Last week we told you about several requests for public information awaiting a response from the AOC. We are pleased to tell you that ACJ director Judge Kent Hamlin received a timely response from AOC staff member Chad Finke on July 18. The entire email string is set forth below, with the most recent response at the top.
Although the document speaks for itself, we deem it important to highlight a few items.
In addition to his judicial retirement, the new Administrative Director of the Courts is paid $216,699.60 per year. He also receives vision and life insurance at no cost to him. This vision and life insurance perk is also given to every employee of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, AOC and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. While these costs may be considered minimal, we are well beyond the point where taxpayers should be footing the entire bill for extra perks for governmental employees.
Also of note is the fact that 15 of the highest ranking employees of the AOC continue to enjoy a pension benefit funded entirely by the taxpayer — the employee contributes nothing. Newly appointed judges are contributing about 15% of their pay to fund JRS III, a benefit they may not receive until they reach age 65 after a minimum of 20 years service. AOC employees may collect their taxpayer-funded “2% at age 55” benefit anytime after they have completed five years of service.
As indicated in Mr. Finke’s response, this outrageous perk was granted to select AOC employees by former Chief Justice Ronald George. In September of last year, the current Chief Justice took steps to deny this indefensible perk by eliminating it for those hired or promoted after October 1, 2012. The obvious question is, why did it take so long to put a stop to this pension giveaway? Moreover, is there some reason why those hired before October 2012 continue to enjoy this special taxpayer-funded benefit? Remember, while these select few have been enjoying this perk, hundreds of valuable court employees have been shown the door and countless local courthouses have closed their doors for business due to a lack of funds.
Finally, it is worth noting that, after Judge Hamlin pointed out that all of the information he had requested would be contained in judicial administrative records, it was not deemed necessary to punt the request to Judicial Council Rules Committee Chairman, Justice Harry Hull. How refreshing.
We will continue to keep you posted as responses are received for still outstanding requests for public information.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
__________________________________
From: Finke, Chad [mailto:Chad.Finke@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Hamlin, William Kent
Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven; Hull, Harry
Subject: FW: Inquiry Regarding Salary and Benefits as Administrative Director
Judge Hamlin,
Below please find our responses to your request. Each component of your request is set forth verbatim before its respective response for ease of reference. Assuming that the responses below answer all of your requests, it does not appear that any reference to Justice Hull is necessary.
What is your annual compensation for serving as director of the AOC?
$216,699.60 (after 4.62% furlough reduction).
Are you receiving benefits during your employment by the AOC, beyond those included in your judicial retirement package, including health, dental, etc.?
Beyond those included in his judicial retirement package, Judge Jahr receives the following benefits: vision and life insurance.
If so, are those provided entirely at taxpayer expense, or do you contribute something for those benefits, including dependent benefits, if applicable?
For all employees of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, AOC, and HCRC, vision and life insurance are paid for by the employer. Vision is approximately $8.64 per month and life insurance is approximately $6.90 per month.
Finally, I understand that the 30 highest paid employees at the AOC pay none of the cost of their employment benefits, perhaps even including dependent health coverage, nor do they contribute towards their retirement. Is that accurate?
This is not accurate. Please see the chart below for a list of employer/employee-covered contributions:
Shared contribution Employer-only contribution Employee-only contribution
• Medical
• Dental
• Retirement* • Vision
• Life Insurance • 401k/457 plans
• Medical/dental dependent care reimbursement accounts
• Long term disability insurance
• Long term care
• Group legal service plan
• Supplemental life insurance
*As of July 12, 2013, 15 of 19 AOC executive-level employees do not contribute toward their retirement, as enacted by a resolution issued by then-Chief Justice Ronald George on February 1, 2007, which applied to all executive employees of the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal, the AOC, and HCRC. In September 2012, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye issued an amended resolution dissolving the benefit for employees hired or promoted into an executive level on or after October 1, 2012. The Chief’s resolution also provided that any prospective increase in the employee’s share of the contribution will be borne by the affected executive-level employees, including the 15 who do not currently contribute toward their retirement.
Is it also the case that employees of the AOC receive lifetime benefits upon retirement after ten or more years of service?
State employees—which includes employees of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, AOC, and HCRC—are subject to Government Code section 22873, which provides for full employer contribution toward health benefits after ten years of state service at the time of service retirement.
For employees of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, AOC, and HCRC hired into CalPERS-covered employment on or after January 1, 1985, the state will contribute a prorated share toward health premiums upon retirement:
Credited Years of Service Percentage of Employer Contribution
5 50
6 60
7 70
8 80
9 90
10 100
If so, can you please advise what benefits they receive? I’m not asking for a dollar amount for specific employees — just the formula by which these benefits, including any retirement allowance, are calculated.
Upon retirement and with at least credited five years of service, employees of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, AOC, and HCRC are eligible to receive the following benefits:
• Medical
• Dental
Retirement allowances are calculated based on years of service and age. For specific calculations, state member benefit formula charts are available directly on the CalPERS website, under the State Miscellaneous & Industrial Members category. We have attached a copy of the chart for your reference.
Chad Finke Director Office of Appellate Court Services/Court Operations Special Services Office, Judicial and Court Operations Services Division Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 415-865-8925, Fax 415-865-4329,chad.finke@jud.ca.gov http://www.courts.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”
___________________________________________________________________
From: Hamlin, William Kent Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:48 PM To: ‘Finke, Chad’
Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven; Hull, Harry
Subject: RE: Inquiry Regarding Salary and Benefits as Administrative Director
Mr. Finke,
Thank you for your reply promising records responsive to my inquiry by approximately July 22.
I wonder if you might advise, however, what information I have requested that is “not set forth in judicial administrative records” that would require Justice Hull to become involved. It would appear that all of the information I have requested either will be found in payroll and personnel records or in AOC policy manuals that denote employee benefits. While those records may require some redaction in order to protect the personal privacy interests of the involved employees, I do not understand how any aspect of my request “would require an explanation or discussion of policymaking,” which I understand to be Justice Hull’s role under AOC Policy 2.8, as described in your most recent update to the Judicial Council of May 30. Nor does the inquiry “present ‘why’ questions, seeking explanations or rationales for policy and process decisions,” as described in the December 2012 report to the Council.
I look forward to the responsive records by the July 22 date or, in any event, by the end of the month. To the extent those records do not contain all of the information I have requested, I trust that you will provide an explanation of what portions of my inquiry call for information not contained in judicial administrative records and a timeline during which I might then expect a response from Justice Hull.
Thank you for your assistance.
W. Kent Hamlin
Judge of the Superior Court
________________________________________________
From: Finke, Chad Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:16 PM To: ‘khamlin@fresno.courts.ca.gov’ Cc: Pubinfo; Jahr, Steven; Hull, Harry Subject: FW: Inquiry Regarding Salary and Benefits as Administrative Director
Judge Hamlin,
I am the AOC director responsible for administering the agency’s program for responding to requests for judicial administrative records and information, and Judge Jahr referred your request below to me for response. We have identified judicial administrative records responsive to your request, and we anticipate making those available by approximately July 22, 2013.
To the extent your request seeks information not set forth in judicial administrative records, we are referring it to Hon. Harry Hull for consideration, per AOC Policy 2.8 (Responding to Requests for Judicial Administrative Records and Information).
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Finke Director Office of Appellate Court Services/Court Operations Special Services Office, Judicial and Court Operations Services Division Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 415-865-8925, Fax 415-865-4329,chad.finke@jud.ca.gov http://www.courts.ca.gov
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians.”
______________________________________________________________
From: Hamlin, William Kent [khamlin@fresno.courts.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:22 AM To: Jahr, Steven Subject: Inquiry Regarding Salary and Benefits as Administrative Director
Dear Judge Jahr:
News articles published shortly after your appointment as Administrative Director of the AOC discussed a possible salary range for your position, but at least one article quoted you as saying the issue of salary never came up during the interview and appointment process. A quick search of the California Courts website and various news articles published after your appointment has not provided the information I am seeking, so I am requesting your assistance.
What is your annual compensation for serving as director of the AOC? Are you receiving benefits during your employment by the AOC, beyond those included in your judicial retirement package, including health, dental, etc.? If so, are those provided entirely at taxpayer expense, or do you contribute something for those benefits, including dependent benefits, if applicable?
Finally, I understand that the 30 highest paid employees at the AOC pay none of the cost of their employment benefits, perhaps even including dependent health coverage, nor do they contribute towards their retirement. Is that accurate? Is it also the case that employees of the AOC receive lifetime benefits upon retirement after ten or more years of service? If so, can you please advise what benefits they receive? I’m not asking for a dollar amount for specific employees — just the formula by which these benefits, including any retirement allowance, are calculated.
I realize that some of this information may have to come from your Human Resources Department, and I will understand if the responses do not come immediately. I would hope, however, that this inquiry is not shuffled off to Justice Hull or otherwise met with some requirement of a formal records request under Rule 10.500. This information should be readily available and, in light of the AOC’s interest in accountability and transparency, should be provided without a more detailed request for records. I could not imagine that these questions pose an unreasonable administrative burden if directed to the employees who have access to the requested information. Please advise if you feel otherwise.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation.
Sincerely,
W. Kent Hamlin
Judge of the Superior Court, County of Fresno
Related articles
- Can We Get A Straight Answer? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- About the “Reality Check” barometer…. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Which is it? Secrecy or Incompetence? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- AOC: We’re cutting expenses, we just can’t prove it. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Artificially increasing the odds of “Not Reasonably Likely”….. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Budget Trailer Bill: Another audit of the AOC that does not go far enough (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
R. Campomadera
July 23, 2013
Outrageous. But let’s imagine for the moment, a parallel universe, wherein everything that happens is the polar opposite of the known JC/AOC universe.
In this universe, Chief Justice Inat Litnac-Eyuakes, with the consensus of the JC, hires an experienced court administrator by the name of Nevets Rhaj.
New Director Rhaj is directed to forthwith implement the recommendations of the CES (Cease Excessive Spending) Committee. He does so with gusto.
The AO mission is severely reduced and thereafter restrained, layers of unnecessary AO management and staff are eliminated. Money saved is redirected to the trial courts, eliminating the necessity of layoffs of the very people who do the work of the courts.
Wasteful “Taj Mahal” courthouse projects are either cancelled or cut back to affordable but serviceable buildings, allowing more affordable, but serviceable courthouses to be built throughout the state where demonstrated needs exist.
True transparency in the operation of the AO is established as a top priority. Advisory committees are established to help the AO, with its truncated mission, really focus on the support needed by the trial courts. In a collaborative effort involving line and IT staff from the courts, a case management system is quickly developed that meets the core needs of the courts.
Yeah, I know…dream on, right? But would anyone object to the director in this parallel universe getting $217k a year?
You see, the problem isn’t the director’s salary per se. It’s that he has done absolutely nothing towards achieving such a vision. No surprise there. He wasn’t hired to do so. He was hired to preserve the status quo and to protect the very people who created the mess in the first place. That’s why his salary is outrageous.
Michael Paul
July 24, 2013
You framed that well. He was hired to preserve the status quo.
Wendy Darling
July 24, 2013
Preserve and protect the status quo, more precisely.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 23, 2013
Lando
July 24, 2013
Well we can’t forget that J Jahr must deserve such a great salary as Justice Hull claimed he was the most qualified person to run the AOC in the entire country. And, what a coincidence he was here in Shasta County the whole time. Lol. You can’t make this stuff up.Really.
The OBT
July 24, 2013
The status quo ? Well since Judge Jahr took over isn’t the AOC more transparent than ever and hasn’t the SEC report been fully implemented ? Hasn’t the staff of the AOC been significantly reduced? Isn’t that what he , HRH-2 and Justice Miller will have you believe? We all know their version of what has occurred is in reality very different indeed. Since Jahr’s arrival, we have seen the intervention of Justice Hull into the suppressing of dissent and blocking of reasonable requests for public information. We have seen most of the significant portions of the SEC report shelved. We have seen continuous hiring of employees including the conversion of Apple 2 temp employees to full employee status within the last two weeks. In addition, under Jahr’s ” leadership” the other branches were given bad budget numbers and there was the ill conceived idea of charging the public every time they sought to access their court records. While all this has occurred, the trial courts keep bearing the burnt of Judicial Council and AOC blundering, while layoffs and court closures continue. Jahr’s hiring, his record of incompetence, and grossly inflated salary are all further strong arguments as to why the legislature needs to defund the Judicial Council and AOC forthwith.
courtflea
July 24, 2013
I wonder if he gets a per diem or someother type of lodging benefit. The city is a 4 hour drive from Redding
R. Campomadera
July 24, 2013
If he does, it’s yet another travesty piled upon existing travesty. The duty station is in SF. If he chooses to live somewhere else, the costs of lodging and commuting should be on him.
But knowing the way the JC/AOC works, I’ll bet he’s been provided for…if not per diem and mileage, then, perhaps a state car and gas card, gratis housing, general bonus on top of base salary, and/or something of equivalent net compensation value.
Let’s see if anyone knows the answer. If I’m wrong, I will graciously apologize for (silly me) assuming a continuation of the long pattern of taxpayer fleecing by the self-anointed JC/AOC “High and Mighty” for whom the rules that apply to others are “not operational”.
Been There
July 24, 2013
There is also the AOC apartment — which is never publicly discussed. Who knows, maybe Jahr is renting a recently remodeled, not to mention lushly landscaped Danville home while its owners are in AZ.
R. Campomadera
July 24, 2013
An AOC apartment would definitely fall under “gratis housing”, as that term was intended in my post, above.
Is the Danville home where state-funded “landscaping” was provided under the guise of “security enhancement”?.
Wendy Darling
July 25, 2013
Published today, Thursday, July 25, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
California Court Filings Drop as Funds Dry Up
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California trial courts have seen a steady decline in civil and lesser criminal filings over the last 10 years, coinciding with the decrease in funds for court operations and police departments, according to statistics presented to the state’s Judicial Council.
“You can see over this 10-year trend a steady increase in statewide filings up to almost an historic point above 10 million filings just before the budget cuts hit the branch. Then you see a decreasing trend over the last several years of ongoing cuts,” Chris Belloli, a high-level researcher with the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Belloli presented a report outlining caseload trends for fiscal year 2011-2012. It showed roughly 8.5 million cases filed that year, a 9.8 percent decrease from the previous year. The drop is primarily in limited civil cases, small claims, misdemeanors and traffic. Felony case filings have risen by one percent.
The judiciary is required to publish a court statistics report every year, but 2013 marks the first time the report has been presented publicly.
While the report does not analyze the statistics, Belloli said the numbers correlate with court closures and reduced service hours.
“These budget cuts to the branch we know has impacted the courts and public in many ways. Some of the impact can be really difficult to quantify, to put a number to, but when we consider the difficult decisions that many courts were forced to make as a result of the cuts on court closures, reduced hours of service, closed courtrooms, and closing even entire court locations, they certainly have an impact on public access to the courts. We very well might be seeing some of that impact on this recent trend,” Belloli said.
He added that it would be interesting to see if funding restoration to the courts leads to an upswing in filings.
Judges on the council seemed concerned that the filing information published without analysis could be used against the courts, in a time when the judiciary is working to restore funding and educate lawmakers about court workloads.
“This report is going to be very revealing and very interesting. But at some point either the Chief [Justice] or a distinguished panel of judges or someone needs to put some analysis on this. Because it does affect the administration of our justice system. We cannot just put the report out there and say there it is,” said Judge David Rosenberg of Yolo County. “It’s one thing to present statistics, but it is another thing to engage in a subjective analysis or conclusions.”
Case filings may have also been affected by budget cuts to other state agencies. Judge Mary Ann O’Malley of Contra Costa County said the decline in misdemeanor and traffic cases could be attributed to cuts in law enforcement, leading to fewer cases being pursued by local district attorneys. “I just cannot help but wonder that it is not that crime is going down . . . it is that there are not as many officers that need to be on the streets. They are out there enforcing the laws that are able to make those arrests,” she said. O’Malley noted that her county has seen a drop in cases coming in from the district attorney’s office.
“We asked the D.A.’s office what was going on,” she said, noting that she asked specifically whether the drop could be attributed to slower processing times at the court. “They said no. Law enforcement is not bringing them in,” O’Malley said.
The filing statistics will also be used to evaluate court workloads under a new funding allocation method passed unanimously by the council at its Thursday meeting.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/25/59704.htm
Long live the ACJ.
Delilah
July 25, 2013
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/California-Superior-Courts-in-Crisis-216668081.html
Ginny Edmunds
October 8, 2013
I asked for this information in written requests and they say that I cannot get it. So what did I do wrong? I specified some of the items in detail, names… So what is the secret? Is it only available to more important persons than someone running a nonprofit Court Watchers group?