address. “The budget also ensures the delivery of effective, efficient services for Californians. It restores some funding for our courts to improve access to justice. By passing this budget today, we can solidify California’s recovery. Our actions today call for better days ahead. Critics of this budget have foolishly said that California is returning to fast and free-spending ways. That’s mythology. All of us think of items we wanted to include in this budget, and those items are not included in this budget. This budget is a compromise. We cannot provide for all the legitimate needs of this state. Every problem can’t be solved, but we are taking steps in the right direction.”
Blumenfield also pointed out that the budget maintains a $1 billion reserve, and that this is the first year in many that the state has seen a surplus.
In the slings and arrows leading up to Assembly vote, Republicans accused Democratic leadership of leaving them out of budget talks and counting on unstable Cap-and-Trade revenue.
“If last year’s budget was a big fat lie, this year’s budget is a white lie,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) said. “It is not an honest budget. We’ve opened up a new credit card, and it’s called Cap-and-Trade funding. It’s a slush fund of money we’ve confiscated from businesses. This is money we don’t know will be there because we don’t know if businesses will stay or not. But we’re spending it. It is an embarrassment that this is the best we can do.”
Cap-and-Trade is a state program tied to a global-warming law whereby private businesses must cut their air pollution or buy carbon allowances through a state-run auction.
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, shared a more optimistic view.
Holding up a water glass, Skinner said, “I look at this, and I see a glass that is more than half full.”
Before voicing opposition to the budget, Assemblywoman Connie Conway, R-Visalia, criticized the “drama” on the floor, adding that Republicans were not involved in major budget decisions.
“This place has so much drama it reminds me of a Telenovela,” she said. “Maybe the actors aren’t as pretty, but it’s a drama, nonetheless.”
Nevertheless, the Democrat supermajority all but guaranteed passage by mid-afternoon, 54-25.
The Senate vote was less contentious, sailing through the upper house with a 28-10 vote Friday morning.
Lawmakers from both parties spoke of the need to adequately fund the state’s court system, which has seen nearly $1 billion in cuts in the last five years.
“We really do need to focus as soon as we can to providing full funding for our courts,” Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad, said.
Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said, “Our courts are in a desperate state of disrepair, and we must remember that the judicial branch is a co-equal branch of government.”
“Our laws are meaningless if they can’t get enforced,” Jackson added. “Instead of being able to do that and protect our citizens … our courtrooms are closed, we’re losing access for people who seek justice, who need safety, people who are challenged in being able to stay in their homes. Our courts are in desperate shape and are not going to be accessible.”
The budget restores $60 million to the trial courts and $3 million to the courts of appeal. While both houses had voted for at least $100 million in restoration, they settled on $63 million in a joint conference earlier this week. Budget committee members from both sides seemed disappointed, but were resolute on the compromise.
“The way I’m looking at this is that this funding is not going to help us reopen any of the courthouses that have been closed,” Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said. “But with it, we’ll see no further closing or further lack of access to justice.”
Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, said “it is certainly better than nothing.”
“Anything always is,” Hancock continued. “But I do feel it is nowhere near enough. This $60 million is a small down payment. The budget bill language is pretty clear that we want this additional money to go to maintain or increase access to justice, which open courtrooms are definitely part of.”
Legislators will continue voting on a host of trailer bills tied to the budget, including AB 80, a judiciary-related bill that commands greater legislative oversight on a new courthouse in Long Beach, an issue in which the Senate’s Public Safety committee has taken an interest.
In a report on the courthouse, which was built through a public-private partnership, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that taxpayers had overpaid. The project is estimated to cost $2.3 billion over the life of a 35-year contract with private financiers.
Hancock called the project “a fiasco” at a hearing last month, and pushed for restrictions on future projects. The trailer bill before the Legislature requires the Judicial Council to submit an evaluation of the courthouse to the Legislature, the LAO and the Department of Finance by June 30, 2014, to address whether its building was cost-effective compared to traditional public-sector projects. It also requires a comparison of the cost assumptions from its inception to the actual costs incurred.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/14/58542.htm
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
June 14, 2013
Thanks for posting, Wendy D. And thanks to Maria Dinzeo for burning the daylight oil and covering the California budget at the Capitol. From the comments of some lawmakers it sounds as though not all of them are aware of the true culprits within the JC/AOC/CJ office responsible for the trial courts’ misery and the citizens being locked out of the courthouses, thus denied justice. Everyone who gives a damn should keep their legislative representatives apprised of the realities occurring daily within the Ivory Tower. The AOC must be gutted. Keep the actual line workers. Restore our courts by redirecting funds directly to the trial courts. Recall The Tani. And long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 15, 2013
“Everyone who gives a damn should keep their legislative representatives apprised of the realities occurring daily within the Ivory Tower. ”
Agreed.
I am sure all of us on here give them (Legislature) a piece of our mind. I know I do on a daily basis.
😉
Lando
June 16, 2013
There we have it. A minor restoration of funds to the Judicial branch. None of this will make any difference. The damage to the day to day workings of the trial courts will never be repaired until and unless the legislature acts to gut the AOC. Great insights by many above. HRH 1 and Vickrey had a so called vision to obtain control and then suppress dissent to maintain that control. HRH 2 has tried to continue with that same facade employing Jahr and J Hull . The result a total fiasco. This group has embarrassed themselves by wasting valuable taxpayer dollars on CCMS, Long Beach, and by their failure to adopt the SEC report. Most devastating is Hull’s actual suppression of dissent, which rates right up there with the recently disclosed actions of the IRS. In turn the legislature and the Governor see this arrogance and we know the result. If HRH 2, Hull and Jahr actually cared about the branch and the people it served they would do all a favor and resign. Since that won’t happen the legislature needs to get more proactive and launch some legislative oversight hearings.
unionman575
June 16, 2013
Most devastating is Hull’s actual suppression of dissent, which rates right up there with the recently disclosed actions of the IRS.
😉
Richard Power
June 16, 2013
The firing of so many workers at once was certainly most unfortunate but, if the matter had been handled well, the end game would have been about the same. Hiring should have stopped years ago and attrition through retirements, moving away, etc. allowed to take effect gradually. In a modern business setup, fewer workers are needed. Just like with automated auto assembly plants. With good computerization, virtually all the paper disappears and far fewer workers are needed. Most matters could be handled electronically instead of in person. Long lines at courthouses could shrink to insignificance. Paper handling and storage costs virtually disappear. Time currently spent with paper shrinks so efficiency goes up. None of this is complicated to achieve from a technical standpoint.
Been There
June 17, 2013
Fortunately,court services cannot be automated like an auto assembly plant. We aren’t producing widgets, we are working with people who are often unable to afford legal counsel. So yes, we process paper, enter data into our computers, but first we have to listen to people so we can assist them with a system and process that many find difficult and intimidating.
The OBT
June 16, 2013
I was fascinated by HRH-2’s appointments to her Judicial Council. The more things change the more they look the same. I don’t want to be critical of any fellow judges. The record of those she appointed and re- appointed can stand or fall on their own merits. The bottom line is why did anyone ever think one person, in this instance HRH-2 should be controlling an entire branch of government through these appointments to the Judicial Council. In the now almost three years HRH- 2 has made these selections, no effort on her part has been made to reach out to the Alliance and their over 500 members. What we are witnessing is a combination of incredible arrogance and lack of political awareness. These same limitations played themselves out when HRH-2 attacked the State Assembly after their passage of AB 1208. The sad bottom line is that HRH-2 is the wrong leader at the wrong time for a branch in crisis. She needs to resign. As Clint Eastwood said one needs to understand their limitations. HRH-2 needs to step back, and follow that great advice.
wearyant
June 16, 2013
The news keeps blatting about the $82,000 winning bid for a parking space in San Francisco. Yeah, it made the news because it is so outrageous. But isn’t it another fact supporting a move from the ritzy palace in the ivory tower there to a more conforming location for a government agency in Sacramento? Let’s keep the pressure on the fat cats in the JC/AOC/CJ Office. Don’t allow the SEC report to be buried. Recall The Tani. Keep the SEC report alive. Defund the AOC. Long live the ACJ!
courtflea
June 16, 2013
That parking spot was probably purchased for the AOC condo lol.
The OBT
June 17, 2013
I keep hearing rumors about the AOC condo and the huge amount the JC/AOC spent on hotels in the last two years. After the extreme waste of taxpayer dollars on CCMS, Long Beach, AOC retirement perks, AOC staffing bloat, and Hull’s resistance to turning over legitimate public inquiries about JC/AOC expenses nothing would shock me at this point.
Wendy darling
June 17, 2013
The condo is not a rumor, it’s true.
Long live the ACJ.
Been There
June 17, 2013
Wendy, do you know who the intended “tenant/tenants” are? Tani has her own condo South of Market, so I am wondering just who is so special as to justify this living space.
Wendy Darling
June 17, 2013
From the perspective of 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Been There, there doesn’t need to be any “justification” for this living space. Just like they didn’t need to justify having an OGC attorney living in Switzerland, or justify letting certain people get off scott-free with embezzling public funds. Or justify using unlicensed contractors. Or anything else.
After all, who is there to hold them accountable? The State Legislature?
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
June 17, 2013
I’d give you an address but these folks will not like it: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/oers.pdf
Been There
June 18, 2013
Wendy, I get the arrogance of 455 Golden Gate — I worked there!
Wendy Darling
June 18, 2013
It really is something you have to personally experience, isn’t it, Been There? Otherwise you just couldn’t believe that it’s all true.
Long live the ACJ.
Nathaniel Woodhull
June 17, 2013
Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money!!!
The OBT is on the right track. Increasing rumors have it that certain “executives” within the AOC and Tani and her security detail may well account for the huge spike in lodging costs during 2012.
Jahr(head) didn’t move from Redding..Jody Patel – spending a lot of time away from home…
Curt Soderland – not “commuting from Sacto…
1. Someone with access to the internal financials, (2) check this out; or someone please make a formal request under FOIA for the line-item costs from these accounts; (3) Member of the Legislature please make this specific request.
The AOC management, another fine example of better living through chemicals…
The OBT
June 18, 2013
Thanks Woodhull, your advice is always great. Wendy is also accurate and reliable about the workings of the AOC. It will therefore be interesting to see how the “insiders” explain themselves this time. Can someone in the legislature please intervene? I doubt AOC staff and Justice Hull would play the same games with a legislative Freedom of Information Act request. Follow the money indeed.
wearyant
June 18, 2013
At least Terry Francke is working tirelessly … but no cigar.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/18/58616.htm
The AOC scum will hide behind this, no doubt. But they wouldn’t have complied anyway with FOIA. They claim they’re protecting the judges. [belly laugh!] One small crumb of happiness. The judges are awake to the AOC’s lies. For years they were not.
Judicial Council Watcher
June 19, 2013
I don’t know if you saw it but apparently, video arraignment is supposed to take the place of the missing tunnel as per an MOU between the county and the AOC. Apparently, they were getting a little too much heat on this issue so they chose this method to address the heat.
wearyant
June 19, 2013
The AOC picks and chooses what glorified crap they disseminate. Keep the heat on, folks! In every quarter (of their royal behinds!)