AT LENGTH – (… as through this world I’ve wandered I’ve seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. –Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd by Woody Guthrie)
Added by JCW – (.…A man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun – Gimme What You Got by Don Henley)
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to send down split decisions on our civil rights. On the one hand, it overturned a portion of the 1960s Voting Rights Act, while on the other, they struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, commonly referred to as DOMA (For details, read Senior Editor Paul Rosenberg’s Fear of a Black (& Brown & Yellow) Electorate).
Yet, closer to home, the Los Angeles Superior Court, by administrative action not challenged by any constituency or attorney bringing a civil rights lawsuit, has closed access to thousands–if not millions of citizens– to their local courthouses. The San Pedro Courthouse stands as a prime example of this miscarriage of justice.
The last official act presided over by Judge Peter Mirich at this court was on June 12 to marry a couple. Then the doors were closed and Mirich transferred to the Long Beach court. He once served as the sole judge on Catalina Island at the Avalon Courthouse, as well as, one of the longest serving judges in San Pedro. Both are now closed for business.
But just what business did these courts conduct? In April of this year, this newspaper filed a public records request with the Los Angeles Superior Court and found that the total monies collected from fees and fines at both the Avalon and San Pedro courts amounted to over $4.5 million per year. In fact, in fiscal year 2010-11 the total collected was a whopping $4,885,772. It would seem that of this gross amount, someone might figure out how to keep the courthouse doors open. But no, this is not the reality.
The reason why the court can’t afford to keep doing business is that out of all these revenues collected, the State of California takes 54 percent, the county takes 37 percent and the cities receive 6 percent. And the court? In 2010-11, the court received a paltry one percent, or $48,857.52. This probably wouldn’t even pay the salary of one bailiff.
Now, I’d say that we have some great legal minds in this state–probably some of the best. But arguably we have some of the worst lawyers, if you ask yourself how such great legal minds failed to do the simple math and allow the state and county governments to take 87 percent of the revenues and not give them back enough to keep the halls of justice open to the public? Even a simple merchant on Sixth Street wouldn’t do business like that! I’m confident that this court and most others could survive if they were allocated even 50 percent of the fees they collect.
My conservative readers frequently use the refrain that, “government should be run like a business.” On general principles, I often object to this line because government’s role is not to make a profit but to provide a benefit. However, both liberals and conservatives should be outraged at these court closures, as it is both bad governance and bad business. What we have here essentially, is the theft of more than $4.5 million annually from our local courthouse revenues with no justification other than the great sucking noise of the state budget deficit and the lack of accountability of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
It is well past time that Gov. Jerry Brown and the legislature call for an audit of the California Superior Courts and the AOC, as well as the curious deal to spend $50 million a year on the Crystal Palace of Injustice named after former Gov. George Deukmejian in Long Beach. And call for the immediate refund of the court system and reopen closed courtrooms across the state– like San Pedro and Avalon. I would also ask the legislature to come up with a formula whereby the local jurisdiction retains sufficient amount of the revenues that it generates to maintain the public’s rights to local justice.
If such a “theft” of public monies was done at gunpoint, there would be some serious jail time attached to this crime. But seeing as how it was executed with the stroke of a pen and a vote of the legislature, this theft only receives a shrug of the shoulders. I am personally and profoundly amazed by the indifference shown by the business community, most of the Council District 15 neighborhood councils and the legal profession who have all acquiesced to this abridgment of the public’s right to fair and equal access to the law. Not to mention the loss of 50 well paid jobs and requisite traffic to the court that generates business in the area.
This, just as the boosters of downtown San Pedro proclaim the renaissance of the district! Where is our city attorney on this matter? Where’s the objections of the local Democratic Clubs? Where’s the PBID’s or the San Pedro Chamber of commerce’s letters of objection? And where is your outrage?
There may not be a lot you can do about the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court just now, but this is your courthouse. Let Sacramento know what it means to you! Call or write them today, or just forward them this editorial, but don’t be complacent.
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841 Fax: (916) 558-3160 or by email http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
State Senator Ted Lieu–
State Capital, Room 4061,
Sacramento, CA 95814
or by email Senator.lieu@senate.ca.gov
(James Preston Allen is the Publisher of Random Lengths News. More of Allen and other views and news at randomlengthsnews.com where this article was first posted)
Barbara Van Vliet
July 3, 2013
Want to save some money??? Quit allowing court appointed attorneys continuances. They are only milking the system as much as they can. Don’t give me that “I found some new evidence my client needs so I need a continuance” bullsh–. That is an outright lie. At $150.00 to probably over a thousand dollars an hour, that adds up fast. You want to be court appointed at lot??? Do your job fast so you are ready for the next client. Judges are way too lenient about continuances. And that includes death penalty cases which are losers anyway to the taxpayer. How in the hell did all of the California judges lose control of the court system anyway. Oh yeh, the so called court reform vote that was suppose to save the taxpayers a ton of money. Those of us who worked the court system, yes us clerks, reporters and legal clerks, knew it was a loser. Every muni court judge got a huge pay raise, every muni court clerk got a huge pay raise, both without taking a test or being interviewed by the governor to see if they were adept at doing the job as superior court judges. We were so right.
Michael Paul
July 3, 2013
That’s an interesting observation. Here’s another one. The public defender is court appointed counsel that might be juggling over a thousand cases at any one time and never had the opportunity to even interview their client until some time after the third trip to the bench.
Should a defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty, be penalized because the PD is juggling a thousand cases? It might speed things up on the docket to take continuances off the docket via an out of the courtroom process, like a phone call to the clerks office of the judge holding the case.The desire for a continuance is typically known well in advance of a hearing and it would save everyone time and money to keep them off the docket,
Things like this might serve to be time savers and ultimately court savers as people in the courts are forced to do more with less.
Barbara Van Vliet
July 3, 2013
2 things, I know about the Public Defender’s Office and their workload. I was referring (and should have said so) about all the other cases, not only criminal, but juvenile and probate, where private counsel is appointed. The other thing, there has to be an appearance by the defendant to waive time in court, all on the record. But I’m glad you did not comment on my other stuff. So you agree as well as all of the clerks I worked with.
unionman575
July 3, 2013
Richard Power
July 3, 2013
Interesting commentary, Barbara. I recall the old system worked pretty well, back as far as the 1970’s and before. What county are you in?
Barbara Van Vliet
July 3, 2013
I am retired from Contra Costa County. I absolutely loved working the court system until the merging happened. But thats another story. And I knew the state was going under so we moved to another state in 2000. But I can’t help but read whats happening in the Calif. courts. It was my life. Inept judges and management really has ruined the court system.
Barbara Van Vliet
July 5, 2013
Richard, my husband was a court bailiff for Bill Kolin. The both of them worked well with each other. Bill, one time–in his robe, tried to stop a fight between my hubby and other deputies with a defendant, he just got right in there and helped put the defendant down. So the judges started calling Bill “batman” cause his robe was flying everywhere. And Bill had a good time doing it–his prior cop experience helped. hahahaha
Richard Power
July 5, 2013
Bill and I and others rented office space from Les Morgan in Oakland years ago. Haven’t seen him in years. I take it you were a court clerk?
Richard Power
July 5, 2013
And did you by any chance know my dad, Everett Power?
Richard Power
July 3, 2013
I’m guessing San Bernardino.
Barbara Van Vliet
July 3, 2013
Hahaha, I guess San Bernardino is just as bad as Contra Costa County.
Richard Power
July 4, 2013
Interesting. I used to work in Alameda County. Handled cases there and handled some CoCo cases too. I assume you know Bill Kolin?
When you retired, was CC County still using green screen computers? Are they still using them? Does anyone on this blog know?
R. Campomadera
July 3, 2013
Diversion of fees and taxes established and paid to support one function, but diverted to fund others has become standard practice in California…see Dan Walter’s column in today’s (7/3) Sacramento Bee on the diversion of fuel taxes to other purposes: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5541134/dan-walters-californias-hefty.html
Note, also, the parallel between the excessive, wasteful administrative overhead of Caltrans and the AOC. Note further how these two bloated organizations utterly fail to effectively manage the functions for which they are responsible…Caltrans and the Bay Bridge; AOC and CCMS, just to name two notorious, but hardly unique examples. It seems the bigger they get, the worse they get.
It’s time for the people of California to step up and do something about the waste, inefficiency, and corruption in our government. The place to start is not at the bottom, where good people struggle every day to do a good job under adverse conditions, but at the top executive and management levels, where those responsible for the problems continue to bilk the taxpaying public on a daily basis.
MaxRebo5
July 3, 2013
Great post JCW. I agree with Barbara Van Vliet that the pay raises the Muni Court Judges all received when they became Superior Court Judges was expensive for the public. However, politically it was a master move by Chief Justice George and Bill Vickrey to earn support from the judges within the branch. Hundreds of judges got big raises and prestige and in return HRH1 gained support/power/silence from them.
I personally agree with consolidated courts (one court per county) as it is simple for the public to follow, reduces the administration at the local level, and is unified. As I recall, consolidation was supposed to reduce the administration of CA Courts and this was how the raises for the judges was justified. Instead, with nobody watching too closely during an economic boom (that’s a critique of you Legislature and Governor) the Chief justice then expanded the AOC at the state level to over 1,000 employees to implement his will/vision. Today the AOC is still over 800 employees (according to Jahr’s own Director’s Report at the last JC meeting). The AOC had their own TV station going at one point, the famous telecommuter from Switzerland, and were dumping millions on CCMS consultants. That was all quite reasonable to them and even today there is talk of condos in SF and other waste.
I’d also add to Barbara Van Vliet’s good comment on the raises not to forget the judges also got supplemental pay from the counties as well. Remember this article:
http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=3596:letter-from-california-judges-association-opposes-elimination-of-extra-judicial-benefits&Itemid=94
So the judges got pay raises from the state, they got supplemental pay from the counties, and they saw the AOC got funding approved for 5 billion dollars in courthouse construction for new digs. I’d say most CA judges have fared extremely well in the past 15 years and this is why so many judges still support the Chief and her monopoly appointments to the JC. For them it hasn’t been bad at all and they are detached from the real pain. These judges are not speaking out for their staff, or the public who has to travel because community courthouses are closing, and this is because it’s been mostly fine for them. They do have skin in the game. That skin is tied to those they think can get them a raise (Chief/JC/AOC) for they know they on the bench can’t lose money (there pay is protected by the CA Constitution).
I applaud the good judges in the ACJ who have spoken out. They see this approach was not without costs for CA Courts as an organization and is not sustainable. Massive layoffs for staff in the trial courts took place, CCMS failed dramatically leaving the branch at a huge disadvantage technologically for the next decade, and now the LB Courthouse cost overruns will cut into the other state courthouse projects. The ACJ also saw this all happened with an AOC that was accountable to no one (at least that was the case in their org charts according to the SEC Report). It was/is simply gross mismanagement at the AOC that still needs to be checked.
Even today the Chief seeks members on the JC who will speak with “a statewide perspective” in other words “with one voice” (the Chief’s). By controlling the appointments to the JC, and closing meetings the Chief/AOC has effectively killed all chance of open debate on public policy in CA Courts. Debates about how the CA Court’s budget is spent should be 100% open and also should be much more transparent to the press, critics, and the public.
I am a big supporter of the article’s message: “It is well past time that Gov. Jerry Brown and the legislature call for an audit of the California Superior Courts and the AOC, as well as the curious deal to spend $50 million a year on the Crystal Palace of Injustice named after former Gov. George Deukmejian in Long Beach”
Here are some actual things to look at in an audit. One question I have is how does the JC think it is reasonable to have all these committees (from Jahr’s most recent report)?
1. Ad Hoc Joint Working Group on Court Interpreter Issues
2. Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Committee
3. Advisory Committee on Accountability and Efficiency for the Judicial Branch
4. Appellate Court Clerks Association
5. Appellate Indigent Defense Oversight Advisory Committee
6. Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care
7. Center for Judiciary Education and Research Governing Committee
8. Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee
9. Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee
10. Court Executives Advisory Committee/Conference of Court Executives
11. Court Facilities Advisory Committee
12. Court Technology Advisory Committee
13. Criminal Jury Instructions Advisory Committee
14. Criminal Law Advisory Committee
15. Domestic Violence Practice and Procedure Task Force
16. Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
17. Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force
18. Traffic Advisory Committee
19. Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee
20. Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee
If these committees were opened the public could see/decide if they were worth funding. That’s good and accountable government. The auditors should review the JC minutes and see if the JC ever debated the costs/benefits of these committees. They should for certain be 100% open to the public. These are not cases with private matters being discussed as the Chief successfully lobbied with the Governor recently.
Another question I have is how does the JC think it is good to have all of these AOC staff?
9 FTE = Trial Court Liaison Office
86 FTE = Trial Court Administrative Services Office
68.6 FTE = Center for Families, Children, and Courts
68.5 FTE = Center for Judicial Education and Research
Then for the buildings the AOC is now in the business of managing they have more staff:
57.20 FTE = Office of JB Capitol Programs
76.50 FTE = Office of Real Estate and Facilities Management
This adds up to 365 admin employees in the AOC alone who the Judicial Council could redirect to restore funding back to the trial courts and keep operations open. The JC won’t do it so the Legislature should audit the AOC and redirect the funding from the state level back to the trial courts (AKA – Cut the AOC).
I hope it happens soon as CA taxpayers have already raised taxes temporarily with Prop 30 to pay for schools and balance the state budget in this recession. We can’t afford to pay for the waste at the AOC now and certainly not once those taxes expire in a few years. CA Court administration has to get back in shape in this narrow window of time while the General Fund is in the black. I hope the Governor and Legislature check the Chief and finally and holds the JC accountable for 15 years of expansion of administration of CA Courts at the state level.
Thanks for the forum JCW!
makara28
July 4, 2013
I disagree with MaxRebo5’s suggestion that consolidation to “one court per county” is a wise move. Several CA counties are larger than many New England states. It costs money for the public to travel to court. It costs more money for each law enforcement agency to pay to drive hours to court, and take time off to wait for cases to (perhaps) be heard or tried, requiring overtime pay and fill-in staff locally, than any court could ever possibly realize in savings. The cost to the public of closing local courts and consolidating at a mega box store court is generally hidden but is likely 3 to 50 times more than the savings to the consolidated courthouse. There hasn’t been as much of an uproar as there could and should have been over these court closures because these costs are hard to quantify, and opposition is difficult to organize since the populations of rural areas are dispersed, and notice from the courts is short. Our county seat is a 3 hour drive over windy mountain roads. Last November, we prevailed in keeping the local court open. We likely could not have done so without the support of local law enforcement and the DA, all of whom stated the obvious: rural populations pay the same rate of taxes and deserve roughly equivalent services as urban dwellers. Yet they alone bear the cost of consolidation. And it is often a very hefty sum of money.
unionman575
July 4, 2013
You probably misunderstood Max.
Max is in fact referring to the unification of the former Municipal Courts and the former Superior Courts.
Here is a snapshot CA Trial Court “Unification” history: In 1998 California voters passed a constitutional amendment that provided for voluntary unification of the superior and municipal courts in each county into a single, countywide trial court system. By January 2001, all 58 California counties had voted to unify their municipal and superior court operations.
History
😉
That is completely different from the Courthouse closures occurring throughout CA. Yes I do agree these closures must be undone and further closures must be prevented as you point out: “It costs money for the public to travel to court. It costs more money for each law enforcement agency to pay to drive hours to court, and take time off to wait for cases to (perhaps) be heard or tried…”
That is why we are all her crowing like roosters trying to restore access to justice for all Californians. We deserve no less.
Shut the AOC down and divert all its funding to trial courts now.
Recall Tani: http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Richard Power
July 4, 2013
Although this is not a good final solution, Makara28, use of cheap video technology plus electronic forms and other electronic methods could likely obviate the need for people in your county to travel long distances to court. What county are we talking about? The cost of a temporary/partial fix like I am describing would be virtually nothing. It wouldn’t work in all cases but could help. Most of the fix would be free for the asking.
MaxRebo5
July 5, 2013
Very nice sentiment makara28. I’d like there to me many local community courts just as you call for and respect your point of view.
I was not saying it is good to have one courthouse per county. Just that it is simple to have one jurisdiction per county (not muni and superior courts). In some states they even have city run courts called Justice Courts and this gets even more confusing for the public. One court (jurisdiction) per county is best but that single jurisdiction can have lots of local courthouses to serve distinct communities and it helps the poor (who rely on public transportation more) to have real world access to justice.
Plus some counties like LA are massive should have many many courthouses to serve them. Same with so many other large counties in CA but they are all turning into central downtown courts and nothing else. This is the price of funding a large AOC in SF.
These are the cons the JC never admits to when they pushed for CCMS, 5 billion in bonds for new courthouses, and expanded the AOC in SF. It left no more money to preserve all the local courts when the recession hit. The JC/AOC leaders try to blame the legislature and Governor for not funding the courts more instead of admitting mistakes in their priorities. They should come clean and redirect much of the funding they do have back to the local level where it belongs but they are arrogant and defiant. It is shameful.
This is why it is so important to open up the JC to public review and for the press to start paying attention. It is also why the JC needs more voices than just the Chief’s personal appoinments because had those voices/critics been listened to many of the scandals within the branch could have been avoided. It is also very expensive to have the Chief getting to run it her way. All of the public should have a say on this and it would be much better run. After all it is our courts not hers alone.
Thanks Unionman for the help. You said it well by calling for diverting AOC funding back to the trial courts.
Richard Power
July 4, 2013
Unification didn’t necessarily seem like a bad idea back in 1997-1998. I didn’t foresee what was going to happen. But now it’s time for everyone to come together on the financial problems. MaxRebo5 commented that the failure of CCMS would leave the court system at a huge disadvantage technologically for the next decade. That does not have to be. Current technology is such that superior courts could be made efficient and current in a very short period of time. But if you want that to be completed soon, you have to first start. The sooner we start, the sooner we finish. Wiping out over 90% of the paper in a short time could save pretty substantial amounts of money. Local courts could get into the black quite rapidly. All that paper handling is costing a mountain of money in staff time, storage, copying, postage, etc. A motivated local court system – including the lawyers, paralegals, local associated agencies, etc. as well as the courts – could accomplish this in a matter of weeks. What is glaringly absent is the willingness to start. I understand the fear that many have when it comes to computers because of past problems. But there is no need to make any large financial investment up front in a conversion to modern methods. Nothing is needed at the very beginning beyond a reasonably current computer, outfitted with standard software, and a willingness to learn and to just get the job done. Additional investment would be minimal and easily outrun by the day to day savings.
wearyant
July 5, 2013
MaxRebo5 said: “It left no more money to preserve all the local courts when the recession hit. The JC/AOC leaders try to blame the legislature and Governor for not funding the courts more instead of admitting mistakes in their priorities.”
So true. I wish this statement could be repeated and pounded into the public’s brain, certainly including all lawyers and judges, until it is fully understood. Then maybe all would be enraged into action needed to restore our California judicial system. It’s disgraceful that all these courts have been shuttered and valuable trial court employees laid off (fired). The judicial council must be democratized. The Tani is not willing to do that; she’s enjoying her gift of undeserved, unfettered power given her by “the great” [barf] Ron George. Thank goodness for the ACJ. And JCW!
Recall The Tani!
De-fund the AOC!
Long live the ACJ!