The page that we’re going to share with you to takes awhile to load because it has about 500 links and extensive commentary. We apologize for the slow loading but we feel it necessary to revisit what we consider a watershed moment in California judicial branch history (Link).
A little over a year ago the JC/AOC released the Strategic Evaluation Committee Report and people across the state commented upon it. Early on in the comment period, we learned that the state bar, the judicial council insiders and AOC leadership was gaming the system by trying to enlist, for a lack of a better word, “mercenaries” to support them.
These mercenaries are otherwise innocent legal aid and assistance organizations who rely upon the AOC doling out funding. So the message they likely received was probably something akin to this:
We discovered with your help that these non-profits were given a template for their response by the State Bar of California and Judicial Council and AOC leadership and we caught them red-handed (link). Later, we would observe the comments rolling in from hundreds of judges statewide that called for immediate implementation of the entire SEC report.
The “mercenaries” who were all funded by the AOC predictably pumped out the AOC \ State Bar template responses that they were instructed to put out there. Only one disclosed that they relied upon AOC funding and were writing in support of the juggernaut that hands out cash. Outside of those orchestrated responses and individual insider responses, there was virtually no support for AOC management.
Mind you, it wasn’t AOC workers people are critical of. It is the AOC management who has now mismanaged well over a billion of dollars in public funds and put further public funds at risk of being wasted.
Most of them today are still the same directors and senior managers that took the branch down. They keep their jobs, you lose yours. Or you lose your courtroom or courthouse.
Predictably it was a few months later that the AOC doled out funding to these very same legal nonprofits and legal aid folks. Maybe someone else should be distributing that funding…. like the state legislature or the attorney generals office because a judicial branch that uses public funds to buy influence like this sets a dangerous precedent in the halls of Sacramento.
It has been a little over a year since the comment period was closed. We get to see some of these folks that should rightfully be fired slowly and gracefully gliding into publicly funded lavish retirements when some of us believe they should be doing hard time at Club Fed.
It’s beneficial to take a peek down memory lane and let the slow page load to see what a quarter of this states judges had to say about AOC management and realize that in 11 months, little has changed. We were promised change in eighteen months which is coincidentally when Ms. Roberts will be gliding into her Burmese retirement. Unfortunately, none of us is seeing the degree of change sought while the juggernaut that is doling out influence continues to do so.
Related articles:
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/07/20/jcw-special-coverage-of-the-strategic-evaluation-committee-report/ (slow load, essential read)
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2013/04/11/my-court-unification-efforts-have-become-a-failure/ (essential read)
https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/2012/07/10/diversity-access-fairness-youre-kidding-right/ (the State Bar rally call to support the AOC)
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
August 9, 2013
Nice work JCW.
Memories…
😉
unionman575
August 9, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23024.htm
Employee and Facility Health and Safety Inspection Consulting Services RFP# JBCP-2013-02-BR
The Judicial Branch Capital Program Office, Risk Management Unit of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) seeks the services of a qualified health and safety consultant to provide a range of services to existing or new court facilities. The services may include the following: Construction Health and Safety Services; General Industry Health and Safety Services; Industrial and Environmental Health, Hygiene and Safety Services; Education and Training Safety and Health Services, and services associated with Owner or Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP’s)(CCIP’s).
unionman575
August 9, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/19334.htm
MILESTONES
June 28, 2013 78 directives completed
unionman575
August 9, 2013
And the Death Star show goes on…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/23112.htm
Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee Meeting
FOR RELEASE
Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7740
August 8, 2013
Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday, August 14, San Francisco
WHAT: At a public meeting, the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee will discuss court projects and programs recommended to receive an estimated $75 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund and the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund in the current fiscal year. Examples of areas that receive primary support from these funds include self-help centers, technology support and initiatives, the complex civil litigation program, and education of judges and court staff. The advisory committee will submit allocation recommendations to the Judicial Council for consideration at its meeting Aug 22–23.
The advisory committee’s meeting agenda includes discussion of recommendations for funding priorities for fiscal year 2014–2015, which will also be presented for Judicial Council consideration. The committee will also consider a change to the new allocation methodology for operating funds that was passed by the Judicial Council last month. The proposed change involves a process by which courts with workload issues not yet addressed by the allocation method could request adjustments.
WHEN: Wednesday, Aug 14, 2013; 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
WHERE: Judicial Council Conference Center, Hiram Johnson State Office Building, Third Floor, Ronald M. George State Office Complex, 455 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. A live audiocast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website.
WHO and WHY: The Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee (roster) was appointed in June 2013 by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to advise the Judicial Council on the preparation, development, and implementation of the budget for California’s 58 trial courts and to provide input to the council on policy issues affecting trial court funding.
The advisory committee invites courts and the public to submit written comment in advance of the meeting or to request time to speak during the meeting’s comment period. Comments and speaking requests may be submitted via e-mail. Speakers will be scheduled in order of requests received. Depending upon demand, speakers may be time-limited at the discretion of the committee chairs.
unionman575
August 9, 2013
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/funding_concerns_force_courts_to_think_about_their_future/
Annual Meeting
Are businesses and individuals giving up on the courts? Yes, and it’s ‘a disaster,’ judge says
Posted Aug 8, 2013 5:15 PM CDT
By James Podgers
Wendy Darling
August 9, 2013
Published today, Friday, August 9, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller. Subscription required for access to article:
Capital Accounts: AOC Picks Strange Place to Cozy Up to Labor
By Cheryl Miller
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202614725033&Capital_Accounts_AOC_Picks_Strange_Place_to_Cozy_Up_to_Labor&slreturn=20130709211055
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
August 10, 2013
A walk down memory lane ? How about when HRH-1 proclaimed that any attempt to democratize the Judicial Council would be a ” declaration of war ‘ against judges? How about when HRH-1’s enforcer J Huffman , called the President of CJA a “clown” for dissenting ? How about when J Hull took over all ” dissenting” public information requests and buried them ? How about the creation of the SEC report by HRH-2 and her subsequent shelving of their most important recommendations ? How about HRH-2’s tantrum against the State Assembly upon passage of AB 1208 ? How about repeated claims by J Bruiners that CCMS was functioning and ready to be deployed and was sound enough that the legislature didn’t need to ask the State Auditor to review anything pertaining to it ? How about HRH-1’s give away of public money when he authorized that 30 AOC employees would not have to pay into their retirement ? How about mandated court closures and furloughs that penalized trial court employees financially but not those at the AOC ? How about the billions wasted on the Long Beach courthouse? How about HRH-2 repeatedly commending the ” great” Ronald George and taking no action to correct his many excesses ? How about allowing J McConnell to interfere with and in some cases ruin the lives of hardworking trial judges? How about the arrogance of Vickrey, Overholdt, Jahr , Patel and Roberts ? How about the creation of a more than a 1,000 person bureaucracy at 455 Golden Gate while the trial courts were forced into furloughs and layoffs ? How about the lack of ethics that pervades the crystal palace ? How about J Millers’s Kevin Bacon like claims that “All is well”. Honestly sometimes I think when I study all of the above that I feel like I woke up in the Soviet Union.
Wendy Darling
August 10, 2013
How about the known six-figure embezzlement of public funds, and the intentional cover-up of that embezzlement? How about the fact that both the embezzlement and the cover-up were crimes?
How about the fact that if you’re judicial branch administration you can get away with committing crimes and no one will ever hold you accountable for it? And if you can get away with that, then you can pretty much get away with anything.
And that remains unchanged, from the past to the present.
Long live the ACJ.
The OBT
August 10, 2013
JCW, Woodhull and Lando in recent posts have walked down memory lane and shown why the legislature needs to act to defund the Judicial Council and AOC. Is anyone in Sacramento listening?
unionman575
August 10, 2013
When in doubt…create even more bureaucracy @ Death Star Central…
Click to access SP13-07.pdf
Judicial Administration: Rules for Advisory Groups (PDF, 218 KB)
Item Number: SP13-07
Deadline for Comments: August 30, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov
This proposal would establish by rule two new Judicial Council advisory committees and repeal the rules concerning three advisory groups that no longer exist. At its meeting on April 25, 2013, the Judicial Council approved the Report and Recommendations to Improve the Governance, Structure, and Organization of Judicial Council Advisory Groups submitted by the Rules and Projects Committee (RUPRO), the Executive and Planning Committee (E&P), and the Technology Committee (JCTC). Among the recommendations were the establishment of two advisory committees: The Tribal Court/State Court Forum and the Court Security Advisory Committee. Another recommendation accepted by the council was repeal of the rules concerning the Judicial Services Advisory Committee (rule 10.57), the Working Group on Court Security (rule 10.170), and the Working Group on Court Security Fiscal Guidelines (rule 10.171).
😉
unionman575
August 10, 2013
And now a word from Fresno…
Click to access Fresno-Temporary-Services_080913.pdf
unionman575
August 10, 2013
Uh huh…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/2546.htm
Doing Business With Us
The Judical Council and the AOC are committed to maintaining a transparent, consistent, and accountable procurement system that provides Californians the best value initially and over the long-term operational life of court facilities. We follow competitive practices when contracting with qualified firms and individuals for products and services used in the planning, acquisition, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of trial and appellate court facilities.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
August 10, 2013
Let’s assist the reading public in interpretation of the above mentioned paragraph and add the disclaimers that they thoughtfully left out.
“The Judical Council and the AOC are committed to maintaining a transparent (except when someone asks..), consistent (one of our favorite AOC buzzwords that in AOC reality has no meaning), and accountable (to no one) procurement system that provides Californians the best value initially and over the long-term operational life of court facilities. Consistent with spending as much public funding as possible we accomplish this goal by picking only the highest bidders and engaging in contracting practices that give greatest consideration to our vendors
We follow competitive practices only when contracting with qualified firms and individuals for products and services used in the planning, acquisition, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of trial and appellate court facilities.” When contracting with unqualified firms or giving some council members niece quarter million dollar no-bid contracts to conduct studies we use a different set of rules
unionman575
August 10, 2013
Click to access BUDGET.pdf
😉
unionman575
August 10, 2013
http://WWW.SANMATEOCOURT.ORG/GENERAL_INFO/JUDGES/MESSAGE_FROM_PRESIDING_JUDGE.PHP
MESSAGE FROM PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT D FOILES
On behalf of the San Mateo County Superior Court I wish to thank the countless members of our community who wrote letters, made phone calls, and lobbied the Governor and Legislature to restore funding to the trial courts. Although the recently passed state budget did not provide the level of fiscal relief we had hoped, it will save some jobs and provide access to justice that would have otherwise been lost.
While we appreciate every penny, it should be clear that the $60 million partial funding restoration doesn’t begin to erase the damage done by $261 million in current cuts to the trial courts combined with the ongoing $214 million reductions from previous years. Sadly, the partial restoration is not enough to save all of our current Commissioners and employees. On July 15th our court again contracted. Three excellent Commissioners were released (and one vacant Commissioner position will be held open), leaving only three to do the job of seven. Operations at the San Mateo Courthouse were temporarily suspended and the South San Francisco clerk’s office and three judicial officers were relocated to Redwood City. In addition, seven valued court employees will be released in September. Unfortunately, such consolidation and further reductions are necessary to meet current budget constraints.
Over the past five years state cuts to the trial courts have necessitated the reduction of 34% of our workforce. The majority of our judiciary and operations are now consolidated in the Hall of Justice in Redwood City. This new fiscal year will again present significant challenges for our court. The loss of Commissioners will contribute to an already developing backlog. Nevertheless, our court has faced these challenges directly. We have reconciled with hard fiscal choices, taken prudent, appropriate actions, cut costs and utilized technology and business process reengineering to maximize access to justice, given our reduced resources.
We continue to be committed to providing the best trial court services possible, given our available resources.
We hope that California’s fiscal crisis is on the mend. As state tax revenues increase and California becomes more solvent, court funding should increase. I urge everyone to remain vigilant in reminding state lawmakers that a strong economy relies on a judicial system that works. Your continued support is essential as we strive to seek appropriate funding levels for the court. With your help, I am confident that we will restore essential justice to San Mateo County.
Robert D Foiles, Presiding Judge
😉
MaxRebo5
August 10, 2013
Thanks for the post Unionman. I used to work for San Mateo Superior Court as a jury office clerk. Many wonderful people there and it is sad to see this happen to them.
Ron George and Bill Vickey got their vision through the JC and through the legislature. They got lots of money for CCMS but botched the job and they got 5 billion for new courthouses. That vision left nothing to keep the doors open for trial courts around the state when the recession came. I lost my job to that very same budget axe last year which is still hitting San Mateo and many other courts around the state. Meanwhile there are billions for new courthouse but existing courthouses and good staff are being discarded. They have no honor implementing such a vision nor does Tani for her shameful reign as Chief and not making reforms. Oh and the PJ of San Mateo is a coward for not calling out the current Chief for her unwillingness to change course as is any other PJ in the state not speaking out at this point.
The AOC should be closed to fund trial court operations. It is as simple as that. The JC should be elected by trial court judges not appointed by the Chief alone. The money for new courthouses should be redirected to fund existing operations and facilities. As for Team George, they should be escorted by security as the crooks that they are never to return.
A walk down memory lane? Hell this disaster is still unfolding in the present day for CA Courts. The branch needs a revolution from within and drastically new leadership.
unionman575
August 11, 2013
I am sorry you lost your job Max.
unionman575
August 10, 2013
I now would like to dedicate this to all of you up there at the Palace HQ…
unionman575
August 11, 2013
http://sfappeal.com/2013/08/deep-cuts-to-court-funding-make-ca-chief-justice-afraid-to-see-the-future/
DEEP CUTS TO COURT FUNDING MAKE CA CHIEF JUSTICE “AFRAID TO SEE THE FUTURE”
FUNDING CUTS
TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
by Bay City News | August 9, 2013 5:12 am | in In Court | 2
The chief justices of California, Texas and New York and three federal judges deplored funding cuts and other roadblocks to public access to justice at an American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco Thursday.
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she had reluctantly supported some increases in court fees as “desperate measures” in the face of deep funding cuts that have resulted in the closure of 40 courthouses and 77 courtrooms statewide.
“When it comes to keeping courts open, if these aren’t desperate measures, I’m afraid to see the future,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye and the five other judges spoke at a session entitled “Are Courts Dying? The Decline of Open and Public Adjudication” on the first day of the ABA’s annual meeting at Moscone Center West.
About 8,000 lawyers and guests are attending the meeting, which continues through Tuesday.
The judges said public access to courts is impaired not only by funding cuts but also by the high cost of lawyers in civil cases and the so-called “outsourcing” of adjudication.
Examples of outsourcing, they said, are the use of private judges for those who can afford it and the use of mandatory, closed-door arbitration instead of open courts to resolve consumer disputes.
“There are reports that 75 percent of the people in our state can’t afford a lawyer” in civil cases, said Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson.
“There are people who have been denied their rights who will just give up,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro of Philadelphia and retired U.S. District Judge Royal Furgeson of Dallas said funding cuts are hurting federal as well as state courts.
They said the current U.S. budget sequestration is resulting in reductions in federal public defenders, limits on auxiliary services such as probation supervision and delays in needed technology upgrades.
“This is the 50th anniversary of Gideon,” said Shapiro, referring to the landmark 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide lawyers to criminal defendants who can’t afford one.
“If this continues, there won’t be anyone to hear Gideon’s trumpet,” she said.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, suggested the Gideon approach of publicly paid lawyers should be applied to some civil cases. He proposed that other changes, such as greater use of expert non-lawyers, should also be considered.
“Lots of people are unable to access the justice system,” Lippman said.
“We have a real problem in the courts in our cities, states and country. We’re going to have to figure it out,” he said.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News
😉
unionman575
August 11, 2013
See Tani quote at bottom…
http://www.law360.com/articles/463739/discovery-pricing-citizens-out-of-courts-aba-panel-says
Discovery Pricing Citizens Out Of Courts, ABA Panel Says
By Beth Winegarner
Law360, New York (August 08, 2013, 6:00 PM ET)
— Attorneys’ relentless pursuit of discovery, especially electronic discovery, is driving the cost of civil litigation so high that the average American can’t afford it, Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton said Thursday during an American Bar Association panel in San Francisco on threats facing the U.S. court system.
As the panel of state and federal judges addressed the consequences of budget cutbacks and other pressures on the judiciary, retired Texas federal judge W. Royal Furgeson Jr. noted that 75 to 85 percent of citizens can’t afford to pursue grievances in court. Although that’s partly because court funding shortfalls have restricted public access, civil discovery — particularly in large cases — has priced many potential litigants out of the market, Judge Sutton said.
“Cases take too long and they’re too expensive, and that has a lot to do with civil discovery,” Judge Sutton said, arguing that the discovery rules developed in 1934 should be re-examined. “The key change here is electronic discovery, which exponentially increases the number of relevant documents. The cost of discovery shouldn’t be so much that it’s a joke to think you could have a trial.”
Although exhaustive discovery isn’t more likely to win a case, Judge Sutton said he doesn’t blame lawyers, who want to do everything they can to represent their clients successfully.
U.S. District Judge Norma Shapiro of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed.
“Very little is learned by extensive discovery — you just have hundreds of associates reading meaningless documents,” she said. But changing the judicial rules could help shift the culture of exhaustive discovery, she added.
Another issue that drags out court cases is the Twombly and Iqbal standard, the result of a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision that changed the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Furgeson said.
“If you file a case in federal court, everyone files a motion to dismiss,” Judge Furgeson said. “Lawyers say it’s malpractice not to bring motions to dismiss.”
Although some judges on Thursday’s panel were happy to see forms of alternative resolution, including arbitration and settlement, being pursued, others were wary of the way major American corporations force customers to sign arbitration agreements.
“There are 55 million people who are AT&T customers, and they are frozen out of the courts because they don’t realize they signed an arbitration agreement,” Judge Furgeson said. Meanwhile, the public can’t see how those corporations are treating customers who raise disputes, because arbitration sessions aren’t public.
At the same time, arbitration can take just as long and cost just as much as litigation, Judge Shapiro said.
On top of these issues, shrinking revenues remain a top concern for the judges on Thursday’s panel.
Funding for the federal court system has been cut $1.1 billion, and courts are making do with 2,300 fewer staffers, Judge Furgeson said.
“The situation for us is very murky, and I’m very concerned about it,” Judge Furgeson said.
While more and more citizens are representing themselves in court, the government funding cutbacks have reduced the amount of assistance the courts can provide to pro se litigants, said California Supreme Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
“What you’re cutting off are civil rights,” Justice Cantil-Sakauye said, referring to the budget cuts to the judiciary. “You’re undermining the three branches of government when you eliminate and marginalize the third branch.”
–Editing by Kat Laskowski.
unionman575
August 11, 2013
An updated “Fact Sheet”…my, my, my…
Click to access oga-advocacy.pdf
Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) Advocacy Contacts
The mission of the Office of Governmental Affairs is to promote and maintain effective relations with the legislative and executive branches and to present the Judicial Council’s recommendations on legislative matters pursuant to constitutional mandate. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 6).
😉
unionman575
August 11, 2013
Click to access lr-JBCL-Semiannual-Contract-Report-08-01-2013.pdf
Semiannual Report on Contracts for the Judicial Branch for the Reporting Period January 1 through June 30, 2013 (August)
😉
MaxRebo5
August 12, 2013
“You’re undermining the three branches of government when you eliminate and marginalize the third branch.”
Nice quote from our Chief. Isn’t ironic that nationally she sees how it is not good for the courts to be marginalized but she does not see it as a problem that she has kept a system in place where critics within CA Courts are completely marginalized on the Judicial Council? Someone is all talk and is not walking the walk.
Hypocracy.
Delilah
August 12, 2013
The Judicial Branch has been marginalized by the “leaders” of the branch itself due to years of their misplaced priorities which resulted — on their watch — in devastating courthouse/courtroom closures, laying off of trial court employees, reduction in clerk’s office hours for services to the public, etc. The continued hubris of the JC and the unmitigated folly and gluttony of the AOC are what have made the third branch the shell of itself that it is today. And they’re not through yet!!! We all know this was not just about the budgetary cuts to the branch.
Access to Justice for the citizens of CA takes a backseat to their personal whims and self-congratulatory grandiosity in the form of land acquisition and obscenely overpriced Taj Mahal-building of money-losing and empty buildings, with no concern for the actual adjudication of civil/criminal/juvenile/probate etc. matters. As always, they have no further to look than in a mirror for the “elimination” and “marginalization” of the third branch. Despite their whining and protestations, they can fool no objective observer or, god forbid, any law enforcement agency or investigative entity willing to follow the trail and deliver the scoop.
The CJ is less than all talk. She is an empty robe that is completely out of her league when it comes to dealing with the entrenched AOC “leadership” and their own personal criminal country club stronghold. The AOCCCC.
Wendy Darling
August 12, 2013
They don’t call it Tani’s Follies in Sacramento without good reason, Delilah.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 13, 2013
http://recalltani.wordpress.com/
Recall Tani Organizing Committee (RTOC)
A Judicial Council Watcher public accountability project