“Soon, we will be spending more on court construction than we will be taking in”
I know I saw this statement recently in a news article and as I recall, it was made by the AOC’s newest finance wizard. I guess it took a few days to sink in and realize that when the judicial branch spends more than it takes in that the money has to come from somewhere as the AOC hasn’t yet fired up its copy center to start printing cash, though I surely wouldn’t put it past them.
No, this statement looks like the next big thing in judicial branch boondoggles because the branch should never even come close to spending more than they are taking in in for court construction. Initially, that overage will come out of maintenance and operations of the buildings resulting in accelerated decay of current assets. That probably represents the reason that the AOC has all of those maintenance people defining processes and tossing new gantt and flow charts every other day so that it at least appears that they’re earning their keep since routine maintenance continues to be neglected. And where do you think the money will come from after that?
Once the amount of maintenance monies are hijacked, rest assured that our fearless leaders at the AOC will go back to the legislature and suggest a doubling of the current court construction fees tacked on to every infraction as a way to fill the already significant two billion dollar maintenance gap and to replenish the AOC for their two billion dollar long beach boondoggle.
Actually, there is already an ill wind blowing about Sacramento over this very issue and AOC lobbying for more construction cash has already commenced under the auspices of (construction) budget restoration so that our citizens have access to justice.
This in the eyes of the Judicial Council and the AOC represents their contribution to access to justice – new courthouses that no one can afford to staff. New maintenance obligations for which there is no budget. New AOC employees to oversee neglect. Much like the department of health services does with their drug medi-cal program. Much like the state has done with Prop. 63 mental health funding. Much like the high speed rail initiative that promised we wouldn’t have a train to nowhere. Much like the Bay Bridge whose initial 1.3 billon estimated costs rose to 6.4 billion in actual costs.
Now Governor Moonbeam is looking to spend another 25 billion dollars diverting fresh water from north of Sacramento to the peripheral canal to the state water project. While it might seem great for those who live in the Cadillac Desert, lets face reality and point out that the project will cost twice to four times as much as projected because this is par for the course. It will also result in increased salinity of the delta and affect everyone in Northern California who sources their water from the delta. Hundreds of lawsuits have thus been filed.
All of these things have a few thing in common: A lack of effective state management. People pushing through pet projects without fully vetting them. A failure to identify the funding sources for continued construction, maintenance and operations of new state assets. A marked lack of independent oversight and accountability at any level. A marked lack of checks and balances.
It might not be readily apparent that all of this translates into unfunded liabilities to the state and its taxpayers and is added onto other unfunded liabilities, like your state pension. One only has to look at cities like Vallejo, San Bernardino, Stockton and Detroit to predict that end-game if you happen to be a state worker reliant upon a state pension currently or some day…
Managerial competence and overblown managerial salaries tends to be an issue often taken up by unions only in what we think of as labor\management skirmishes around contract negotiating time. It appears that what investigative media is left in California perpetually harps upon it. One has to wonder when the siren call blows like it has on the projects and in the cities identified above and in cities like Bell, California, with Calpers expected to soon pay out more than it takes in, why isn’t more being done to fight these boondoggles? Is there a case of willful blindness on behalf of all of those who rely upon an unfunded liability to keep them comfortable in retirement? Do they know that their pensions compete with all other unfunded liabilities? Have they seen what happens when a government entity goes insolvent?
Bankruptcy discards unfunded taxpayer liabilities. Personally, I would rather that be a 2.4 billion dollar courthouse or 2 billion dollars worth of CCMS vaporware that is discarded than my retirement nest egg.
So where do we go from here?
Related Articles:
Time to improve California’s spotty record of overseeing big projects (Dan Walters, SacBee)
Judicial Council Watcher 
Wendy Darling
August 19, 2013
Given past practice, if 455 Golden Gate Avenue can’t get the cash from the State Legislature, they’ll probably just find a way to embezzle it.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
August 19, 2013
Sad to say but more likely they will take it from the trial courts.
unionman575
August 19, 2013
http://www.desertdispatch.com/articles/san-14940-special-courts.html
Up to $93 million from special funds to support trial courts
Money will benefit self-help centers, other court expenses
August 19, 2013 9:16 AM
STAFF REPORTS
SAN FRANCISCO • The California Judicial Council will decide this week where to allocate up to $93 million of special funds to support trial courts.
The council will consider recent recommendations from a judiciary subcommittee during a two-day public meeting which starts Thursday in San Francisco, according to the state judiciary.
The Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee, of which San Bernardino County Court Presiding Judge Marsha G. Slough is a member, met last week to discuss how to distribute the money from the Trial Court Trust Fund and the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund.
The two special funds provide primary support to self-help centers, technology support and initiatives, the civil litigation program, education of judges and court staff and reimbursement for other court costs, according to the state judiciary.
Visit http://www.courts.ca.gov/23114.htm for more information.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 20, 2013
After posting this article it was pointed out to us in an article that we might be confusing cities with states, the latter of whom cannot declare bankruptcy. Calpers is consists of a large number of political subdivisions that fund it. Those funds and a rapidly dwindling workforce that is no longer paying into the system all compete against mismanagement for the same limited amount of tax dollars.
unionman575
August 20, 2013
I can see it coming now…
Click to access jc-20130823-itemI.pdf
Executive Summary
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) recommends that the Judicial Council adopt a new Court-Funded Facilities Request (CFR) Procedure enabling superior courts to contribute to certain future facilities costs via allocation reduction in specified circumstances, with previously approved court contributions continuing through the end of the approved project or current lease term. The AOC also recommends that the council make related delegations and require related reporting. Although legislation enacted in fiscal year 2012–2013 further reduced trial court funding and significantly restricted the courts’ ability to carry fund balances, the AOC recommends adoption of a new CFR Procedure to provide courts an additional method of meeting their facilities needs where contributions remain feasible.
unionman575
August 20, 2013
And it goes on …Long Beach on my mind (again)…Lease????…who said that???
The court contribution will be used exclusively to pay for the following urgent court facilities needs:
i. Lease-related costs (i.e., lease payments and operating costs, repairs, or modifications required by a lease);
unionman575
August 20, 2013
LASC get ready to hold your ankles…Lease??? Long Beach????
My, my, my…35 years of “good living” down by the waterfront…
Judicial Council Watcher
August 20, 2013
Thank you Unionman! As anyone can plainly read as stated no less than three times, all of the AOC’s money now and in the future is absolutely committed to their projects. You’re not going to be able to wrestle a dime from them for court operations.
Routine preventive maintenance of facilities has been roped into the lay off your staff, serve the public less and pay for it yourself plan.
Did the legislature authorize this or did the JC take it upon themselves to create a special reserve fund?
And you’re right Unionman. What portion of Long Beach will LASC be stuck paying for?
Wendy Darling
August 20, 2013
“What portion of Long Beach will LASC be stuck paying for?”
Answer: As plan A (i.e., get the Legislature to pay for Long Beach out of the General Fund) doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, then Plan B is to stick LASC with as much of the bill for Long Beach as possible.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 21, 2013
LASC will pay a huge hunk of Long Beach.
Good luck incoming LASC CEO and former Riverside CEO Sherri Carter..
unionman575
August 21, 2013
JCW – That is a 100% pure Death Star cluster fuck for all trial courts across CA.
NO doubt about it.
😉
unionman575
August 20, 2013
Contracts? Did I hear Contracts? Say, why don’t we talk about it..for 30 minutes???
Click to access jc-20130823-itemN.pdf
Item N 2:20-2:50 p.m.
Judicial Branch Administration: Council Oversight of AOC Contracts (Action Required)
unionman575
August 20, 2013
Ongoing Courthouse closures and ongoing service reductions:
Click to access jc-20130823-info2.pdf
unionman575
August 20, 2013
You gotta pay to play the AOC way…
Click to access jc-20130823-circulating-attach2a.pdf
Wendy Darling
August 20, 2013
Wow, Unionman, did you see all those entries for “Legal Services – Litigation”/Outside Counsel?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 21, 2013
Yes I did. I need another Vodka Tonic.
unionman575
August 21, 2013
Meanwhile the building boom continues…
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/courthouse-127126-didn-site.html
$65.8M courthouse breaks ground in Yuba City
August 20, 2013 11:29:00 PM
Griffin Rogers/grogers@appealdemocrat.com
113 years old, structure showing age :
Sutter County’s current courthouse was built in 1900, after the first two caught fire.
Built in 1958 for $8,000, the first courthouse was destroyed in 1871 from a fire in the clerk’s office, according to Sutter County Presiding Judge Susan Green. The second was destroyed in 1899 by a Cornish man awaiting commitment to an asylum in Stockton.
The third, and current, courthouse is a refined replica of the second, according to the California Supreme Court Historical Society.
But after more than a century, the facility has largely become insufficient.
“People in custody, we don’t have anywhere to put them,” Sutter County Assistant Presiding Judge Brian Aronson said. “Sometimes we have to house them in the bathroom.”
Once completed, Sutter County’s new courthouse will feature a fresh stylized look with three stories and multiple courtrooms. It will offer better parking, modern luxuries — such as air-conditioning that works — and more space.
Additionally, the courthouse will have a separate jury assembly room to “make the jury experience a little less painful,” Sutter County Court Executive Officer Mary Beth Todd said. Separate corridors will also be made for visitors, inmates and judges, limiting the amount of contact between the three groups.
As for the old courthouse, Sutter County Supervisor Jim Whiteaker said the buildings will be used to improve efficiency within the county.
“When the courts move into their brand new facility,” he said, “the (county) will retake possession of existing properties utilized by the courts and the board of supervisors will designate new uses for those buildings such in a manner that promotes efficient operation for county departments.”
Moreover, Yuba City Economic Development Manager Darin Gale said the city is looking into the possibility of converting some of the surrounding properties into businesses, such as restaurants or retail.
“We want to work with the county to ensure the re-use of that building,” he said of the courthouse.
— Griffin Rogers
The future site of a $65.8 million courthouse for Sutter County didn’t look like much at a groundbreaking Tuesday — it was only a field full of star thistle — but just envisioning the new facility was enough to build excitement.
“Like so many involved in the court system, I look forward to the day when the court is completed and open for business,” Sutter County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jim Whiteaker said at the ceremony. “People who work in the courts and in the public that utilize the court deserve a modern courthouse with less cramped quarters, and that’s what this court promises.”
The state-led project promises a 73,853-square-foot building equipped with seven courtrooms, although only six will be used to begin with.
Its purpose is to provide more efficient operations and better access to justice by replacing and consolidating two overcrowded facilities, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The courthouse will cost tens of millions of dollars and be funded by trial court user fees through Senate Bill 1407. Swinerton Builders will construct the new building.
About 200 people attended the groundbreaking. Speakers included Administrative Director of the Courts Steven Jahr, California State Sen. Jim Nielsen, Yuba City Mayor John Buckland, a representative for Assemblyman Dan Logue and several Sutter County judges.
Sutter County Judge Christopher Chandler said it has been hard for the community to get to a point where building a new courthouse is possible.
“We understand the issues that face the state,” he said at the ceremony. “I must confess to this crowd that one of the hardest decisions I’ve made that was a nonjudicial decision was agreeing to the cuts that were necessary within the last 12 months to make this project come together and stay on track.”
New courthouses are being built around the state. However, Jahr said the Sutter County courthouse was ranked as an immediate need by the Judicial Branch’s capital outlay plan.
“Given the ongoing fiscal challenges for the state and the judicial branch … we were fortunate to secure funding for this project at an earlier stage and despite challenges to now have reached this milestone in beginning construction,” he said.
CONTACT reporter Griffin Rogers at 749-4783.
R. Campomadera
August 21, 2013
In the federal system, all courthouse construction projects (for that matter, all public building projects handled by GSA, an executive branch agency) that exceed a certain amount (if memory serves, the threshold is $1.0 million) must be specifically approved, in advance, by Congress via a “Prospectus”.
A prospectus must document the need for the project, include design criteria, estimated site and building costs, and establish a budget within which the project, if approved, must be accomplished. Politics, of course, enter into the mix, but it is a methodical and structured process which is open to public scrutiny. Critically, it involves all three branches of the government, insuring proper checks and balances.
It is time to completely revamp the current state courthouse construction process to more closely resemble the federal process. The current process gives the judiciary too much control and lacks legislative and executive branch involvement and oversight.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 21, 2013
Construction, maintenance and real estate management is unquestionably an executive branch function and has no place at the Judicial Council or the AOC.
wearyant
August 21, 2013
Absolutely correct, JCW! Since the JC/AOC/CJ continue to not “get it,” the AOC must be defunded.
wearyant
August 21, 2013
CEO Mary Beth Todd, another JC/AOC cheerleader … another “nonjudicial decision” … “New courthouses are being built around the state. However, Jahr said the Sutter County courthouse was ranked as an immediate need by the Judicial Branch’s capital outlay plan.”
Yeah, right. I’m so tired and weary of the continuing bullshit emanating from the crystal palace.
Wendy Darling
August 21, 2013
Published late today, Wednesday, August 21, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Standoff Between Cal Judges and Local Sheriffs Over Court Security
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – California judges have met California sheriffs in a stand-off over court security, with a leading judge saying, “We’re being used in a political game.”
At the heart of the dispute is the question of who should ask the Legislature for the money to pay local sheriff departments for courthouse security. The issue brought heated comments during a meeting earlier this month where judges settled on proposed distributions within the trial court slice of the roughly $3.4 billion California court budget.
The trial courts are in agreement that funding for security should be on the list of priorities submitted to Gov. Jerry Brown’s finance department, said committee chair Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento. But there is a dispute over who should make the request.
“It seems the nature of the disagreement is who should submit the budget change proposal, the Judicial Branch or the Deputy Sheriffs Association,” Earl said.
There is the matter of responsiblity over how the money is spent, some judges argued. But there is a political calculus, as well.
Law enforcement requests for funds traditionally tend to receive a more favorable reception than those coming from the courts, noted other judges at the meeting.
In a statement read at the budget meeting, Sonoma County Superior Court head clerk José Octavio Guillén that summed up the sentiment among many courts that pressure for more money should come from the sheriffs, not the courts.
“The immediate and long-term solution should be via legislation,” Guillén said. “The trials courts are being held hostage by sheriffs and the Legislature.”
“The issue is who should properly ask for it considering the courts don’t have any control over how it’s spent,” said Sonoma Presiding Judge Rene Chouteau said in an interview. “Why would the courts be asking the Legislature for money for another political entity? That’s between the legislature and sheriffs. For us to go in and say the Sheriff needs more money, then why isn’t he asking for it?”
His views are widely reflected among California’s trial judges, based on a survey of budget priorities presented at the budget meeting.
The leading argument by the judges at the meeting was the courts’ inability to monitor how the money is spent, after funding for court security was shifted to the counties through the Criminal Justice Realignment Act.
“It appears to be the case that there has not been built into this realignment any kind of audit procedures,” Earl cautioned the budget committee. “Sheriffs are required to spend the money only on court security. The problem is there’s no audit that goes with that. If the sheriffs tell you we spent it all, then they spent it all.”
From Contra Costa, Presiding Judge Barry Goode added “The sheriff’s department is unaudited, spending our money. It will only embarrass us if they’re not spending the money the way they’re supposed to,”
From San Bernardino, Presiding Judge Marsha Slough warned that failing to ask for adequate funding could backfire on the courts. “We’re the ones being impacted by the issue, not them. It is our issue, and it will only compound year after year as costs go up,” she said.
But Earl said the courts should avoid becoming entangled in budget proposal commitments that could last years.
“We’re being used in a political game,” said Earl. “The Sheriff is using us to try to get additional funding. They don’t want to go get it themselves, because first of all I don’t think they can justify their need or how they spent the money in the past, and so they’re much happier pushing us to go do it for them.”
“But they won’t just expect us to do it this year,” Earl added. “Because these costs are related to increased costs for health and retirement benefits, which will go up every year. So my concern is that perhaps we find ourselves facing this discussion again this year.”
The committee decided to exclude trial court security from the list of budget priorities it is set to present to the full Judicial Council on Friday.
“If they need money, they’ll make the request. These guys know how to get the money,” Alameda Presiding Judge Dohttp://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60492.htmn Clay said. “They’re way more powerful than the courts are.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60492.htm
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
August 21, 2013
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/08/20/placer-county-court-budget-deficit-input.html
Aug 20, 2013, 6:03am PDT
Placer County court faces budget deficit, seeks input
Placer County Superior Court is looking at a $1.08 million deficit in its proposed 2013-14 budget and wants the public to weigh in about what to do next.
Kathy Robertson
Senior Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal
Placer County Superior Court is looking at a $1.08 million deficit in its proposed 2013-14 budget and wants the public to weigh in about what to do next.
Projected revenue of almost $16 million includes the court’s share of statewide funding cuts as well as $60 million in restored funding. While the restored money is helpful, it does not erase the financial challenges facing the court; the net effect of more state cuts and a payback is a $1.25 million cut in the court’s base funding, according to court officials.
The proposed baseline budget includes expenses of more than $17 million, almost $13 million in salaries, wages and benefits. This reflects a more than 40 percent reduction in filled positions since 2009, changes in employee compensation and discontinuation of some programs.
The court expects further cuts next year to reduce the deficit.
Written comments about the proposed budget will be accepted until the close of business Friday. All comments will be reviewed and considered, but contributors will not get a formal response.
Comments can be submitted electronically to courtadmin@placer.courts.ca.gov or mailed to Placer County Superior Court, Attn.:.Court Administration, P.O. Box 619072, Roseville CA 95661.
Kathy Robertson covers health care, law and lobbying, labor, workplace issues and immigration for the Sacramento Business Journal.
😉
unionman575
August 21, 2013
http://www.mydesert.com/viewart/20130820/NEWS01/308200042/Blythe-courthouse-begins-reduced-operating-hours
Blythe courthouse begins reduced operating hours
Aug. 21, 2013 |
BLYTHE — Shortened operating hours at the Blythe courthouse are now in effect.
Under the new schedule, which began Tuesday, the court at 265 N. Broadway will be open to the public only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Previously, the court had been open Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The reduced hours are due to state budget constraints.
In May, Riverside County Superior Court announced it was considering closing or reducing hours at the Blythe and Temecula courthouses “because the significant continuing reductions in state funding for superior courts and resulting cuts in the Riverside court’s budget require this action.”
The state budget signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on June 27 returned $60 million of the roughly $500-plus million gouged out of state court operations since 2008 as California wrestled with billions in red ink.
Riverside County Presiding Judge Mark Cope said the infusion translates to roughly $5.3 million more in the local court budget for fiscal 2013-14. However, aggregate budget cuts over the last five years total $20 million.
Instead of closing the Blythe and Temecula courts, superior court officials implemented an alternative plan that slashed hours of operation.
On Tuesdays, the Blythe court will hear traffic, misdemeanor and felony criminal matters; felony criminal matters on Thursdays; and on Fridays, family law matters, civil, small claims and unlawful detainer matters and conduct traffic court trials.
People contesting traffic citations and attempting to get answers to questions about how to proceed will have to make an appointment